Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/15/2013 PACKET
(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting –Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) January 15, 2013 5:30 P.M. th 345–6Street Meeting Chamber –First Floor I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL (quorum present) III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV.APPROVAL OFTHE AGENDA V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 13, 2012Specialmeeting. o VI.PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B.Workshop 1. Workshop on potential Zoning Code amendments VII.BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VIII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is February 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to January 15, 2013Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIALMEETING November 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Josecalled thespecialmeeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair JoseAndrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Commissioner AlbrightHeather Kauer, Assistant Director, Department of Community Development Commissioner DinkuhnAllison Daniels, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner HoellRoger Lubovich, City Attorney Commissioner LambertMark Koontz, Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Tift Commissioners Absent Vice Chair Cockburn(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER LAMBERTMOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER TIFTSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2012 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER HOELLSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER DINKUHN ABSTAINING. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the publicportion of the meeting. Public Workshop and Hearing: Ordinance for the Language Regarding Medical Marijuana Collective Gardens Mr. Koontz announced that Initiative 502 was approved on November 6, 2012 legalizing the possession of oneounce of marijuana for recreational use. He reviewed the basic elements of the initiative as follows: The new law will become effective December 6,2012 and creates a regulatory scheme through the Liquor Control Board that would license producers, processors, and retailers for marijuana. The initiative requires the Liquor Control Board to establish rules by December 1, 2013. The only way a personmay obtain marijuana under the initiative would be to purchase it from a licensed retailer. On th , it will be legal for a person to possess an ounce of marijuana under state law, but there is not a scheme set December 6 up yet where you can legally obtainit. The initiative would allow a person to bea licensed producer, a licensed processor, or a licensed retailer; but it would not allow you to be two of those three. The product will be taxed 25% when it goes from the producer to the processor and again when it goes from the processor to the retailer. Another 25% tax would be assessed on the product when it is sold by retailers to consumers. These taxes are in addition to the state and local retail sales taxes. The initiative requires the Liquor Control Board to notify a city when a person in that city has applied for a license to become a producer, processor or retailer. This gives the cities and counties an opportunity to object to either the applicant or the proposed location where the marijuanawould be produced or sold. The law does not affect medical marijuana or collective gardens. Initiative 502 pertains to recreational marijuana use. Mr. Koontz recalled thatInitiative 692 was passed in 1998andcreated an affirmative defense to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. However, itdid not legalize the possession of medical marijuana in the State of Washington. A 2010 Washington State Supreme Court Case (State vs. Fry) held very clearly that possession of medical marijuana in the state is still illegal. However, the law makes the possession of marijuana for medical purposes an affirmative defense, which is a legal doctrine whereby the defendant who is charged with the crime admits to committing the acts that would constitute the crime, but there is a legal excuse for committing those acts. Heexplained that thereare significant differences between affirmative defense and legal use of marijuana, particularly when a city is trying to determine how to regulate the two uses. If the use of marijuana is legal, then cities can regulate it as such. If it is illegal, but there is an affirmative defense, it is more difficult for cities to authorize and regulate the use. Mr. Koontz said a significant change occurred in 2011 when the Legislature passed a bill that established a two-tier system for using medical marijuana. One tier was the old system that created the affirmative defense. The other way that you could possess and use marijuana was through a state registry system.The law made medical dispensaries of marijuana legaland required people to register as patients and retailers. Registered retailers are allowed to sell marijuana to qualified patients. However, Governor Gregoire expressed concern that the legislation would require her staff to promulgate rules, regulate, and essentially authorize the use and sale of marijuana. She wrote a letter to the Department of Justice, asking if that would run a fowl with federal law. The Department of Justice responded that state employees could be held liable under federal criminal law if they authorize the sale and use of marijuana because the possession, use and sale of marijuana, in any form and for any reason, is illegal under federal law. Mr. Koontz advised that Governor Gregoire ultimately vetoed some portions of the 2011 legislation, but retained the portion that allows collective gardens for medical marijuana. Collective gardens allow people to work together to grow marijuana in one garden. The law allows up to ten qualified patients to participate in acollective garden. It also allows 15 plants per member, but no more than 45 plants in one gardenand72 ounces of useable marijuana.One concern is that the legislation would allow clusters of collective gardens to locate next to each other in one greenhouse on a single lot. He suggested there would not be as much concern with the federal government regulating and enforcing marijuana laws with respect to one, small collective garden with four or five qualified patients who followthe rules of the state law. However, if numerous collective gardens were to locate on a large property in the City of Bremerton, he is almost certain that the federal government would take action. Mr. Koontz reviewed the differences between state and federal laws. He said marijuana, whether for medical or recreational use, is illegal under federal law. The Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution states that laws passed by Congress are superior to any state law. If Congress shows an interest in an areathat it regulates, the State cannot pass a law that is in DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 26 November 13, 2012 ~ Page of conflict. “Conflict”means that if it is impossible to comply with both the federal and state law. The Department of Justice has issued two letters, one to the governorand another to the Clark County Commissioners, who requested an opinion based on what they were proposing to do with collective gardens. The letter stated that Clark County could be criminally liable under federal law, and it went so far as to imply thateven the commissioners would be held liable if they pass an ordinance that authorizes collective gardens. Chair Jose Mr. Koontz asked if any state or local officials have ever been prosecuted under the federal law. said he does not know of any, and it would be very unlikely to occur. However, it is still a possibility the City must consider. While Governor Gregoire has been working to resolve the issue with the Department of Justice and they are heading in the right direction, there is still a lot of uncertainty.He suggested that if a case were to come before the United States Supreme Court at this time to determine if the Washington State law is in conflict with and preempted by federal law, the possible, if not likely,outcome would be that the Supreme Court would strike down the state law saying it was unconstitutional. Commissioner Hoell observed that the rules and regulations related to Initiative 502 will not be in place until December 2013. She asked if the Supreme Court would make a decision just on what the law says before the rules and regulations are Mr. Koontz in place. answered that, typically, a court will not entertain a case unless there iscontroversy, meaning someone has been charged with a crime under federal law for a use that is legal under state law. The Attorney General of the United States could also initiate an action, and Governor Gregoire has asked the Attorney General to intercede and seek an injunction before Initiative 502 becomes state law. Her goal is to determine the federal government’s reaction before the State spends significant time and resources creating the specific rules and regulations related to Initiative 502. Mr. Koontz explained that the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development are concerned about the City having a zoning code that allows collective gardens that are illegal under federal law. This couldmakeCity staff and officials liable under federal criminal law as it relatesto possession and use of marijuana. This concern issimilar to the concernexpressed by Governor Gregoire when she vetoed a portion of the 2011 initiative. She essentially took out all state responsibility and passed it on to cities and counties. The City must now make a decision that is based on state and federal law and also won’t allow staff to potentially be liable under federal criminal law. Commissioner Tift asked if Mr. Koontz is aware of any municipality in the state that has passed an ordinance to permit Ms. Daniels medical marijuana collective gardens. said the cities of Issaquah, Seattle, Mukilteo, Shoreline and Everett have regulated collective gardens with restrictive buffers from sensitive areas, other collective gardens, etc. Most of them have restrictions related to signage, as well. Commissioner Tift observed that while the United States Attorney General has looked the other way on the State’s 2011 legislation on medical marijuana; they may shut down everything (medical and recreational) if marijuana possession were to Mr. Koontz become legal ascalled for in Initiate 502. agreed this could be a possibility, and Initiative502 has certainly raised the level of discussion. One goal that Initiative 502 supporters sought to achieve was that the legislation would elevate the issue to a discussion with the states and the federal government. Mr. Koontz saidtheDepartment of Community Development and the Legal Department recommends that the Bremerton no use that is Municipal Code (BMC) be amended (See Attachment I) by addinglanguage to BMC 20.40.160(a)to state that“ illegal under local, state or federal law shall be allowed in any zone within the City.” They also recommend that language “A collective garden, as defined in BMC 20.42.040(a), is prohibited in all zoning be added to BMC 20.40.160(c) to read, districts .Staff has also proposed that BMC 20.42.020 be amended to add a definition for “collective garden,” that is Ms. Spencer consistent with how the term is defined in state law. pointed out that the proposed ordinance was modeled after an ordinance adopted by the City of Kent, which prohibits medical marijuana collective gardens. Since the packet was sent out, a recent court case determined that it iswithina city’s authority to ensure that the zoning regulations are consistent with Mr. Koontz federal law. explained that some citizens filedan action to overturn the City of Kent’s ordinance, and the King County Superior Court upheld the ordinance. He said he feels confident that if the proposed ordinance were challenged, it would be upheld, as well. Mr. Koontz said another approach would be for the Commission to recommend denial of the text amendments to BMC 20.40.160 and BMC 20.40 and leave the code language as it currently exists. He noted that BMC 20.40.160(b) currently “Any use not listed as permitted, conditional or accessory use by the zone, or any use not determined to be a similar reads, DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 36 November 13, 2012 ~ Page of use pursuant to BMC 20.40.150, or any use not found to be an allowable accessory use to the principle use shall be prohibited within that zone unless allowed otherwise by law.” Staff believes that if this language remains in the zoning code, collective gardens would be prohibited, however it may be ambiguous. This approach would leavethe issue unclear and could be seen as avoiding the issue. Staff is not recommending this approach. Chair Jose Ms. Daniels asked when the City’s current moratorium on medical marijuana collective gardens would expire. Chair Jose answered that the moratorium expiresFebruary 28, 2013. asked how the Department of Community Development would handle future applications for collective gardens in the event they do nothing and the moratorium Ms. Spencer expires. answered that applicationswould be deniedbased on the current prohibition language.Applicants Chair Jose would then have to appeal to the hearing examiner and/or the Superior Court. asked what the basis for staff’s Ms. Spencer denial would be. said applicationswould be denied on the basis that collective gardens are not listed as permitted uses. Mr. Koontz said the Commission could also recommend to the City Council that the moratorium be extended another six monthswaiting formore clarity on the law that would allow the City to better address the issue. The down side is thatthe moratorium has already been extended twice. He remindedthe Commission that the ordinance could be revised again if the law changes at some point in the future. Chair Jose Mr. Koontz asked if six monthsisthe maximum time the moratorium can be extended.answered that state law allows the City Council to pass moratoriums for a six month period of time, with the ability to extend for an additional six months if there are reasonable grounds to do so. He expressed his belief that the new law and the fact that Governor Gregoire is currently communicating with the Department of Justice would provide ample justification for extending the moratorium. Commissioner Tift said he does not like the idea of postponing action and extending the moratorium for another six months. He said he would like the Commission to address the issue now. If the law changes at some point in the future, the ordinance could be further revised. Commissioner Lambert Ms. asked if anyone has approached the City with an interest in establishing a collective garden. Daniels said the City received a business license applicationbefore the moratorium was in place. This application was denied because they were illegal based on federal law. The moratorium, which was put in place in July of 2011, does not allow the City to accept applications. However, she has had conversations every few weeks with people who are interested in either a dispensary or collective garden. Chair Jose opened the public hearing. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate, and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Albright Mr. Koontz asked why the proposed ordinance does not address dispensaries. explained that Governor Gregoirevetoed the portion of the initiative that allowed dispensaries. It is the legal department’s opinion thatany sale of marijuana, unless it is part of a collective garden scheme, would be illegal under both state and federal law. Commissioner Dinkuhn saidthe fact that the federal government has not made a decisive statement since Initiative 502 was passed says something about their level of interest in getting involved. She asked if there is an overall interest in promoting collective gardens as a business possibility for Bremerton if the federal government determines they will not pursue and the rules and regulations are better defined. She asked if the proposed language could be modified to make it more business Chair Jose friendly rather than so prohibitive. suggested that, at this stage,it would beappropriate to focus on this one issue of collective gardens. As issues are resolved at the state and federal level, the Commission can consider additional changes. COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCILADOPT PROHIBITION ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE GARDENS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT I BASEDON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN ATTACHMENT II. COMMISSIONER HOELL SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Jose said he believes the motion on the floor is the appropriate measure to take. He recognized that Commissioners have their own opinions on the issue of recreationaland medical marijuana. However, when they focus on the single issue of medical marijuana collective gardens and the Commission’s responsibility, their priority should be to prevent exposing DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 46 November 13, 2012 ~ Page of Commissioners and City staff to liability. They need to let the issue get resolved at the state and federal levelsbefore pursuing development code amendments that allowmarijuana dispensaries, collective gardens, etc. Commissioner Dinkuhn disagreed with Chair Jose. She said the language in the letters wasnot worded in an absolute way regarding the potential for prosecution and liability. Having seen very little of that take place, she does not have a lot of concern that it might happen. She expressed her belief that allowing patients to get medicine (including marijuana) is Chair Jose something that should not be denied to the citizens. said he generally agrees, but the Commission must keep in mind that the issue is unresolved at the state and federal levels. Once these issues are resolved, he would like to repeal the City’s ordinance. But they must make a decision based on the information available now. Noneof the Commissioners appear to be in support of extending the moratorium another six months. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH CHAIR JOSE AND COMMISSIONERS ALBRIGHT, HOELL, LAMBERT AND TIFT VOTING IN FAVOR AND COMMISSIONER DINKUHN VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Ms. Spencer explained that when Commission recommendations are forwarded to the City Council, they usually represent both the majority and the minority report so that both voices are heard. The City Council will receive the minutes from the meeting, as well as a staff report explaining the reasons for the opposing vote. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose welcomed Commissioner Dinkuhn to the Commission. He also reminded the Commissioners that as the December meeting will likely be cancelled, Commissioners should come prepared to elect new officers at the January meeting. Director Report Ms. Spencer also welcomed Commissioner Dinkuhn to the Commission. In addition, sheadvised that the terms for Commissioners Hoell and Cockburn end in December, and they are choosing not to be reappointed. She expressed her gratitude to them for their service on the Commission. The City will seek applicants to fill the two vacant positions. Ms. Spencer said she is looking for a Planning Commission delegate to the Gorst Subarea Planning Process. The Commission agreed that Chair Jose would serve as the delegate. Ms. Spencer said it is difficult to fill the Design Review Board positions with experts whounderstand the City codesand the legislative intent to carry them forward. She said she is considering amending the code to give a delegate spot on the Design Review Board to a member of the Planning Commission. She asked the Commissioners to consider this option in preparation for further discussion at their January meeting. th Ms. Spencer proposed that the December 18regular meeting be cancelled. Instead, the Commissioners could meet at Toro for a short holiday celebration. They agreed that would be appropriate. They also agreed to invite the Design Review Board to attend. Ms. Spencer announced that the Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2013. The first item of business would be election of officers. She noted that officers can serve for two years, and Chair Jose has served for just one year. th . She said staff would also provide a briefing on the Gorst Subarea Plan on January 15 Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 56 November 13, 2012 ~ Page of New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:17p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L SpencerGreg Jose AICP, Executive SecretaryChair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 66 November 13, 2012 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: January 15, 2013 Agenda Item: VI.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Educational Workshop to discuss potential Zoning Code Amendments DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd, Planner II SUMMARY The purpose of this workshop is the discussion of potential amendments to the City’s zoning code. Staff maintains a list of issues with the code and on an annual basis presents the most pressing issues to the Planning Commission for discussion and potential modification. Staff has selected four topics for Planning Commission discussion: 1. Home Occupations (Attachment I) 2. Mobile Vendors (Attachment II) 3. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules (Attachment III) 4. Forest Practice Permits (Attachment IV) The desired outcomes of this workshop are: 1) Education of the Commission of some of the issues that DCD faces while working with our customers as they seek permit approvals and 2) Get early feedback from the Commission prior to commencing research and developing options for code revisions. Staff looks forward to the discussion of these code provisions with the public and the Commission. If you have questions and would like to discuss issues in advance please call me at 360.473.5279 Attachment I HOME OCCUPATIONS SUMMARY: All residential zones allow for a Home Occupation business. Such uses are encouraged within the Comprehensive Plan, which establishes the overarching goals of the City. Specific criteria of approval for home occupations are located within the zoning code. The criterion intends to ensure the business will not negatively impact the immediate neighborhood. Often these businesses are small home offices within the residence and are perfectly suited within the residential zoning districts. Over the last several years there has been a diversification of business types that apply to be home occupations. Staff is concerned that there are several business types that the code does not adequately address such as; taxi cabs and tow-truck operations. Additionally, in-home hair dressers and in-home engine repair businesses are grouped together in terms of neighborhood impacts and both require extensive permit review of which is not required for other uses. Staff recommends reviewing the following Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code language to assess if this code section should be modified. RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS: These goals are the foundation in which the regulations within the zoning code are based. EC4I: Support home occupation EC6 Provide greater economic businesses.opportunity for residents. EC4L: Encourage a more diversified CS2B: Promote neighborhood economic base to increase elasticity in accessibility to community services. the local economy. H7: Promote safe, attractive, livable EC6E: Attract new employment neighborhoods that will attract opportunities throughout the Cityhomeowners. ZONING CODE REGULATIONS: The following text is from BMC 20.46.030and is the criterion in which all home occupations are reviewed by: Home occupations are permitted in a residential dwelling unit subject to the following limitations: (a)The business shall clearly be subordinate to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes. (b)The business shall be wholly situated indoors. (c)No person shall be employed in the home occupation unless a resident of the dwelling unit. (d)There shall be no exterior display, storage or other exterior indication of the existence of the home occupation, except as allowed by the underlying zone. 1 Attachment I (e)One (1) additional off-street parking space shall be provided in addition to the number of off-street parkingspaces already required for the dwelling. The Director may waive this requirement if the home occupation involves Internet services that do not require customers or deliveries at the residence. (f)Any sales of product shall be limited to those produced on the premises, except products produced elsewhere may be allowed, provided the business is primarily involved in the product’s distribution and does not attract buyers to the property for retail or wholesale sales. (g)Sales and services to patrons shall be arranged through appointment so that only one (1) patron vehicle is on the premises at any given time. (h)Not more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling may be devoted to the home occupation use. (i)The garage shall not be used in the business unless the required off-street and customer parking can be adequately accommodated elsewhere on the site. (j)Home occupations involving nonautomotive engine and equipment maintenance or servicing, beauty or barbershops, or the selling of products that are not produced on the premises shall require approval of a Type II conditional use permit pursuant to BMC 20.58.020. (k)Automotive painting, body, and engine repair, small engine repair services and any activity likely to produce excessive noise are prohibited as home occupations. (l)Persons engaged in legal home occupations on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be considered legal, provided the operation is consistent with all of the above-listed performance standards. Any home occupation which was legally established but does not currently conform to all those standards may not expand or enlarge and shall terminate that use upon: (1)Change of use or ownership of the property; or (2)Written complaint of adjacent or nearby property owners after due notice and hearing is provided and if the Director determines that the home occupation is interfering with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring premises and is not compatible with the residential environment in which it is located. 2 Attachment II MOBILE VENDORS SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code are virtually silent regarding mobile vendors. Unlike traditional businesses found throughout the City the mobile vendor is exempt from code requirements because of its temporary nature. Theonly code requirement for mobile vendors within the City is to obtain a business license. No code section sets parameters for the businesses size, location, design, or parking requirements. While mobile vending can be seen as an incubator for starting-up businesses, there have also been complaints regarding their associated impacts to existing businesses, parking, and urban character. RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS: The Comprehensive Plan does not have any goals that specifically address mobile vendors;however the following appear to be somewhat relevant to the topic: EC4: Support the expansion of EC5: Establish Bremerton as a City that commerce.welcomes the opportunity to serve business, residents, and visitors. EC4J: Encourage supportive environments for the growth of small EC6E: Attract new employment businesses, such as opportunities for opportunities throughout the City. shared overhead and administrative H8B: Advance the concept of the “third costs. place” within neighborhoods, providing EC4L: Encourage a more diversified for gathering places and convenient economic base to increase elasticity in services where neighbors can interact. the local economy. ZONING CODE REGULATIONS: While there is no specific text directly addressing mobile vendors, the following sections havebeen used to regulate their locations: 20.40.160 Prohibited Uses Any use not listed as a permitted, conditional or accessory use by the zone; or any use not determined to be a similar use pursuant to BMC 20.40.150; or any use not found to be an allowable accessory use to the principle use shall be prohibited within that zone unless allowed otherwise by law. (Mobile vendor is not listed as an allowed use in any zone, therefore it is prohibited unless associated and accessory to an established use within the zone. This prohibits mobile vendors from being the only use on a lot.) 20.48.080 Nonresidential Parking Development Standards The following provisions apply to off-street parking spaces for all nonresidential developments and parking lots: (a)Surface. Driveways and areas used for loading, parking and maneuvering motorized vehicles shall have a paved surface. (This provision has been used to limit mobile vendors to existing paved parking areas rather than on unpaved, undeveloped lots.) Attachment III STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SUMMARY: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was created in the late 1970’s as a way to allow local governments to evaluate and regulate foreseeable impacts of a projectthat are outside the local jurisdictions code requirements. In a time when environmental protection was just beginning, SEPA was a very useful and powerful tool. Over the years local regulations have become substantially more comprehensive, and the value added by SEPA has diminished.Criticism has been mounting statewideby developers and property owners because aSEPAapplicationcostsupwards of$320 and adds three to four months of processing time for each project. In response to growing criticism of SEPA the State Legislature recently increased the Exemption levels Statewide–making more projects eligible to be exempt from the process.For the past year, while the rule making was in process urban jurisdictions such as Bremerton have been allowed to use the previously approved highest exemptions automatically. In order to continue to use themor to utilize the newest (higher) exemptions, the City will need to adopt an ordinance prior to the end of 2013. RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS: SEPA is a State requirement, but the permit is processed locally. The following Comprehensive Plan Goals relate to permit processing: EC5A: Expedite permit and CS9: Achieve a timely permit process. development process. E10: Encourage environmentally H9C: Provide an expedited permit responsible development. process. STATECODE REGULATIONS: The following text is the applicable portion of the recent revisions by the Washington State Legislaturefound in SB 6064. WAC 197-11-800 (c) Cities, towns or counties may raise the exempt levels to the maximum specified below by implementing ordinance or resolution…The maximum exempt level for the exemptions in (1)(b) of this section shall be, respectively: (i) 2030 single familydwelling units; (ii) 60 multi-family dwelling units (iii) 30,000 square feet; (iv) 4090automobiles; (v) 5001,000cubic yards. Attachment IV FOREST PRACTICE PERMITS SUMMARY: Bremerton is somewhat unique in that it holds a large amount of privately owned forested land within its boundaries. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the primary permit administrator for forestry permits both inside and outside the City, however once the property owner decides to convert the land to another use,theCity becomes responsible for processing of the new land use. There is a regulatory gap, however when a property owner decides to convert their land from forestry to a future undetermined use. As this is a conversion, DNR no longer has regulatory responsibility, but without a new land use, the City does not have a permit process in place for the project. Every year the City receives a handful ofthese requests. Often these are small sites, but in the worst case scenario these have been proposals to clear cut 50 to 100 acres, leaving behind potential issues relating to stormwater, erosion, and environmental degradation. As a temporary measurePlanning Staff,the Forestry Department, and DNRhave partnered together and review these projects on a case by case basis. While this has been working, there is substantial room for improvement. Most Counties and many Cities in Washington have permit systems established for these forestry projects which could be easily modified to fit Bremerton. RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS: The following Comprehensive Plan Goals relate to the value of permitting for forestry projects: E1F: Consider the adoption of a local E4C: Protect, revitalize and expand tree ordinance that promotes retention Bremerton’s tree supply through public of trees and forested areas as growth education, sensitive regulation, and occurs.widespread incorporation of trees in streetscapes. E3:Reduce and prevent environmental pollution of air, water, light, noise, and E6:Protect, preserve, and restore the soil.habitats that support Bremerton’s diverse ecosystem. E3F: Assist businesses with pollution prevention activities. Adopt incentive E10: Encourage environmentally based development standards with responsible development. reward environmentally sensitive development practices and projects, and which lead to the preservation of urban forests. STATECODE REGULATIONS: The following RCW indicates that the City is required by State Law to adopt an ordinance that regulatesforestry permits within the City limits. RCW 76.09.240 Forest practices--County, city, or town to regulate--When--Adoption of development regulations--Enforcement--Technical assistance--Exceptions and limitations-- 1 Attachment IV Verification that land not subject to a notice of conversion to non-forestry uses--Reporting of information to the department of revenue. (1)(a) Counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040 with a population greater than one hundred thousand, and the cities and towns within those counties, where more than a total of twenty-five Class IV forest practices applications, as defined in RCW 76.09.050(1) Class IV (a) through (d), have been filed with the department between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2005, shall adopt and enforce ordinances or regulations as provided in subsection (2) of this section for the following: (i) Forest practices classified as Class I, II, III, and IV that are within urban growth areas designated under RCW 36.70A.110, except for forest practices on ownerships of contiguousforest land equal to or greater than twenty acres where the forest landowner provides, to the department and the county, city, or town, a written statement of intent, signed by the forest landowner, not to convert to a use other than growing commercial timber for ten years. This statement must be accompanied by either: (A) A written forest management plan acceptable to the department; or (B) Documentation that the land is enrolled as forest land of long-term commercial significance under the provisions ofchapter 84.33RCW; and (ii) Forest practices classified as Class IV, outside urban growth areas designated under RCW 36.70A.110, involving either timber harvest or road construction, or both on: (A) Forest lands that are being converted to another use;or (B) Lands which, under RCW 76.09.070, are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development; (b) Counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040, and the cities and towns within those counties, not included in (a) of this subsection, may adopt and enforce ordinances or regulations as provided in (a) of this subsection; and (c) Counties not planning under RCW 36.70A.040, and the cities and towns within those counties, may adopt and enforce ordinances or regulations as provided in subsection (2) of this section for forest practices classified as Class IV involving either timber harvest or road construction, or both on: (i) Forest lands that are being converted to another use; or (ii) Lands which, under RCW 76.09.070, are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development. (2) Before a county, city, or town may regulate forest practices under subsection (1) of this section, it shall ensure that its critical areas and development regulations are in compliance with RCW 36.70A.130 and, if applicable, RCW 36.70A.215. The county, city, or town shall notify the department and the department of ecology in writing sixtydays prior to adoption of the development regulations required in this section. The transfer of jurisdiction shall not occur until the county, city, or town has notified the department, the department of revenue, and the department of ecology in writing of the effective date of the regulations. Ordinances and regulations adopted under subsection (1) of this section and this subsection must be consistent with or supplement development regulations that protect critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, and shall at a minimum include: (a) Provisions that require appropriate approvals for all phases of the conversion of forest lands, including land clearing and grading; and (b) Procedures for the collection and administration of permit and recording fees. 2 Attachment IV (3) Activities regulated by counties, cities, or towns as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be administered and enforced by those counties, cities, or towns. The department shall not regulate these activities under this chapter. (4)The board shall continue to adopt rules and the department shall continue to administer and enforce those rules in each county, city, or town for all forest practices as provided in this chapter until such a time as the county, city, or town has updated its development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.130 and, if applicable, RCW 36.70A.215, and has adopted ordinances or regulations under subsections (1) and (2) of this section. However, counties, cities, and towns that have adopted ordinances or regulations regarding forest practices prior to July 22, 2011, are not required to readopt their ordinances or regulations in order to satisfy the requirements of this section except as necessary to ensure consistency with Class IV forest practices as defined inRCW 76.09.050. (5) Upon request, the department shall provide technical assistance to all counties, cities, and towns while they are in the process of adopting the regulations required by this section, and after the regulations become effective. (6) Forthose forest practices over which the board and the department maintain regulatory authority no county, city, municipality, or other local or regional governmental entity shall adopt or enforce any law, ordinance, or regulation pertaining to forest practices, except that to the extent otherwise permitted by law, such entities may exercise any: (a) Land use planning or zoning authority: PROVIDED, That exercise of such authority may regulate forest practices only where the application submitted under RCW 76.09.060as now or hereafter amended indicates that the lands are being converted to a use other than commercial forest product production: PROVIDED, That no permit system solely for forest practices shall be allowed; that any additional or more stringent regulations shall not be inconsistent with the forest practices regulations enacted under this chapter; and such local regulations shall not unreasonably prevent timber harvesting; (b) Taxing powers; (c) Regulatory authority with respect to public health;and (d) Authority granted by chapter 90.58RCW, the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971." (7) All counties and cities adopting or enforcing regulations or ordinances under this section shall include in the regulation or ordinance a requirement that a verification accompany every permit issued for forest land by that county or city associated with the conversion to a use other than commercial timber operation, as that term is defined in RCW 76.09.020, that verifies that the land in question is not or has not been subject to a notice of conversion to non-forestry uses under RCW 76.09.060during the six-year period prior to the submission of a permit application. (8) To improve the administration of the forest excise tax created in chapter 84.33 RCW, a county, city, or town that regulates forest practices under this section shall report permit information to the department of revenue for all approved forest practices permits. The permit information shall be reported to the department of revenue no later than sixty days after the date the permit was approved and shall be in a form and manner agreed to by the county, city, or town and the department of revenue. Permit information includes the landowner's legal name, address, telephone number, and parcel number. 3 ÓÛÓÑÎßÒÜËÓ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÞÎÛÓÛÎÌÑÒô ÜÛÐßÎÌÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ANDREA L. SPENCER, AICP SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL HANDOUT – VOTING TO APPROVE MINUTES DATE: JANUARY 8, 2013 Enclosed is a copy of a newsletter the City Clerk recently received that I thought the Commission would find useful. Please see the article entitled “You didn’t hafta be there” – it provides the Commission with information about voting on the approval of meeting minutes. Andrea Spencer From:Shannon Corin Sent:Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:34 PM To:Andrea Spencer Subject:FW: Are your meetings frightful or delightful? ß²¼®»¿ô Ø»®»·¬·ò êÕÜÏÏÎÏ úÎËÔÏ Ý·¬§Ý´»®µ Ý·¬§±ºÞ®»³»®¬±² øíêð÷ìéíëíîí From: Jurassic Parliament [mailto:news@jurassicparliament.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:10 AM To: Shannon Corin Subject: Are your meetings frightful or delightful? Nuggets January 2013 Jurassic Parliament Newsletter Vol. VI, No. 1 The great use of life is to spend it for something that View in your browser will outlast it. In This Issue William James Contact us Are your meetings frightful or delightful? Email Great free resource for your nonprofit board Quick tip: You didn't hafta be there Facebook News about us Blog FEATURE Are your meetings frightful or delightful? Telephone: 206-542-8422 Listening to a final round of seasonal music as the new year begins: “Oh the weather outside is frightful, but the fire is so delightful…” The rhyme tickles my fancy as I reflect on Postal mail: “frightful/delightful” – a pair of adjectives that apply to many 603 Stewart St., Ste. 610 aspects of human experience, and a catchword, perhaps, for our Seattle WA 98101 1 endeavor at Jurassic Parliament. Going social We have been working for a dozen years now to transform “frightful” into If you are on Facebook, “delightful.” We maintain that decorum and Robert’s Rules of Order, which to LinkedIn or Twitter connect some people symbolize boredom, formality and obfuscation, when properly with our dinosaurs! used will create an atmosphere that is delightful, resulting in meetings that are Newly elected? fair, effective and a pleasure to attend. Is this too strong a claim? Here are the benefits that we see in meetings that Purchase our new product,Elected Official use Robert well: Starter Kit,to give you a wealth of resources for your new position. A structured agenda is prepared that provides suggested times for each topic, so the group uses its time efficiently. Or if you're on a nonprofit Everyone gets a chance to speak in turn, so no one dominates the board, choose our Board Director Starter Kit. conversation. These materials will provide All views are welcomed, so the group considers options outside its insights and tools you don't want to miss. ordinary range of thought. Everyone speaks with courtesy and respect, even when laboring under heartfelt emotion. Members may argue their views strongly during discussion, but once a decision is made, the minority accepts the majority decision as the decision of the body. The chair of the meeting functions as the servant of the group, takes his cue from the group, and turns to the group when tough decisions need to be made. In our experience, this kind of meeting is one that people enjoy and value. Most folks have a basic commitment to fairness, and if the meeting is fair, they are willing to subordinate their individual view to the group’s wisdom as a whole. What they don’t enjoy is a meeting where a few people dominate the discussion, where the chair tries to act as the boss, where some members waste time arguing about one topic and neglect others that are more important, or where rudeness and discourtesy create bad feeling among the participants. As the holiday song says, “let it snow, let it snow, let it snow…” No matter how stormy the weather at your meeting, when decorum and order prevail, there is hope for good decisions and helpful outcomes. Ann G. Macfarlane Professional Registered Parliamentarian Great free resource for your nonprofit board Start the new year off right by downloading a copy of the Washington Handbook for Nonprofit Organizations, available without charge on the website of Washington Attorneys Assisting Community Organizations. This amazing book will be useful for any nonprofit board, no matter what state your group is 2 incorporated in. QUICK TIP You didn't hafta be there When you are invited to approve the minutes of a previous meeting, you may do so, even if you didn’t attend the meeting in question. When you vote to approve the minutes, you are expressing your confidence in the veracity of the secretary, the actions of your colleagues, and the correctness of the minutes preparation process. You are not making a personal eyewitness statement that “you were there.” The body needs an official record of its actions, and all members may approve that record. This means that a member should not abstain from voting to approve minutes on the grounds that she was absent at that meeting. News about us Andrew is looking forward to connecting with colleagues at the Washington Society of Association Executives get-together later this month. Ann has enjoyed wrestling with the bylaws of four clients recently and hopes that 2013 will bring more opportunities for the same pleasure. © Jurassic Parliament 2013 This information is provided for general educational purposes. Nothing published here constitutes legal or business advice. Readers with specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authority to address their issues. Jurassic Parliament | 603 Stewart St. | Suite 610 | Seattle | WA | 98101 Unsubscribe 3