Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032194 · . MINUTES WEEK OF MARCH 21, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Com- missioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION The Board then interviewed Judith French-Scott who is interested in serving on the Parks Advisory Board. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of January 18, and March 7, 1994 as submitted. Commis- sioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appointment to GMA Steerinl! Committee; Representative from the Tri Area Interim Urban Growth Area: Commissioner Wojt moved to appoint Chuck Russell as the Tri Area Community Planning Committee's representative on the GMA Steering Committee and to appoint Guy Rudolph as the alternate. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Huntingford then moved to appoint Ma:rjorie Rogers as the Tri Area UGA representative on the GMA Steering Committee and that Guy Rudolph be appointed as the alternate. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion and called for the vote. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Hinton voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Jim Myers, E911 Coordinator re: E911 Implementation Plan and Approval of Request for Proposals for Software and Hardware for E911 System: Jim Myers, E911 Coordinator for the Sheriffs Office reported that the E911 Implementation Plan must be submitted to the State for approval which will result in the release of State funds to the County for the completion of this system. He then explained that some of the cost figures for the hardware and software are not in the plan because the RFP for these items hasn't been issued yet. The discussion turned to the amount of funding available from the State, how much of the anticipated costs will be covered, how much of the maintenance costs of the system will be covered, and the number of phone systems that must be dealt with to implement this system. , VOL 20 r~C: 369 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the E911 Implementation plan and the Request for Proposals for hardware and software as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd introduced N aney Solheim who has been hired as a Secretary/Receptionist in the Long Range Planning division. He reported that the Forest Land Designation proposals are still being reviewed. He expects to have something for the Commissioners next week. Jefferson County's GMA Process: Steve Ladd read a statement (see attached) urging people to move to the middle ground on GMA issues so that the County can proceed with the planning that is required. Proiect Hotel Concept: There are only four people in the long range planning division to do all of the GMA work, which isn't enough. He noted that planners can be hired on a contractual basis or consultants can be used, but whatever method of hiring is used, he would suggest a "project hotel" concept be used to house these people. This would allow all of these planners to work together in one office space with living quarters for them to stay during the week. This would be a unique working situation to bring together all of the workers and work on the various elements of the comprehensive plan. (See at- tached.) The discussion continued regarding the possible use of the Pioneer Building downtown as a project hotel. Gary Rowe suggested that a copy of the Planning Committee activity calendar be made available to the public each week. Kent Anderson, Current Planning Supervisor, introduced Heather VanEtten who has been hired as a Permit Coordinator at the Permit Center. Leg-al Counsel for Board: Chairman Hinton suggested that because of numerous lawsuits filed against the County, the complexity of new ordinances and legisla- tion, the loss of State funding for GMA and the inability and difficulty in achieving GMA goals, that the Board secure analytical and legal expertise for the remainder of this year to assist in dealing with these many and varied issues. He cited statements from the Prosecuting Attorney in the Peninsula Daily News, which announced that he would not be seeking re-election this year, as examples of his concerns and added that he is not comfortable relying on legal advise from Counsel with this attitude. He asked that the Board arrange an appointment with the Superior Court Judge to ask for approval to secure outside legal counsel. Commissioner Wojt stated that he doesn't feel that the Board needs to seek outside legal counsel. He feels the Board needs to step up to the challenge and make the necessary decisions. He feels the problem isn't in the legal advise the Board is getting. The problem is the fact that the Board hasn't been willing to accept that advise. He doesn't feel any more County resources need to be put into not making a decision. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that when Charlie Earl reviewed the County's operations he noted that David Goldsmith and Gary Rowe are both overloaded with work in their positions and that some changes be made. He isn't sure that another legal advisor is what the County needs, but someone ..VOL 20 rAG~370 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . with legal background to assist the Board in their day to day decisions may be needed. ' Commissioner Wojt suggested that no action be taken on this recommendation until the new Planning staff members have time to look into the circumstan- ces. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels the Board should be looking into hiring some type of advisor who can review issues, provide questions about issues and proposals, etc. This could help ease the burden on David Goldsmith. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The need for the Board to hire an analyst who can review all documents that come in to the Board and give them advise on them; the forest land designa- tion proposals and how they will impact property owners; the Gorsline forest land proposal and how that differs from what Mr. Gorsline did with a piece of forest land that he owned at one time; and discussion of what the County can do for a particular property owner due to severe erosion on her land. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda with the exception of items 3 and 7 which are deleted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. PROCLAMATION re: Earthquake Awareness Week; Week of April 10 to 16, 1994 2. RESOLUTION NO. 26-94 re: Notice of Hearing on Application for Fran- chise; Construct, Operate and Maintain a Pressure Effluent Line; South Point Road; Al Schoenfeld, Applicant 3. DELETE Final Duppenthaler Short Plat #SP21-91; 4 Lot Subdivision; Sam Boling 4. Request for Payment of First Quarter Allocation; Jefferson County Conserva- tion District 5. Annual Certification (Calendar Year 1993); County Road Administration Board 6. RESOLUTION NO. 27-94 re: The Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Third Street in the Plat of Irving Park Addition; Larry Gard, JoAnn Gard, and Robert Hagen 7. DELETE Community Center Grant Approvals; 1) Tri Area Community Center Vinyl and Blinds; Petrick's Home Furnishings, and 2) Gardiner Community Center Blinds; Freda's Draperies 8. RESOLUTION NO. 28-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Sylopash Lane 9. RESOLUTION NO. 29-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Dusty Road 10.RESOLUTION NO. 30-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Weather-N-Heights Lane l1.RESOLUTION NO. 31-94 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Coco Lane BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Public Works Deputy Director Bob Nesbit and Prosecutine- Attorney Mark Huth re: Harris Drainae-e Problem: Deputy Director of Public Works, Bob Nesbit, reported that the County placed a culvert across ; VOL 20 rAG~ 371 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Bay Way and dug a drainage canal across the right-of-way to Oak Bay sometime in 1983. Mr. Harris' son now wants to install a septic system on property near this right-of-way, but the regulations say that the system must be setback a certain distance from running water. Bob Nesbit suggested that the drainage canal be converted to a culvert, but the exact location needs to be determined. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Harris' are claiming damage to their property which they say has resulted in a decrease in their property value. The Harris' are willing to settle their claim for damages if the County will install this culvert. Bob Nesbit added that the estimated cost of the culvert installation for the length necessary for the placement of the septic system is about $3,500. Mark Huth reported that the lot next to the right-of- way has no structure on it currently, but the Harris' are planning to build a house there. Mark Huth suggested that the Harris' be written a letter indicating that if the County installs the culvert, the Harris' agree to drop any claim against the County. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that it be determined first if septic system approval is possible on this lot if this culvert is installed. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the installation of 100 feet of culvert as requested by the Harris' on the condition that a septic system can be approved for the lot and that the Harris' will release the County from any further liability in this matter. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Application to Open Rif!ht-of-Way; 10th Avenue from the Inter- section of Existinf! Kennedy Street, approximately 120 feet to the intersection of Turner Street; Hessian Garden Tracts; Nancy J. Gray, Applicant: Traffic Engineering Technician Bob Henderson reported that Nancy Gray is requesting to open a portion of 10th Avenue right-of-way in the Hessian Garden Tracts. Almost all of Hessian Garden Tracts plat has been vacated and Turner Street was part of that vacation because it is within the plat. Turner Street was never listed on the County Road log and has never been opened because of the vacation. A recent real estate purchase by N aney Gray was done incorrectly because it refers to lot numbers in the vacated plat that haven't existed for 11 years. In order to access Ms. Gray's property she will have to obtain an easement across privately owned property. Mark Huth reported that in order to open the right-of-way, Ms. Gray must own the property adjacent to it. Nancy Gray reported that when she purchased the property there were separate tax parcel numbers for it. She is in the process of amending the sale contract right now to reflect the proper ownership of the parcel. She added that she is not subdividing this property. She just wants to build a home for herself and her son on it. Chairman Hinton asked if 10th Avenue is open? Bob Henderson reported that 10th is open as a driveway from south of Kennedy Street to the edge of Turner Street. Half of the old 10th Street is all that is left after a previous vacation. After discussion with the property owners, review of several documents by the Prosecuting Attorney, Commissioner Huntingford reported that there is a gap in the County right-of-way where Turner Street was located and Ms. Gray . VOL 20 rAr.~372 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . needs to obtain an easement to cross that property before the County can consider opening the right-of-way. Community Center Grant Approvals; 1) Tri Area Community Center Vinyl and Blinds; Petrick's Home Furnishinf!s, and 2) Gardiner Community Center Blinds; Freda's Draperies: Warren Steurer, Facility, Parks and Recreation Program Manager, explained that the Gardiner Com- munity Center Advisory Board and the Quilcene Community Center Advisory Board each solicited the bids on the items indicated and have made recom- mendations for bid award. These funds are coming from the County grant for Community Centers. Warren stated that he will ask the Chairmen of these Advisory Boards about these bids and report back to the Commissioners at a later date. Discussion of Revisinf! the County Campinf! and Park Lands Ordinance No. 3-83 (Continued from March 14, 1994): Chairman Hinton noted that after reviewing these proposed amendments, he doesn't see an immediate need to justify making these changes right now. Warren Steurer agreed that there aren't that many changes and they can still work with the current ordinance for the next year ór so. He added that the fees are in line with what is being charged in other counties and other parks. Request for Additional Fundinf! from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund; West Jefferson Tourism Committee: Chairman Hinton reported that a request for additional Hotel/Motel Tax Funding has been received from the West Jefferson Tourism Committee. The Board concurred that this request be forwarded to the newly formed County organization. AGREEMENT, Construction Fund Escrow re: Jefferson County Transfer Station; RO£!Dlin's, Inc.; Bank of Grays Harbor: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and have the Chairman sign the construction fund escrow agreement as submitted by the Bank of Grays Harbor for Rogn- lin's, Inc. for work on the Jefferson County transfer station. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Approval of Letters: 1) to UFCW 1001, 2) Thankinf! members of the Public Works Crew, and 3) to Summit Communications: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to approve and sign the letters as presented to the Jefferson County UFCW 1001 employees regarding medical benefits, the Public Works Department workers for work on Little League Fields, and Summit Com- munications, Inc. regarding Negotiations for Cable Television Services. Com- missioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mitif!ation Determination of Non- Si£!Dificance; Creekside Lonf! Plat LP05-92 and Ironwood Lonf! Plat LP06-92: Chairman Hinton read the hearing procedures and asked the follow- ing questions: VOL 20 r~r.: 373 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Associate Planner Jim Pearson stated that this is a public hearing on the Creekside Long Plat and the Ironwood Long Plat, which are both by Pope Resources. There were appeals on the MDNS issued on both of the plats by the Olympic Environmental Council regarding the availability of water resour- ces. There was an appeal by Pope Resources and one by Mike Fleming on the Ironwood Long Plat. He recommended that the Board review the Creekside Long Plat first. He reminded the Board that the water issue applies to both plats. He then reviewed the documents submitted to the Board as part of the staff report: Section A - Letters from the Ludlow Water Company. Copies of groundwater permits. Reports of examination. Several pages from the Port Ludlow Development Program Environmental Impact Statement. Section C - Response to comments (page 21 of the staff report.) Department of Ecology letters dated September 20, 1993 and January 10, 1994 which address the Ironwood proposal even though the preliminary MDNS was sent to them. Jim Pearson added that it appears to the Planning staff that there is adequate groundwater available and the recommended mitigation that would set up a monitoring program is adequate to ensure that if projected groundwater resources aren't adequate that information will be known in time to require Pope Resources to develop alternative sources of groundwater to serve their projects. Commissioner Wojt asked where well 13 and 14 are in respect to these proposed plats? A representative of Pope Resources pointed out on a map where these wells are located. David Cunningham asked that the hearing be divided into two parts, one for each plat. CREEKSIDE LONG PLAT #LP05-92: Jim Pearson reported that the staff report was provided to the Board. Chairman Hinton asked everyone present who will be giving testimony to swear to tell the truth. Everyone who planned to give testimony raised their right hand and swore to tell the truth. After an explanation of the hearing process which is a "de novo" review, the Chairman asked the appellants to present their testimony. VOL 20 ~,~~ 374: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Hayden. Olympic Environmental Council. stated that their appeal is on the basis that the proposed mitigation number 10 in both MDNS documents is inadequate to assure that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on groundwater resources. There is existing documentation that shows that all evidence points to the conclusion that there is not sufficient production capacity in local aquifers to meet the projected demand for these new subdivisions on a sustainable basis. It will also show that existing water rights (on paper) are already at or near the upper limits to meet legal obliga- tions already incurred through actual water connections to existing Pope Resource water systems and are totally insufficient to meet future demand from existing County approved building lots that depend on these same systems for water. Steve Hayden then presented a map copied from the Port Ludlow EIS (Figure 10 from the EIS and marked Exhibit A - see attached.) The north aquifer includes wells 2, 3 and 4 and were to supply the original Port Ludlow Develop- ment. Because excessive draw down limits have been placed on withdrawal from that aquifer, well 13 was put on line as a supplement to prevent irrever- sible draw down damage to the aquifer. Wells 1 and 12 were abandoned in 1986. Water rights no longer exist on these two wells. Creekside (and Ironwood) are depending on wells 13 and 14 for their source of water. There are no other wells in the area that are providing water to the water systems in Port Ludlow. He then presented an analysis of the Port Ludlow community growth which was prepared by the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council and updated in October of 1993 (Exhibit B - see attached.) This document delineates the number of subdivisions in the Port Ludlow area, the number of buildings in the subdivisions, the number of single family units, multi-family units, commer- cial units and the actual number (buildout) of water connections as of October, 1993. The total approved units to date including Ironwood and Creekside is 2,039. The current number of water connection through October 27, 1993 is 951. Commissioner Huntingford asked how this information corresponds with the water facilities inventory that has been presented? Steve Hayden stated that he hasn't seen that document, so he can't answer that question. After reviewing the document Commissioner Huntingford asked if, Steve Hayden's report, is a summary of Ludlow water well information from the State Depart- ment of Ecology? He added that well number 2 and 3 in the north aquifer are seasonal and well number 14 is supplementary only. The State Department of Health estimates that this system could provide (465 total acre feet per year) 1,481 connections if all five wells produce year around. (See Exhibit C - attached) A lower figure of 1,058 connections was provided by the State Department of Health representative Karl Johnson, due to the water rights for seasonal wells 2, and 3. This information has been provided to the County Health Department. The revised number of connections works out to a little under 400 gallons per day per household. Chairman Hinton asked if Mr. Hayden talked with the State Department of Health directly about this? Steven Hayden answered that he did not. Wendy Wrinkle talked with the State DOH and conveyed this information to him. This system appears to be very near capacity, based on the water rights, not the actual amount of water that the wells can produce on a sustainable basis. VOL 20 rAG~ 375 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He then presented a letter from the Department of Ecology dated December 2, 1992 which was a comment on the Port Ludlow EIS. (See Exhibit D attached.) The water rights on the north aquifer are for a total of 433 gallons per minute. The Port Ludlow EIS suggested that a sustainable level would be 65 gallons per minute. There are County approved subdivisions based on the determination that there is adequate potable water and a minimum of 1,883 lots already being sold which will have owners with expectations that they can go to Pope Resources and get water. This doesn't agree with the information in the DOE letter. He noted it seems apparent that there is something awry. Subdivisions are being approved far beyond the capacity of the aquifer. The suggested mitigation will not address this impact. Steve Hayden then submitted a letter dated December 2, 1992 from Karl Johnson of the State Department of Health. (See Exhibit E attached.) He pointed out that this letter outlines how adequate water supply is determined. Commissioner Huntingford asked why the same Department sent letters dated September 20, 1994 and January 10, 1994 commenting on these project which concur with the EIS that a monitoring system is appropriate? Steve Hayden responded the mitigation for both projects says that a monitoring program will be set up. If that monitoring program shows that the aquifer cannot sustain the yield that's being asked of it, further plats will not be approved until that is reconciled. If at the time of the EIS there were no further plats to be proposed and a monitoring system was set up, then that mitigation makes sense. The way this is set up the monitoring system is being done during the time when more subdivisions are being approved before the results of the monitoring are known. This is the conundrum of the EIS and the problem with the mitigation. Commissioner Wojt asked if the programmatic EIS dealt with these issues? Steve Hayden responded that is what the programmatic EIS was set up to do. The County approved the EIS as sufficient, but many people didn't feel that it was. This means that the question has to be brought up on a project by project basis. Commissioner Huntingford asked how many subdivisions are left to be reviewed that were covered by the programmatic EIS? David Cunnin- gham reported that approximately six subdivisions are left. Steve Hayden pointed out that there are other subdivisions being proposed that would use this aquifer, that aren't covered by the EIS. He stated that they are asking the Commissioners to withdraw the MDNS, require the proponents to pursue their monitoring program for a sufficient length of time to show that existing developments can be provided water from the existing well system on a sustainable basis. If they can't do that, then their obligation is to find water somewhere else or cut down on their projects. Steve Hayden then presented Exhibit F (see attached) which is a letter dated January 12, 1994 from the State Department of Ecology commenting on a short plat in the south aquifer. They requested that the County not approve the subdivision because of their concern for the proliferation of individual wells in the south aquifer and their concern for the capacity of the south aquifer. He then presented a copy of a response from Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth to that letter (see Exhibit G, attached.) Commissioner Huntingford asked if the DOE has responded to the Prosecuting Attorney's letter? Steve Hayden stated that he doesn't know if there has been a response. He concluded his presenta- tion by saying that groundwater resources are a major limiting factor in the area covered by the Dungeness/Quilcene project. It is clear that this is a drastic situation. VOL 20 rAG~ 376 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Olympic Environmental Council would support the County's plan to provide more water to Urban Growth Areas? Steve Hayden answered that Port Ludlow was designated a UGA, which is an implication of high density. He noted that the forest resource proposals erase the resource designation in Port Ludlow. Densities even outside of the UGA will go up from what they are now under the Phillips proposal. Commissioner Huntingford clarified that his suggestion was not just for Port Ludlow, he was also thinking of the Hadlock area. The Chairman asked that the project proponent address the Board. David Cunning-ham, Pope Resources, stated that he has not seen any of the testimony presented by Mr. Hayden. Mr. Hayden has presented his testimony as if there were no rules on how an environmental threshold determination is made. The SEP A rules are very clear (see attached SEP A Rules for Imposing- Mitig-ation Conditions) that mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the proposal. Most of the evidence presented by Mr. Hayden is not informa- tion that is contained in any environmental document on this particular proposal. There are only two such documents: 1) the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and 2) the environmental checklist on this particular project that was submitted with the application. There was a lot of testimony given about groundwater resources. Mr. Hayden is not a hydrologist or an expert in groundwater and neither is the Greater Port Ludlow Com- munity Council. Robinson and Noble prepared the report for the County's final environmental impact statement. Joel Purdy, a groundwater hydrologist with Robinson and Noble is present. He then submitted a copy of the technical report on groundwater resources that was part of final EIS. That document concludes that there are adequate groundwater resources in the Port Ludlow area to serve all of the development in the past, present, and the proposed developments in the future. A monitoring requirement has been placed on several projects to be sure that the prediction continues to be accurate over time. The monitoring effort has begun. The mitigation the staff put on this project is the same as one placed on other projects and is perfectly appropriate. Commissioner Huntingford asked the status of the monitoring program? David Cunningham reported that the monitoring program has been approved by the County and Robinson and Noble has begun to set it up. Larry Smith who is responsible for operating all the utility systems at Port Ludlow (including water) is present, David Cunningham added. Chairman Hinton asked for a brief overview of the monitoring program. Joel Purdy. Tacoma, reported that currently several areas have been selected for monitoring. The wells within those areas have been narrowed down, to include all of the Pope Resources wells, and wells in the Bywater Bay monitor- ing network (6 wells.) There will be approximately 15 wells monitored. Currently the project is at the stage of approaching property owners about having their wells monitored. Commissioner Huntingford asked the implemen- tation date for the project? David Cunningham reported that an annual report is submitted by March 15 each year for all programmatic monitoring. The County just approved the scope of work for the groundwater monitoring, so there was no substantive information to submit on that project this year. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there are any wells in the Shine area included in this monitoring program? Mr. Smith reported that he doesn't have VOL 20 rAr,~ 377 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the list of wells with him. He added that Robinson and Noble set up their list of potential wells for monitoring to obtain the widest coverage possible, while not duplicating the work of others. Hiller West, Shockey Brent, reported that the consultant hired by the PUD has just completed the monitoring required on Bywater wells number 1 and 2 and they are about to submit their report. There is also on-going monitoring on these wells. Commissioner W ojt asked if there are any wells that have been abandoned that could be used in the monitoring? Larry Smith answered that abandoned is not the correct term. Well 9 and 12 mentioned by Steve Hayden, were never in production, even though they are still functional. The water rights were cancelled on these wells. Well 12 is in the south valley aquifer and well 1 is in its own aquifer which is separate from the north and south aquifer. Chairman Hinton stated that part of the issue before the Board today is the appeal from the Olympic Environmental Council. Testimony that challenges the adequacy of water in the aquifer for the Port Ludlow developments is in regard to the County's approved programmatic EIS. He added that he feels that there is no case regarding this project because it would mean that the County would have to reverse its decision on the approval of that EIS. Hiller West reported that the agency that the County looks to for information on whether adequate groundwater exists or whether groundwater permits have been issued comments that the monitoring condition was appropriate and adequate and that the Ludlow Water Company had secured adequate water rights for the proposal. In addition the Ludlow Water Company had its water plan approved by the Department of Ecology in 1989. Based on that informa- tion and in the absence of documentation to the contrary, condition number 10 (Ironwood MDNS) was all that staff felt was appropriate. Chairman Hinton asked why there was no reply on the Creekside proposal? Jim Pearson reported that he doesn't know why the DOE didn't reply on this project. Commissioner Wojt asked what happens if these plats are approved, build out occurs, and then the monitoring indicates that there isn't adequate water? Jim Pearson reported that the monitoring is being done to insure that won't happen. In the EIS there is a statement of how much water is available, but there is uncertainty about whether or not the projections are within 10 or 15%. Hiller West explained that the allocation of water rights is an extremely complex legal matter. The condition provides that in the event the monitoring program indicates that there isn't adequate water to serve the developments, then the County would immediately notify the State Department of Ecology. The DOE would then take action pursuant to State law. If at buildout there isn't sufficient water, then there will need to be a legal process initiated which may involve holding final approval of one or more plats. A plat is not actually approved until all conditions have been met and the plat is signed off. The Chairman then opened the hearing for public testimony: Paula Mackrow, pointed out that the amount of water available, as stated in Table 6 of the EIS, bases the new development water usage on a certain aquifer. It states that 30 gallons of water per minute will be from well number 1. The water rights for well number 1 have been cancelled. The estimated hypothetical yield is 492 gallons per minute and their estimated worst case scenario use is 448.6 gallons per minute. This is based on the availability of 30 gallons per minute on well number 1. Subtracting that 30 VOL 20 rAG~ 378 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gallons from the estimated hypothetical yield leaves these two figures within 18 gallons per minute of each other. She emphasized that when games are played with water availability, someone will be denied a building permit. She suggested that the monitoring be required to be done for a number of years before these plats are approved. The State Department of Ecology does not do water availability studies in this area. The only information on water availabi- lity is from the State DOE groundwater bulletin dated 1981. There has been no new data provided in this County since 1981 when water usage was considerably less than it is now. J aneen Hayden asked if the County requires adequate water for subdivision approval? Jim Pearson reported that State law requires that a finding be made on each subdivision that adequate water is available for preliminary subdivision approval. The staff position is that the information in the record has been developed to demonstrate that there is adequate water and adequate provision for water. J aneen Hayden asked how information in the EIS can be supplemented? Jim Pearson reported that until the County issues a permit, the environmental review is open. The programmatic EIS was to give an overall view of development in the Port Ludlow area. The discussion continued regarding this SEP A review process. Jim Pearson clarified that today the Board is to consider the testimony on this project in order to make a deter- mination on the threshold determination issued on this project. J aneen Hayden again asked how information given today as part of the hearing process will be incorporated into the County's information base? Chairman Hinton explained that the testimony given today will be made part of the public record and will be analyzed. Changing the EIS for Port Ludlow has nothing to do with the hearing today. Steve Hayden said that if the MDNS is approved as proposed the plat becomes final when all of the conditions are met. There is confusion about the implica- tion of this type of mitigation. A monitoring program does not mitigate anything. It just tells you how much you've lost. The people that have purchased lots and haven't built yet are going to come back on the County. Jim Pearson reported that Table 6 on page 3.6 of the final EIS for Port Ludlow lists worse case overall groundwater withdrawal estimates of the south aquifer with development program buildout. He noted that 82 wells (Pope Resources, PUD, water district wells, Tala Point wells) are listed in this review with a total worse case draw down of 492 gallons per minute. The intent of this table is to indicate the largest withdraw rate expected on the south aquifer based on buildout, existing and projected uses. Wendy Wrinkle stated that there are clear discrepancies in the actual figures used in the EIS. She pointed out that when the consultant developed the figures for withdrawal from an aquifer the Bywater system was listed as serving 129 residences. It is planned to serve 315 residences. In addition Tala Shores, Paradise Bay, and the Bywater system were all figured using Figure (Table) 6 in the EIS which uses the historical figures produced for Port Ludlow of 200 gallons per day. The figures that were actually used by those develop- ments or the figures approved for use by the State Department of Health are not used. In Robinson and Noble's historical projection of what capacities aquifers can sustain, they are clearly much lower than expected. The Depart- ment of Ecology states in a letter that: 1) they don't believe the figures are correct, 2) that the aquifer may already be over obligated, and 3) the monitor- ing is just to prevent further damage on current water rights. By Department VUL 20 ~AGE 379 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of Health standards, the water rights are very close to meeting just the build- out to date. Chairman Hinton asked if there is an explanation of how the figures were arrived at? Wendy Wrinkle explained that Karl Johnson of the Department of Ecology stated that many water systems are doing updated plans. The latest plan for Port Ludlow is dated 1989 and it is currently being updated. He reviewed the existing plan which says what the water rights are, the service lines and the holding tanks. In this case regardless of what can be served by the water lines, they are only allowed to draw a certain amount of water out of the ground. Right now on the south aquifer 400 connections mayor may not be allowed depending on whether that aquifer is capable. The same thing is true of the 315 connections on the PUD well. Jim Pearson reported that Wendy Wrinkle stated that Table 6 was based on an assumption of 200 gallons per day. He then read from the EIS "82 wells are potential domestic wells, although some are not used, some are abandoned, some tap aquifers that are shallower or deeper than the south aquifer. How- ever, for conservative analysis of the worst case usage, all 82 wells of this type are considered to be in use withdrawing water from the south aquifer. Using the Department of Health guideline of 800 gallons per day, the continuous usage of the 82 wells would be approximately 45.6 gallons per minute." Wendy Wrinkle pointed out that the 800 gallons per day figure only refers to the domestic wells. Janeen Hayden, said that she feels that the information presented today is evidence that there are grounds to question the accuracy of the information. The assumptions that the County is making may be incorrect and needs to be looked at. She stated that she is concerned about whether the Board has the qui dance they need for a clear understanding of the questions and what an appropriate answer would be without legal counsel present. She also ques- tioned if the Board or the County would be liable for damages resulting from a decision made by the Board if water is not available for a subdivision after it is approved by the County. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board will review this issue with the Prosecuting Attorney. He added that a letter was received from the State Department of Ecology saying that everything is in order, there is capacity and they agree with the monitoring program. That doesn't seem to agree with what the Department of Health is saying. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like more time to review this information and to talk with the State Department of Ecology and the State Department of Health regarding these issues. He asked the Planning Depart- ment staff to arrange a meeting with the appropriate representatives of the State Department of Health and Ecology to review these issues as soon as possible. David Cunningham noted that Pope Resources prepared the required EIS, has hired consultants and begun the monitoring program, and the development projects are moving ahead. There is a proper venue for challenging the adequacy of the EIS which is Superior Court. That opportunity was available VOL 20 rAC 380 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . for 30 days after the EIS was adopted and no one challenged it. He asked for a clear decision from the Board. Commissioner Huntingford asked what Pope Resources would do if someday there isn't enough water? David Cunningham reported that the question is how much water is there? The predictions of qualified geo-hydrologists are that the water is there. If the monitoring should show that there is inade- quate capacity then projects will have to stop. Commissioner Huntingford added that he would like to know what the water facilities inventory for the Port Ludlow Water company is based on. David Cunningham said that if there is going to be a discussion with DOE and DOH then he asked that Robinson and Noble be included in the meeting because they know more about the aquifer than anyone. Commissioner Huntingford asked Jim Pearson if he would arrange a meeting with people from the State agencies? Jim Pearson reported that he can check into setting up a meeting, but he can't estimate how long it will take to arrange it. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels that the County needs some time to review the information, confer with Mark Huth, the State DOE and Health. He said that the water issues are of a great concern to him, especially who will be responsible in the future. Greg McCary, Pope Resources, stated that the decision being considered today is a specific proposal for Creekside Village. The comments being made have to do with the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (for Port Ludlow) which contemplated 700 additional units. Creekside Village is only 61 units and isn't necessarily the threshold for reaching the limit on water. There is a letter from the DOE stating that they are satisfied that the water rights are there and the source is adequate. The discussion continued regarding when cumulative effects are considered. Mr. McCary stated that his understanding is that DOE would stop issuing new water rights if they perceived a threat to the aquifer. Pope's water rights would be senior to a new application. The Board concurred that this hearing be continued to April 4, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. IRONWOOD LONG PLAT #LP06-92: Hiller West explained that the staff report was submitted to the Board in their packets. There were three letters of appeal on this plat; one from the project proponent, one from Harvey Fleming, and one from the Olympic Environmental Council. The issues raised were adequate provision for water, storm water control and tree retention. The Public Works Department has adopted the DOE manual on storm water control. Mr. Fleming previously submitted a letter of comment on the proposed MDNS requesting that a condition be added to it that would prohibit tree cutting on any grades approaching or exceeding 15% slope. The reason to prohibit tree cutting would reduce erosion, help retain slopes and help preserve views. There are conditions, in the opinion of staff, on the MDNS to address erosion control and geologic hazards, Hiller West explained. There is a condition that requires that a geotechnical report be submitted if any construction or slope alteration is proposed on slopes exceed- ing 15%. The County considers 15% slope as the threshold for an Environ- mentally Sensitive Area designation. If a geotechnical report proposes that additional restrictions be placed on the development then those become a condition of the building permit. Another condition requires that erosion VOL 20 rAG~ 381 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . control plans be submitted and reviewed by the Public Works Department. In regard to view preservation, there is no ordinance in Jefferson County that prohibits or restricts tree removal to protect views. View protection is not an adopted basis for restrictions on tree removal. The Chairman asked the appellants to make their presentations. Steve Hayden, Olympic Environmental Council, reported that his testimony on the Creekside plat regarding water also applies to this project. He noted that condition #15 says that the subject plat shall obtain water for domestic use and fire protection from the PUD # 1 water system. Hiller West explained that the reference in this mitigation measure is in error and should say the Ludlow Water Company. Mr. Hayden stated that the OEC supports the County's use of the DOE storm water manual. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, then pointed out that the Board can only impose mitigation on a project within the boundaries of the SEP A rules. He noted that conditions 1, 3, and 7 refer to designing stormwater systems in accordance with the Puget Sound Manual. He explained that SEP A rules require that if the County adopts policies on which to base mitigation, it must formally adopt and designate them in an ordinance. They don't believe that the County has done that in this case. Condition #8 deals with slope stability. The intent of condition #8 has always been fair. This condition was aimed at the steep portion of the lots in the northern part of this plat. Linda Mueller, Pope Resources, reported that the steeper slopes on the lots range from 45% to 60%. The flatter areas range from 2% to about 25% slope. Each lot has a flat area as well as steeper slopes on it. There is also an open space (Tract B) which is for the most part the steeper area of the plat. Pope Resources has contracted with Geo Engineers of Bellevue to look at the site and prepare a report of their findings (see at- tached.) He explained that Pope Resources has developed a substitute condi- tion #8 (which can substitute for the current condition 2 and 8) based on the recommendation of the geological engineers. Mike (Harvey) Fleming stated that he owns property acljacent to the Ironwood Plat (Lot 8 Greenview Village across the 18th fairway of the Port Ludlow Golf Course.) He is concerned about soil movement, water runoff, and loss of aesthetics from this plat. Mr. Fleming noted that he received the proposed change to the condition submitted by Mr. Cunningham and he feels that it is worse than the previously proposed condition. Ryan Tillman, Engineer representing Mr. Fleming, then read from a letter he sent Pope Resources last week. (see attached.) The concerns Mr. Fleming raised during the preliminary review which were not addressed in the final are: 1) storm drainage impact from the plat, and 2) the stability of the slope facing his lot and the consequences, both aesthetic and physical, of vegetation removal from the steep slopes of the parcel. Mr. Fleming would drop his appeal based on the following change: Reword Condition #2 - "In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soil or water existing native vegetation and trees shall be maintained in open space areas." Rewrite the first sentence in Condition #8 and add second sentence - "Geotechnical report and lot specific site plan shall be prepared for review and approval prior to clearing of trees and / or vegetation and grading within VOL 20 rA~~ 382 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . slopes which exceed 15%. Clearing of trees and / or vegetation shall not be allowed unless it is specifically indicated in the report." Commissioner Huntingford asked if this subdivision has already been logged? David Cunningham reported that the roads have been cleared and merchant- able timber has been taken off. Greg McCary explained that this subdivision is to be more wooded than some others in the area. Mr. Fleming is concerned about additional removal of trees. Pope Resources is going to let property owners remove their own trees to position their homes for the best view. He would like property owners to be allowed to do that. Harvey Fleming explained that Tract B of the plat is supposed to be open space. He is asking that the wording be changed to leave that area alone. On the lots, there are places that are too steep for building, but that doesn't appear to be what the geotechnical engineers are now recommending. Linda Mueller stated that with regard to cutting the trees on the slopes, what is being referred to is hazard trees where there might be danger of them falling. Mr. Fleming added that the condition is worded to require that all trees over 30 feet will be removed in addition to the dead and hazardous trees. This would be logging the slope to take out anything over 30 feet. Hiller West reported that the condition 2 as it's currently written states that native vegetation shall be maintained in open space areas. This means that clearing in the open space areas would not be permitted. David Cunningham said that the condition should state specifically if that is what's meant. Greg McCary stated that the procedure followed in the community, which is covered by CC&R's or covenants, requires lot purchasers to go through the committee prior to building their home. There is a regulation that says that any tree larger than six inches at breast height has to be indicated on a map if an owner wants to remove it. They may thin trees in Tract B, but do not intend to clear it. The aesthetics from the lot owner side and the golf course side are important. Harvey Fleming noted that what Mr. McCary just said and the wording of condition #2 proposed by Mr. Cunningham are not the same. Hiller West noted that Mr. McCary is referring to covenants (CC&R's) that are ad- ministered and enforced by the Homeowners Association and not the County. Any condition attached to the MDNS would be separate from and in addition to anything adopted as part of private covenants and restrictions. The Board can determine that condition 2 be clarified. David Cunningham then continued his review: Condition 14 - requires that Pope Resources enter into an agreement with Jefferson County to provide for mitigation of recreational facilities. Mr. Cunningham noted this is already done by the Homeowners Association through the CC&R's and does not need to be required. Condition 15 - this was corrected earlier because this plat is not served by water from the PUD. VOL 20 rA~' 383 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Condition 19 - the road and intersection plans will be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. This is required by the Subdivision Or- dinance and it is unnecessary as a mitigation condition. Condition 20 - this is regarding Transit stops at Port Ludlow. Pope Resources has addressed this. The Transit Authority needs to write Plann- ing a letter stating that all of the Transit stops in Port Ludlow have been established. Condition 24 - this condition deals with fire hydrant location and it is covered under the Subdivision Ordinance. Chairman Hinton asked about Condition 14. Hiller West reported that this condition requires an agreement between Jefferson County and the plat developer and may be addressed more appropriately as part of the preliminary plat approval. RCW 58.17 requires that the County make a finding that the proposed plat has made adequate provision for a number of things including parks and open spaces. In the absence of a park mitigation ordinance, the only way to address this would be to provide for an agreement to be entered into to address these impacts. David Cunningham added that the County specifies what park, recreational and open space requirements pertain to this particular project. That discussion should take place during the discussion of the merits of the plat (subdivision review) and if there is the need for an additional condition on the plat it should be done at that time. SEP A rules indicate that mitigation should not be imposed under SEP A if other ordinances address the matter. Jim Pearson explained the process that Public Works and Planning staff have used regarding the use of the storm water manual. Section 8.20 (Substantive Authority) subsection 4c of the SEP A Implementing Ordinance states that the following were adopted by reference including the Subdivision Ordinance. Section 6.405 Drainage in the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that a drainage plan must be approved by the Director of Public Works in accordance with County standards. The Public Works Department standards were adopted on October 26, 1992 which adopted the use of the Stormwater Management Manual. Chairman opened the hearing for public testimony. Wendy Wrinkle asked that all of the testimony given on the previous plat regarding water also be applied to this plat. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. The Board concurred that this hearing be continued to April 4, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and recon- vened on Tuesday morning at 11:00 a.m. with all three Board members present. The Board met in executive session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding potential litigation. Frank Gifford re: Courthouse Space: Architectural Projects Coordinator Frank Gifford reported that the person hired to do the prioritiza- tion work for the moving and remodeling of office spaces in the Courthouse has completed and submitted his work. Estimates have been put together from the VOL 20 rAr,; 384 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 21, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . work priorities established for the needs of each office. All of the remodeling work will cost approximately $85,000. This figure does not include the expense for every piece of furniture, or change requested. He then reviewed the requests and office spaces proposed for each department: Long Range Planning ($14,000), Juvenile and Family Courthouse Services ($43,000), Assessor ($8,740) and the Commissioners Office ($16,733.) Frank Gifford asked the Board what their preference is for proceeding with this project especially since the costs are higher than originally estimated. Chairman Hinton asked Lois Smith how she feels about this plan? Lois Smith stated that her concerns for security have not been addressed, especially since some Juvenile Service programs operate during non-standard office hours. She is also still concerned about the impact of her clients on the other offices in the Courthouse. Frank Gifford suggested that a buzzer and a magnetic lock be added to the doors to accommodate more security during non-standard hours. Other ideas for security were discussed. David Goldsmith suggested that the Planning portion of this project could be started. Frank Gifford stated that it will work better for him if he can plan on working on the whole project. The access/security issues need to be reviewed further. Frank Gifford will do some research on the security issue and bring back cost information. The Board concurred that these remodeling proj ects be started. AppointmentslReappointments to the Parks Advisory Board: Commissioner Huntingford moved to reappoint Tom Madsen and Dick Broders to each serve another two year term on the Parks Advisory Board (their terms will expire March 2, 1996.) He then moved to appoint Joseph Jevne and Judith French-Scott to new two year terms on this Advisory Board (their terms will expire March 21, 1996.) Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. FINAL SHORT PLAT: Howard Fal!er Short Plat #SP18-93; Two Lot Short Plat. Discovery Bay; Howard L. Fal!er. Applicant: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to approve the final Howard Fager Short Plat #SP18-93 as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: JEFFERSON COUNTY ARD OF COMMISSIONERS VOL 20 rAr"385