Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060793 .. C:.,t~ <v ~ð~ éjC1 MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 7, 1993 Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. Prosecutine Attorney Mark Ruth re: Proposed Ordinance settine Amount for Commitment for· Failure to Pay Fees and Costs in District Court: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that this draft ordinance will set the amount by which an inmate's fines and costs will be reduced for every day he is incarcerated for non-payment of fines and costs. The proposed ordinance sets the rates for inmates who work, at $40.00 per day and for those who don't work, at $25.00 per day. Commissioner Hinton moved to set the public hearing for the proposed ordinance for June 21, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding potential litigation from 9:15 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Gary Rowe. Public Works Director re: Proposed Fees for Solid Waste Drop Boxes and Transfer Station Tippine Fees: Gary Rowe presented the recommendation from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee on increases in drop box fees and the tipping fee at the transfer station as well as privatization of solid waste operations. He asked if the Board would like to have a public hearing including all of these recommendations or if they would like to only consider setting the fees for the drop boxes? The Solid Waste Advisory Committee recommends: · Raise the tipping fee at the transfer station to $130.00 per ton ($124.28 plus 4.6% tax). The tipping fee should be set at a level that will insure against deficit spending. The tipping rate at the rural drop box sites should be raised to $5.00 per can ($4.78 per can plus 4.6% tax.) . Gary Rowe reported that the law requires a 60 day notice of rate increase for the tipping fee at the transfer station. The Clerk of the Board suggested a hearing date of June 28, 1993. Chairman Wojt noted that the west end residents have asked that the Board meet with them regarding these fees. Gary Rowe suggested that the Board continue their June 28 hearing to the west end on July 1, 1993. tVOl 19 fAc~511 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 2 Commissioner Hinton moved to set the hearing on the proposed increases to the Solid Waste fees for June 28, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. to be continued at the West End on July 1, 1993 as recommended by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee as follows: $130.00 per ton at the transfer station and $5.00 per can at the drop box sites. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: how the County has handled complaints about the Levine Sawmill operation in Gardiner, the cost for a copy of Commissioners' meeting tapes, and the statutory road vacation process. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: After discussion of several of the items and the need for more information about them, Com- missioner Hinton moved to delete items 2, 13, 14, and 17 from the consent agenda and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Drug Task Force (WESTNET); Jefferson and Kitsap Counties and the Cities of Bremerton~ Poulsbo, Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard and Port Townsend 2. DELETE ITEM DENY, as Recommended by County Engineer; Request for Statutory Vacation; South 30 feet of platted Cedar Street, the North 40 feet of Florence Street, the west 30 feet of Second Street, and the east 30 feet of Third Street in Irving Park Addition; Wood's Ranch, Inc., Arnold C. Wood, Petitioner 3. Declaration of Surplus Timber on County Property; Timber on approximately One (1) acre of property located on the Landfill Road; Site of the future Animal Shelter; Proceeds from sale of timber to be allocated back to the Animal Shelter site develop- ment. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 47-93 re: Updating the Official County Road Log; Springwood Drive and Topside Court 5. RESOLUTION NO. 48-93 re: Updating the Official County Road Log; Including Road Number, Name, and Length 6. RESOLUTION NO. 49-93 re: Certification of the Westward Hoh Resort for Under- ground Storage Tanks 7. DEDICATION re: Public Right-of-way for Ingress, egress and utilities; For the west three (3) feet of Lot 3, Block 42 of the Plat of Port Townsend Original Townsite (See Minutes of April 19, 1993 - Tudan) 8. Use of County Property; North Beach County Park; To be used for a temporary check- point, communications and medical aid station and refreshment station for the "Surf and Turf Challenge 6k Cross-Country Run; Saturday August 7, 1993; Jefferson Search and Rescue 9. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; VFW #7498 $250.00 and 7 from American Legion Post #26 $350.00, $272.97, $500.00, $398.03, and $500.00; $500.00; Space Rent for Post $240.00 10. Final Short Plat #SP16-91 South Paradise Short Plat; Two lot Short Plat off of E. Fir Street in Port Ludlow; Neal, Kennedy, and Bodker 11. Request for Payment of Second Quarter Allocation $5,000.00 Jefferson County Conser- vation District 12. Request for Payment of Quarterly Allocation $3,750.00; Olympic Peninsula Gateway Visitor's Center 13. DELETE ITEM RESOLUTION NO. re: Clarification of Intent and Administration of Subsection 3.30.2 Applicability of Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 "Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance." 14.DELETE ITEM Special Event Permit; Chamber Music Concert Series Saturday and Sundays - June 26 to September 5, 1993; Quilcene; Olympic Music Festival 15.AGREEMENT, Addendum; To Labor Agreement; Add $.40 per hour to Maintenance Worker III Classification when truck is operating with a "Pup" trailer; Teamsters Local #589 16. Designate 18 Acres Timblrland Open Space; Current Use Tax Assessment Under Provisions of RCW 84.34; Located 1/4 Mile north of Egg and I Road and 1 1/2 miles west of the intersection of Highway 19 and Egg and I Road; Loren E. and Lee Anna C. Bishop, Applicants " lVOL 19 fAtE 512 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 3 17. DELETE ITEM Letter to Andrea K. Grahn, Member, Jefferson County Planning Commission re: Planning Commission Representation 18. Letter to Planning Commission re: Planning Commission review and report on the draft Critical Areas Ordinance APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes of May 24, 1993 as corrected. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Request for Conditional Use Permit IZ-20-93; Family Operated Small Wholesale Bread Bakery and Chocolate Manufacturine Kitchen in the General Use Zone; Tom and Phyl Foley: Jerry Smith, Associate Planner, reported that the Hearing Examiner recommends approval of this~home business in the General Use Zone. Commis- sioner Hinton moved to adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on IZ-20-93 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a un- animous vote. Request for Conditional Use Permit IZ-04-93; Construction of Phase 2 of the Port Ludlow Real Estate Center in the General Use Zone; Loomis Properties. Albert Loomis: This permit is for the second phase of this real estate center project and the Hearing Examiner recommends approval subject to several conditions, Jerry Smith reported. Commissioner Hinton asked if this property is commercial? Jerry Smith an- swered that the property is designated commercial under the Comprehensive Plan, but it is not zoned commercial under the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Hinton asked if the County has a sign ordinance? Jerry Smith reported that the County regulates signs under the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Hinton asked about the drainage system maintenance agreement? Jerry Smith reported that the Public Works Department recommends this agreement to assure the proper operation of the system. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the conditional use permit #IZ-04-93 as recom- mended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Consideration of the Shoreline Commission's Recommendation to Approve Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application SDP93-03; Subdivide a 0.96 acre parcel into four lot short subdivision for four detached sinele family homes; Proposal site is located between Oak Bay Road and Ludlow Bay westerly of the Port Ludlow Resort; Louis and Phyllis Scott. Applicants: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that this proposal is to subdivide slightly less than one acre into four lots. The proposal site is located west of the Port Ludlow Marina and east of the North Bay Condo- miniums. This is a fairly dense project in an area of dense development. The Shoreline Commission reviewed this project and recommends approval with conditions. This property shares a road approach with property adjacent to it. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP93-03 as recommended by the Shoreline Commission. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ,"C t VOL 19 rAG~ 513 I Commissioners' Meeting M~nutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 4 Review and Adoption of Guidelines for Community Plannine Committee Formation and Operation: Senior Planner James Holland explained that this policy has been developed by the Planning Commission at the Board's request, and that a timeline will be developed to go along with it. He explained that the document is explicit about who may be a participant in a community planning committee (community residents or property owners.) Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt the Guidelines for Community Planning Com- mittee Formation and Operation with the change in the timeline to one year. Commis- sioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LEASE re: County Property located on the Toandos Peninsula; U.S. Navv: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that he has reviewed this lease of County property located on the Toandos Peninsula to the U.S. Navy. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the lease with the U.S. Navy as presented. Commissioner Huntingford second- ed the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT. Supplement #4; Providine Additional Dieital Map Compila- tion of the Quimper Peninsula and Marrowstone Island: Spencer B. Gross. Inc.: Transportation/Stormwater Program Manager, Bruce Laurie explained that this supplement to the agreement with Spencer Gross is for completing the digital map compilation for the Quimper Peninsula and Marrowstone Island. Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that it is estimated that it will take five years to have adequate mapping of the east side of Jefferson County. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve supplement #4 with Spencer B. Gross, Inc. in the amount of $48,000 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Six Year Capital Improvement Plan: Public Works Director Gary Rowe submitted and reviewed the proposed six year capital improvement plan. He explained that the items on this plan will be reviewed for inclusion in the 1994 budget. PLANNING AND BUILDING Prosecutine Attorney Mark Huth re: On-Site Sewaee Systems; Kala Point: Mark Huth reported one of the septic systems at Kala Point has failed. The County entered into agreements with the Kala Point Homeowners Association, and the Kala Point Utility Company for the maintenance and repair of these systems. Since that time a State statute was passed which says that the PUD will handle this type of contract. The contract indicates that if there are no funds when a septic system failure occurs, the County Trea- surer will assess and collect a fe~ from each homeowner to cover the cost of repair or replacement of the system. The Treasurer does not have the legal authority to take such action. The Kala Point Utility Company has indicated that they are willing to be the managing entity for· these contracts. They will be working on a new set of agreements for these systems with the Kala Point Homeowners Association and the State Department of Health. When the new contracts are completed and approved by all parties, the County can rescind the current contracts and turn the money in the trust accounts over to the Kala Point Utility Company. :VOl 19 rAGS514 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 5 Dave Langley of the Kala Point Utility Company stated that they have always managed these septic systems. He explained that there is some money in the Trust account, but it is not sufficient to cover the cost of the necessary repair. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mitieated Determination of Non-Sienificance; Laree Lot Subdivision of 50 acres with 1.500 feet of waterfront. into 8 lots with 34 acres to be held in common ownership as Open Space; Proposal site is on Dabob Bay; Gary Phillips!Pat Handly. Applicants: Chairman Wojt stated that a request was received from Jeffrey Delia asking that this hearing be postponed to another date. Jeffrey Delia stated that the hearing can proceed. He added that he would like the additional time for the hearing that is scheduled for next Monday to allow testimony from some people who are not present today. Chairman Wojt then opened the public hearing, explained the process for the hearing and asked the following questions to assure that the hearing is fair in form, substance and appearance: Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? There was no response from those present. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? All three Commissioners answered NO. Do any of the Commissioners stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? All three Commissioners answered NO. Can each of the Commissioners hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? All three Commissioners answered YES. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? Commissioners Hinton and Wojt answered NO. Commissioner Hun- tingford stated that he met last week with the Shellfish Coalition and he thanked them for not bringing this issue up at that time. The Chairman then asked the Planning Department to present their staff report. Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Board has in their possession the following items: · The environmental checklist submitted by the applicant. · The site plan which indicates buffers and easements that have been agreed to by the project proponent. A Planning Department memo dated March 16, 1993 which analyzes the proposal and identifies impacts, proposed mitigation, and the response to the comments received on the mitigated determination of non-significance. The preliminary mitigated determination of non significance issued March 17, 1993. Proposal revisions agreed to and revisions to the recommended mitigative measures. A list of final mitigation. Letters from the proponents representative, Northwest Territories, Inc., that has information on storm water management, soil erosion control, geotechnical analysis of the site, and issues of that nature. Memos from the Public Works Department regarding their review of proposed road construction, soil erosion control, and storm water management plans. A Bald Eagle Management Plan agreed to by the proponent and the State Department of Wildlife. This agreement was revised based on the location of the access road. · · · · · · · LVOL 19 rAG~515 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 6 · A memo from the State Department of Natural Resources that addresses issu~s as a result of a site inspection (timb~r harvest, road construction, soils on the property, etc.). An archaeological site inspection by Dr. Gary Wesson, an Archeologist. A fisheries assessment of the two streams that go through the site to the shore- line by Dr. Ken Brooks. The notice of appeal. · · · Chairman Wojt asked where the shell middens are located on the site? Jim Pearson reported they are located on Lots 6 and 7 which directly adjoin the shoreline. The assessment indicates that the shell midden is 75 to 100 feet back from the shoreline. Dr. Wesson has recommended a 125 foot protective buffer in that area. Jim Pearson con- tinued his presentation by reporting that this proposal has gone through extensive Planning staff review. They consulted with numerous people, conducted site inspections and relied on a large body of information available from State agencies and consultant who were asked to address specific issues on this proposal. It was suggested to the project proponent to meet with various people who have expressed concerns about this proposal. There have been meetings between the project proponent and these people and that has resulted in some revisions to the proposal by the applicant. Jim Pearson clarified that the Board's job is to determine if there is adequate information in the record presented or in the information that will be presented during the course of this hearing, to make a determination. The Board needs to then identify significant impacts that would result from the proposal. The distinction must be made between probable impacts and impacts that are purely speculative. If there are impacts identified, the Board must determine if there are measures or revisions to the proposal that can reasonably avoid any impacts identified. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth added that the Board must rely on specific policies that the County has in place to allow the mitigation of specific impacts that are identified. The record prepared by the Planning Department can be adopted along with the testimony presented today, if the Board chooses to do that. He reminded the Chairman that people that testify today must be sworn in. Jim Pearson then reviewed the issues that have been raised in this appeal. He noted that the appellants have not raised any issues that the Planning Department hasn't addressed. · Concern for impacts to fish and shellfish that are related to road construction and stream crossings on the site. Clearing and grading for development. Slope stability. Questions of impacts to shellfish from septic systems and failures of septic systems. The Planning Department has looked at these issues and analyzed them with the help of people who presented information. Mitigation has been recommended to address all of these concerns. Included in those mitigations are requirements for: · Buffers along the shoreline, and the two streams. · A storm water management plan for the project and a requirement to have an inspection for compliance with that plan by a licensed engineer or a qualified technician working under the direction of a licensed engineer. Restrictions on clearing the site. Restrictions on the subsequent site development by purchasers of the lots. A Bald Eagle Management plan has been developed and signed off by the State Department Wildlife. Revisions to the road construction are included in this plan. Mr. Craig Sloan and Jack Smith with the Department of Wildlife were contacted regarding impacts to Eagle use of the area by this proposal. Neither of these people have provided any additional information to indicate that the Bald Eagle Management plan is not sufficient to protect Bald Eagles on the site. With regard to wildlife - Approximately 22 acres of the 50 acre site will be developed into 8 lots. The balance of the site is in a common area which is not · · · · · · · tVOL 19 rAG~516 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 7 . included for development. In addition to the Bald Eagle Management Plan the applicant has agreed to limit timber harvest on lots 1 through 4 within 200 feet of the shoreline to 10% of the volume over 10 years. On lots 1 through 5 a maximum of 30% of the area can be cleared. On lots 1 through 4 there will be a 200 foot buffer of native vegetation along the shoreline. On lot 5 there is a 120 foot buffer adjoining the shoreline. There is a 50 foot buffer on each site of the two streams. On lots 6 and 7 there is a 125 foot buffer adjoining the shoreline. The issue was raised in the appeal regarding impact to other wildlife. There is no indication in the appeal and no comm unication from the Department of Wildlife as to what other wildlife are on the site or any impacts that would result from the development. Jim Pearson pointed out that the restrictions on development as well as the Bald Eagle Management Plan will provide protection for other types of wildlife on the site. Another issue raised on appeal is archaeological resources. It came out last year that there is a shell midden on the site. This is an area where native Americans lived over a long period of time. Mr. Phillips was advised of this and he hired Dr. Gary Wesson, an Archeologist, to do an assessment. Based on Dr. Wesson's assessment there is a fairly significant archaeological area on Lots 6 and 7 and he recommends a 125 foot buffer of that area that can not be developed, unless an extensive assessment of the site is done according to State regulations. The appeal states that this should have been a 200 foot buffer. The Planning staff relied on Dr. Wesson's recommendation. As far a water quality, there is a shellfish lease adjacent to the area and the Planning Department has relied on the judgment of the Health Department regarding the impact from septic systems. . The Chairman swore in Linda Atkins, Jefferson County Environmental Health Specialist for the on-site septic program. Linda Atkins reported that the Health Department utilizes the State on-site sewage disposal regulations for evaluation of designs submitted for on-site sewage disposal systems. There are specific setback requirements from surface waters (both marine and fresh), wells, cut banks, and any other source of water that may con- tribute to surface water. The regulations have an element of safety built into them and the Health Department evaluates designs submitted within those guidelines. On-site sewage disposal regulations have specific limitations for systems installed on slopes over 45%. There are increasing depths of soil required for systems installed on slopes. She noted that anyon-site septic system would have to meet those criteria. No designs have been submitted for Health Department review yet. Chairman Wojt asked if there has been any discussion with the project proponent about a community drainfield for the lots on this project? Linda Atkins stated that any site can be reviewed with that in mind. That might be a suitable solution for the lots that have steep slopes on them. That would be up to the lot owners or the project proponent to evaluate. One of the proposed revised mitigations is that the applicant will apply for and receive septic approval on all lots, prior to final plat approval. Jim Pearson further explained that the applicant has agreed to identify areas and get septic approval prior to final plat approval. This is not required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Jim Pearson then presented a letter from Jim Donaldson of the North Canal Shellfish Coalition, who participated in meetings with the applicant and other interested parties. The letter indicates that these meetings were fruitful and that the groups most serious concerns have been addressed. He further noted that there has been development along Dabob Bay and other places in the County that has resulted in impacts to shellfish. He emphasized that a lot of that development occurred under previous subdivision ordinances where the County did not review five acre tracts, or road construction. There were also different septic regulations in place then. He feels it would not be fair to compare this development to ones done in the past that have not received the scrutiny that this project has and are fundamentally different. Chairman Wojt asked the project proponent if he wished to make a presentation? lVOL 19 rAŒ517 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 8 The Chairman swore in Gary Phillips, 450 Penny Creek Road, Quilcene. Mr. Phillips reviewed a plat map and explained that the common area, the 50 foot riparian areas, and the buffer areas on the lots (75 feet on Lot 8; 125 feet on lots 6 and 7; 125 feet on Lot 5; and 125 feet on lots 1 through 4) into a conservation easement to the Jefferson County Land Trust. After the common area and buffers are taken out of this parcel there is about 10.8 acres that will actually be impacted by development. Chairman Wojt asked if consideration has been given to not including the property in buffers and common areas in the deeds to lot owners? Gary Phillips stated that these areas will be conservation easements, per an agreement with the North Hood Canal Shellfish Coalition. Mr. Phillips continued by pointing out that there can be no further subdivision of any properties in the 50 acre parcel. The Land Trust would make the decision on whether logging could occur in the future within the common area. Nothing can happen in the 125 feet of Lots 6 and 7 where the midden piles are located. The Tribes were asked if they would like to dig the midden areas, but they did not respond to that offer. There has been significant historical disturbance to the midden area. The area was logged twice all the way to the beach. Mr. Wesson's assessment was that this area was used seasonally. The most dense part of the midden was found on the shoreline. Mr. Phillips explained that the road was laid out by Morey Anderson in the late 1950's or early 1960's at the request of a previous Board of County Commissioners because there is County land located next to this property. Road builders from this area have walked the site and feel that the road can be built as proposed. Much of the land to the north and south of this site has been developed into five acre tracts. He noted that easements will allow septic drainfields in the common area. Jeff Drabing. Northwestern Territories in Port Angeles acting as engineers and surveyors for Mr. Phillips. Mr. Drabing was sworn in by the Chairman. He explained that addition- al septic soil investigation has not been performed because access to the site is difficult. The probability of community systems on this project site is quite high. Road building, if performed in a suitable manner, can be done and not significantly impact the water quality or shellfish. A state of the art stormwater detention, drainage and sedimentation plan has been developed and submitted to the Public Works Department for approval. Chairman Wojt asked how much maintenance this system will require of the lot owners? The system will include two or three sedimentation ponds, Mr. Drabing answered. Maintenance will include cleaning out the ponds and the project proponent has agreed to having it inspected on a regular basis. There shouldn't be any sediment in the outfall from the ponds. The sides where the outfall would come into the creek bed would be armored and protected so that erosion shouldn't occur. Chairman Wojt asked what would happen to this system when all of the lots are sold and Mr. Phillips is no longer involved? Gary Phillips explained that a Homeowners Associa- tion will be responsible for the management of this plan. There will be a mandatory maintenance contract. The first five years Ken Brooks will inspect the site at least annually. After that time there will be a maintenance agreement with a local contractor that will be financed by the Homeowners Association dues. This is in concert with the road maintenance agreement that will have to be established. Mark Huth asked if Mr. Drabing had submitted a preliminary report on the roads? Jeff Drabing answered that he submitted a geotechnical report which is included in the Com- missioners packet. Peter Bahls asked when the geotechnical report was submitted? Mr. Drabing noted that the reported is dated April 23, 1992 and was submitted to Gary Phillips and the County at that time. l VOL 1 9 r~G~ 518 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 9 Jeffrev Delia asked if they took into consideration that the shellfish beds would be im- pacted because they are at the bottom of a steep slope? Mr. Drabing stated that the geotechnical report was prepared by Blaze Selwick of NT!. Other more technically qualified staff reviewed the information. He added that he feels the concerns regarding shellfish have been addressed through adequate mitigation. Mark Huth asked who Mr. Selwick is? Jeff Drabine.: answered that he is a geotechnical engineer on the staff at Northwestern Territories, Inc. He took samples and walked around the site. Commissioner Hinton noted that the information provided by Mr. Phillips that the open space area would be turned over to the Land Trust is not indicated in the Planning staff report. Gary Phillips clarified that this was an agreement made between him and the Shellfish Coalition. Ken Brooks. 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend stated that he has a doctorate in Marine Biology from the University of Washington. The Chairman swore in Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks continued by explaining that Gary Phillips asked him to assess the fisheries potential of the two streams and the tidelands adjoining the site. The stream branches appear to be spring fed from high up. The stream flow, after a significant amount of snow melt and rain, measured about 1 cubic foot per second (cfs). In terms of fisheries, the gravel bar and lower areas of the stream were examined for redds associated with Chum and Cutthroat salmon. The grade is low through the lower portion and steeper in the upper portions of the streams. The stream is thermally moderated by the spring source with a temperature of about 42 degrees, even after the snow melt. On the northern branch of the stream there is a three to four foot vertical drop which technically blocks any fisheries migration above that point. The stream is about a foot wide and two inches deep. Mr. Brooks continued by explaining that he believes the lower reaches of the streams could be enhanced to provide some kind of a Cutthroat or Chum fishery. He discussed the stream with Tim Rymer from the State Department of Wildlife, who indicated that he found one two to three inch Cutthroat in the lower sections of the stream. Mr. Brooks' basic assessment is that this stream has minimal value as a fishery. Randy Johnson of the State Department of Fisheries was not interested in trying to enhance the Chum fisheries in it. Mr. Brooks noted that his biggest concern in terms of the current project is the road crossings. These must be done very carefully. There is little evidence of active erosion on the steep bluff adjoining the beach, however the topsoils in the area are loosely con- solidated and they are subject to mass wasting. He recommends that the bluff area be disturbed as little as possible. The major danger to the shellfish beds will be from either a mass failure of the bluff, or the mass failure at one of the road crossings due to a culvert being blocked. He recommends that in the upper area of the streams that the fish passage not be a primary consideration, but that getting the water safely under the road be the primary consideration. Chairman Wojt asked what is normally done to accomplish that? Ken Brooks responded that he is not an engineer, but he has seen the placement of railroad ties at an angle across the culvert so that any debris that washes down during high flows will have a tendency to wash up on top of the culvert and not into it. Mr. Phillips has indicated that he is willing to incorporate safety measures to prevent a mass failure at the road crossings. Chairman Wojt asked if these safety features are part of the mitigative measures agreed to by Mr. Phillips? Gary Phillips reported that he had an FP A (Forest Practice Application) to build the road in 1991, but they didn't do that because they were advised by the Planning Department to incorporate that in the development process. They also had two HPA (Hydraulic Permits) to make two stream crossings with 36 inch pipes. A watershed analysis done by David Evans and Associates indicated that 36 inch pipe should be used. lVOL 19 f"G~519 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 10 Since then the updated design will use 72 inch pipes. This size pipe will flow four times more water and debris than a 36 inch pipe. Aluminum pipe will be used because the soil is acidic and it will last about 30 years. Realignment of the pipes can be done three or four times without having to do any excavation. Ken Brooks concluded his testimony by saying that there is a great deal of history in Puget Sound of upland development followed by the decertification of adjoining shellfish beds. He has been working for over a year on the certification of a portion of Dyes Inlet. It's only been in the last three months that the State Department of Health has agreed that shellfish culture and suburbanization can be compatible. He feels that development can be done in a way that will allow the safe harvest of shellfish. He recommended to Mr. Phillips that some kind of intermediate term monitoring of this project be done to deter- mine if the mitigation is maintained and working. Mark Huth asked Mr. Brooks the following: Q. Do you have a specialized focus in stream bed analysis? A. Ken Brooks answered that he has done stream bed analysis professionally for four years. Q. In your work to re-certify Dyes Inlet, are you working as a consultant or for the State government? A. Ken Brooks answered that he is working as a consultant on that project. Q. Have you published any articles regarding this particular subject? A. No. Q. Have you testified in court regarding this subject? A. Yes. Peter Bahls asked if Mr. Brooks had done an assessment of slope stability? Ken Brooks reported he had not. He explained that he walked the beach and both branches of the stream. He did not traverse the areas where the homes will be built. He looked at the road crossings. Mr. Bahls asked the content of the conversation about slope stability Mr. Brooks said he had with the engineer? Ken Brooks responded that conversation had to do primarily with his concerns about the road crossings and that they be well engineered and that consideration be given to the potential for failure of the crossing and the resulting impacts on both the downstream channel and the shellfish beds Peter Bahls asked if the geotechnical report was done by an engineer, a geologist or a hydrologist? The report was done by a registered geological engineer, Ken Brooks advised. Jeffrey Delia asked if monitoring will take place during times of possible failure? Ken Brooks stated that the monitoring is not to give immediate notice of a failure, it is to insure that the structures that are designed and placed to prevent such a failure are properly maintained. Mr. Delia asked if Mr. Brooks feels that filling in a stream bed to put a road in is the best alternative in this particular case? In this particular case, Ken Brooks explained that the stream is healthy and not contaminated and he doesn't feel that building the road crossing will significantly impair its function. His primary concern is that the road crossings be constructed as fail safe as current technology allows. The steep banks and crossing distances, particularly in the upper stream areas, mean that bridges aren't a feasible alternative. The fill in this area if it is done with adequate consideration to getting the water downstream in a safe way, does not cause him any concern. Peter Bahls asked if the potential fishery in this area is Chum salmon? Ken Brooks stated that he doesn't feel that this stream ever supported a significant fishery. Chum salmon can spawn in intertidal areas where there is a flow of fresh water. This is a fairly exposed beach and is mostly sand and gravel. In an area like this the substrate moves around and interdict the fishery. He doesn't believe there is sufficient flow in the stream to support adult salmon. A six pound salmon cannot swim upstream and spawn in two inches of water. t~Ol 19 rAG~ 520 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 11 Gary Phillips concluded his testimony by stating that they have offered to have a group such as the Wild Olympic Salmon do a salmon enhancement project in the lower area of the stream. Mark Ruth asked Gary Phillips the following questions: Q. Are the portions of the map colored aqua the two stream beds being discussed? A. Yes. Q. Is the shaded area between the aqua colored portions the proposed buffer area? A. Yes, that is 50 feet on either side of the stream. Q. In lots 6 and 7 there is a pink colored portion, what does that indicate? A. That is the set aside area, 125 feet back from the shoreline, for the midden piles. Q. In lot 8 there is a bright green area that also extends into lots 7 and 6, what is that area? A. That is the natural vegetation area. Q. How large is that? A. That's 75 feet. Q. Are the brown areas the proposed roads? A. Correct. Q. The shaded area to the lower right hand side that is outlined in a mid-range green, what is that area? A. That's the area managed under the Eagle Management Plan. Q. The green outlined area to the left on the map, is that the common area? A. That's correct. Peter Bahls asked if there is a 200 foot buffer area that does not appear on the map. Gary Phillips reported that is correct. That area is on Lot 5 (125 foot buffer) and on lots 1 through 4 (200 foot buffer) measured back from the shoreline, was part of the final mitigated DNS. Peter Bahls asked if these lines (the 200 feet and 125 feet) have been surveyed? Gary Phillips answered no. Jeffrey Delia asked if the 200 feet is measured horizontally from a point? Mr. Drabing reported that the measurement is horizontal as specified in the Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Delia asked if there would be enough building space on the lots with these buffers? Gary Phillips reported that in many places on these lots the building spaces won't be within 300 feet of the shoreline. Chairman Wojt asked how the mitigation for this reads? Jim Pearson reported that the 200 foot buffer will be measured from the ordinary high water mark. The Shoreline Act applies to areas within 200 feet of the shoreline. On lots 1 through 4 there will be no development within 200 feet of the shoreline. The Chairman swore in Jeffrey Delia, 1321 Dabob Post Office Road, Quilcene and Peter Bahls, Habitat Biologist with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries, P.O. Box 280 Kingston, W A 98346. Peter Bahls reported that he and Jeffrey Delia are representing the Dabob Bay Coalition on this appeal. Dabob Bay is an important Tribal shellfish area. The tribes have federally recognized treaty rights to shellfish and their policy is one of no net loss of fishery resources. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Tribes own property 'on the beach in this area? Mr. Bahls responded that they do not, but that the Tribes have rights to harvest shellfish. Commissioner Huntingford said that he didn't realize that issue had been decided on private beaches. Peter Bahls clarified that the Tribes have these rights on State owned lands. The treaty rights are to harvest fish, shellfish and wildlife resources in the usual and accustomed area which includes upper Hood Canal. LVOL 19 rA{;~ 521 ... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 12 He stated that they appreciate Mr. Phillips working with the North Canal Shellfish Co- alition and the Tribes and the Treaty Council. They presented a list of proposed mitiga- tion for this project and even though those mitigations are part of this they don't do enough to prevent significant impacts. The Shellfish Coalition later agreed to some additional conditio~s, however the Treaty Council and the Tribes still feel that they are insufficient to prevent significant impacts. He added that what is typical in a case like this would be for the Board to visit the site. The basis for their appeal, Mr. Bahls continued, is: a) probable significant adverse impact on the environment; b) insufficient information was provided to make a determination of non-sig- nificance; and c) the SEPA determination is not in compliance with the Shoreline Management Master Program and the State Shorelines Act. They are requesting that the determination of non significance be withdrawn and either a determination of significance be issued or the proposal be withdrawn and re-submitted with relocation of roads and lots to adequately protect the environment. A determination of significance does not stop the project, but does require the applicant to conduct further environmental review. Mr. Delia then presented and explained slides taken of Dabob Bay, his oyster business and the proposal site. Tim Rvmer. State Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Biologist, 412 Cedar Park Drive, Port Angeles, was sworn in. He explained that he has done this type of work for about 17 years. There is an Eagle Management Plan for this area. He is not an Eagle biologist and those issues are handled by other Department staff. He noted however that there are other wildlife resources on this property. An Eagle Management Plan is not done to benefit or protect other wildlife resources. Mr. Kalinowski's letter (dated March 29, 1993) lists several species that may use this site which include Pileated Woodpecker, Band-tailed pigeons, Osprey, and herons. The State Department of Wildlife doesn't have the resources to do a survey of the wildlife use patterns on this property. It is likely that these species may use this area. With the amount of disturbance which will be caused by this develop- ment, there will be a reduction in the amount of use by the wildlife resources. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the amount of open space is adequate for this develop- ment? Mr. Rymer stated that the amount of open space is good, but it has been logged and once the trees grow back the area will become devoid of habitat for almost all species. This area could be managed so that it would provide good habitat for wildlife in the future. With regard to fisheries, Mr. Rymer stated that he agrees with much of what Mr. Brooks stated. He saw fish in the stream. He noted that permits will be required from the Department of Wildlife for the stream crossings and the road. There were permits issued in the past and additional information has come to light since that time and it is likely that the Department of Wildlife may look at requiring other crossing structures besides culverts. Under SEP A the Department may require wider buffers along the stream for protection and to provide large wood to be incorporated into the stream for fish habitat. The Department has concerns that they don't feel have been adequately addressed and they may require these items in their permitting process. With respect to road building in this type of ground, no one intends for things to go wrong, but unfortunately that will happen. They are extremely concerned because of the steepness of the site, the soils (they are very unstable), and the potential impacts to the fisheries resource not only in the streams, but in Hood Canal and Dabob Bay. Commissioner Huntil'lgford asked why, if there is so much concern now, the Department didn't come forward earlier in the process? Tim Rymer stated that he met several years ago with Mr. Phillips on the site but he did not have any of the local history of the area, in terms of oyster resources, and the soils in the area. He wrote permits on the informa- 'VOL 19 r~cc522 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 13 tion that a couple of homesites would be involved. When he understood that it would be a different proposal than that, the Department notified Mr. Phillips that they could not issue any of their permits until the SEP A process is complete. He added that he was waiting to see what the outcome of the SEP A process is. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Rymer has actually studied the current road proposal? Mr. Rymer reported that he has walked the proposed route of the new road. There is a huge potential for a real problem. He has looked at the crossing sites as proposed. He can't say at this point, that they will issue a permit for a culvert for the roads to cross these streams. Chairman Wojt asked what information Mr. Rymer feels the proponent should provide that hasn't been provided already? Tim Rymer answered that he has not reviewed all of the information provided to the Board. Commissioner Hinton asked Mr. Rymer what he based his judgements on? Mr. Rymer responded that he has been on the site three times. He added that he is here to speak specifically about the impacts to the wildlife and fisheries resources. He explained that he would feel better about a project like this if it didn't have the amount of road and stream crossings this project does. Chairman Wojt asked if Mr. Rymer has any specific information that he would like the proponent to provide? Tim Rymer clarified that he knows that more information is needed than what he's seen provided before any permits are written for stream crossings. Gary Phillips stated that there is approximately 30 acres in the open space common area of which 18 acres was logged. At maximum, less than 20% of the lots will be cleared due to the natural vegetation buffers and clearing limitations that have been placed on the lots. The additional stream crossing was used rather than crossing the area west of Lot 3 which would require that the road be put in on a side hill in an area that is slumping. Mr. Rymer stated that he advised Mr. Handly that this area was a real concern to him. The area is very steep with signs of slides. There is another small tributary at this crossing point (the southern most crossing) that comes in from the south which is not indicated on the map. Peter Bahls asked if comment number one in Stephan Kalinowski's letter (dated March 29, 1993) is the same conclusion Mr. Rymer has made? Mr. Rymer answered yes. Janet Welch, P.O. Box 1221, Port Hadlock, was sworn in and explained that her concern is regarding septic systems. Her concerns are based on two things: 1) slope of the proper- ty, and 2) what areas are left after taking away the unsuitable slopes. It appears that the contours on the subdivision map are not accurate. The great bulk of the property is over 45% slope. Without an accurate contour map it is hard to know what can be done on the site. The soil survey maps indicate the soils on the site are a beausite complex which is a strongly cemented sandstone conglomerate at a depth of 20 to 36 inches. The State regulations that govern siting septic systems require 42" of soil on more than a 30% slope. Her major concern is that there are certain areas where the septic regulations may not adequately address potential impacts from development. One such area is the low lying portions of Lot 6 and 7. The regulations do allow installation of septic systems in flood plains and very close to areas that are subject to seasonal swale runoff. Anytime there is surface water moving close to a drainfield, you run the risk of intercepting the septic effluent. The only treatment of the effluent occurs when the soils are unsaturated. As soon as the effluent moves and hits any water pocket, its not getting any more treatment. It goes from there out to the beach without any more treatment. In cases where there is commercial shellfish beds adjacent, there is a really high risk. She concluded by noting from her standpoint there are risks involved with putting a septic system in the lower areas. The upper areas are probably fine if you can find deep enough soil. Gary Phillips asked if Ms. Welch has been on the site? Janet Welch reported that she wandered around the lower area with Mr. Delia. Gary Phillips stated that he feels that the agreement made to have the septic system approved for each site prior to final approval should answer most of these concerns. 'VOL 19 r~G"523 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 14 Mark Huth asked what book Ms. Welch was reading from? Janet Welch reported that she was referring to the Jefferson County Soil Survey by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Mark Huth asked if she is a member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission? Janet Welch indicated that is correct. Mark Huth then asked if she is in the business of design- ing septic systems, for how long she has done that and what degrees she has? Janet Welch answered that she has had her own septic design business for four years. She has a Bachelors of Science degree and is a Registered Sanita~ian in the State of Washington. Peter Bahls asked if there is some way to get an idea if this property is suitable for septic systems without building the roads on the property? Janet Welch stated that she feels it is possible, but it would take a lot of leg work. She feels it is possible to get 8 septic systems on that parcel. Peter Bahls asked Ms. Welch if she felt that the SEPA determina- tion of non-significance should have been approved with the level of information provided? Janet Welch stated t~at she isn't aware of the information that has been provided. Commissioner Huntingford stated that Ken Brooks testified that the stream is only a foot wide by three inches deep, and Tim Rymer said that large organic debris should be placed in the stream. How can large organic debris be placed in this stream? Ken Brooks answered that he also recommended large organic debris be placed in the lower stretches of the stream to create a series of small pools, 12 to 14 inches deep. He added that he disagrees with the idea that there is a great deal of sedimentation occurring because of this stream. Jeffrey Delia stated that there have been times when he has not be able to get across that stream in a four wheel drive vehicle. This stream has the potential to be more than a small flow of water. Merle Winjum, C/O Olympia Oyster Company P.O. Box 481, Quilcene, was sworn in. Mr. Winjum stated there have been several references to the Shellfish Coalition. He reported that the Phillips proposal was discussed at several of their meetings and they were glad when Mr. Phillips agreèd to attend two of their meetings. The result of those meet- ings was a list of proposed mitigation which went beyond those proposed by the Planning Department. He then read from a letter sent by the Shellfish Coalition which said "it however, this project does have an adverse impact on the shellfish resource, we feel the developer should be liable." The agreement with Mr. Phillips was reached on the basis of a majority vote. It was not a unanimous decision of the Coalition. The shellfish growers are business people too, and they do not wish to put anyone out of business or complicate their business. It's just that their business relies on clean water. Chairman Wojt asked what information Mr. Winjum feels the project proponent should provide that hasn't been provided already? Mr. Winjum answered that they are concerned with the roads and the possible impacts from storm events on the adjacent tidelands. To ask for more would be to ask God not to have any more storm events. He is at a loss to know what to request in the way of further information. Peter Bahls advised that the burden of the appellant is to show that the determination of non-significance should not have been issued and a determination of significance should have been. This proposal requires further review. Mark Huth asked if there is a written document listing the mitigation agreed to by Mr. Phillips and the Shellfish Coalition? Mr. Winjum and Gary Phillips responded that there is a written document. Rick Olsen. 791 Piper Road, Quilcene, was sworn in. He reported that he is an oyster farmer, a member of the Shellfish Coalition and he is not opposed to this project. He is concerned with the road crossings. A 40 foot deep crossing is a massive amount of mud. Mr. Phillips did indicate that he may bring in some material from off site which would go a long way toward relieving his concerns. Large rock would be expensive, but it would t VOL 19 rAG~ 524 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 15 not move as quickly as sand and silt and the type of soils that are on the site. He would like to see the County ask for technical assistance from the State Department Ecology. The stream is classified as a type 3 under Forest Practices, but under the Washington State Surface Water Quality Control Standards it is classified as a type AA stream because it flows into type AA water which is Hood Canal. This stream should have the same types of buffers and protection that larger type AA rivers receive (the Dosewallips, the Duck- abush, the Hamma Hamma, the Big and Little Quilcene rivers). He is also concerned that his family continue to have the opportunity to have this type of business in the future. Gary Phillips said that it is his understanding that the stream is a Type 5. Mr. Olson stated that it is his understanding that when they found fish in the stream it went to a Type 3. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the water quality rating (AA) has nothing to do with the class of the stream. Peter Bahls added that when fish were found in the stream it is automatically a type 3 or more. An application would have to be submitted by Tim Rymer indicating that fish were found in the stream. Commissioner Huntingford asked if that means the stream could be a type 3 where the fish were found (lower portion) and a type 5 above that area? Peter Bahls indicated that is correct. Gary Phillips added that the deepest fill, as noted in the culvert profiles, is 18 feet. They were going to see what native material is available, and if there isn't an adequate amount then fill will be brought in. Ken Brooks stated that the presence of fish in the stream does not automatically change the classification of the stream. Peter Bahls reported that is true and that Tim Rymer would have to submit a stream re-classification application. Ken Brooks noted that he feels the upper regions of the stream are a type 5 because they do not flow in the sum- mertime. Peter Bahls asked if Mr. Olson has had any sediment problems on his beach which is about a mile on the shoreline from this project, even though there is a different project above his beach. Rick Olson stated that he can not address that issue because at some point in the future they will be in the same process. Julie Jaman. Olympic Environmental Council, 790 McMinn Road, Port Townsend was sworn in. She noted that the OEC concerns are specifically with the steepness of the slopes and, the side cuts required for the roads which raises the specter of potentially devastating siltation downstream onto the shellfish beaches. The stream crossings with culverts and fill are another concern. Sooner or later those culverts will blowout. The Commissioners have heard over and over again that the map that is being used is not accurate. It's not accurate for streams, or contours and the question is what else isn't accurate? Correct information is needed about the slope stability and the steepness of the slopes. There are questions about the intent to cut natural vegetation. It is clear that there are logging practices that have already had impact on this area and leave the potential for the damages being discussed to occur. The final question is who bears the responsibility and maintenance for contingencies on these kinds of failures? What are the long term impacts and wpat are the liabilities? Who bears the responsibility and liability if damage occurs? Gary Phillips stated that culverts are what are used on 99% of all stream crossing. The 10% cutting allowed within the buffer area is for view only and not for commercial harvest. The burden of repairs on this private road will be supported by the Homeowners Association. After discussion of how much testimony is still to be presented, Commissioner Hinton moved to continue the hearing to Monday June 14, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. lVOL 19 rAG: 525 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 16 The Board recessed for the day after the hearing was continued and reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday June 8, 1993 to discuss the following items. All three Board members were present. Plannin2 Director Crai2 Ward re:' Expiration of the Interim Zonin2 Or- dinance: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth advised that the law was changed after the County adopted the Interim Zoning Ordinance to require that a public hearing be held within 60 days after the adoption of an interim control ordinance, if one wasn't held beforehand. He recommends that if the intent is to renew the Interim Zoning Ordinance that a public hearing be held on the intent to extend it. The emergency continues to exist because the consultant hired to do the environmental review of the Development Code and all land use control alternatives was killed in a car accident and another consultant had to be hired to perform that review. Chairman Wojt asked the consequences of not continuing the Interim Zoning Ordinance? Mark Huth reported that the County would have no development permit system except under building permits, the Comprehensive Plan and the SEP A process (structures under 4,000 square feet are exempt from SEPA.) It would mean that any project could be placed anywhere in the County which would affect property values, particularly since under Growth Management the County will have to identify places where development can take place. Planning Director Craig Ward reported that there are policies and standards within the Interim Zoning Ordinance which implement the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Huntingford stated that everything under the Interim Zoning Ordinance appears to be a condition use. Craig Ward reported that there are many projects that are approved ad- ministratively that the Board never sees. The conditional use permits are reviewed by the Board. Craig Ward reported that the DEIS on the Development Code will be delivered before the end of month. The maps will be completed by the end of the month. Once the draft EIS is complete, the County has 90 days to complete the final EIS. Chairman Wojt pointed out that once the process is complete and if the Development Code is reinstated it will mean that there will be developments vested under three different sets of regulations. The discussion continued regarding the options available. Craig Ward reported that if the Board would like to schedule a hearing it would have to be advertised one time, ten days before the hearing. This would mean, if the hearing notice was published next Wednesday that the hearing could be held on June 28, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the public hearing on the Interim Zoning Or- dinance for June 29, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Plannine Director Craie Ward. Buildine Official Mike Ajax. and Emer- eency Manaeement Coordinator. Bob Minty re: Open Burnine Guidelines: Building Official Mike Ajax reported that the State DNR has always handled permits for open burning in the County. The DNR has changed their regulations regarding controlled burning which eliminates permits being issued to lands that do not pay forest taxes. This puts the home owner in non-forest taxed land in the position to burn illegally or not at all. The Fire Districts could take over issuing burning permits but all of the Districts in the County are run by volunteers except Port Ludlow, which means there isn't anyone avail- able to issue permits. Emergency Services Coordinator Bob Minty reported that the County's Burn Policy must be in place eight months after the policy guidelines are issued by the State. He reported that burning permits have to be issued by either local air authorities, the County, conser- viation districts, the fire districts or the State Department of Ecology. The regulations include the number or days per year a person can burn. After the year 2000 there will be ! voc 1 9 r~{' 526 " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 17 no burning allowed in any urban growth area or city with 10,000 population or more. Commissioner Huntingford reported that he has been told that Mason County has an agreement with DNR that allows them to handle burn permits for the County. Planning Department Director Craig Ward asked the Board what staff person they feel should take the lead on this matter? The Building Official is the County's Fire Marshall and the County's Safety Officer (in the Sheriff's Department) is also involved. The Board stated that the information is needed and they will leave it up to the departments to determine who is the lead on this. Sheriff Mel Mefford stated that there are seven Fire District's in this County and all but one of them are manned by volunteers. The people call the Sheriff's Department because they can't reach anyone at many of the rural Fire Districts. Kent DeWitt, Port Ludlow Fire Chief, explained that in a City the Fire Department is the enforcment agency for fire issues, in the County the Fire District is charged with fire suppression, not enforcement. He then explained the way fire permits are handled in Thurston County fire districts through the use of volunteer Fire Wardens. Sheriff Mel Mefford volunteered to allow Bob Minty to attend the workshop in Olympia. Chester Prudhomme. Substance Abuse Director and Kellie Raean re: Teen Center Fundine: Bob Richardson, Juvenile Probation Counselor, reported that he works with 15 children who are "at risk" and use the Teen Center as a place to do community service work. There are between 20 and 30 teens using the Center every day· that it is open. The Center is a drug and alcohol free zone. It is the only place in the County that gives teens a place to go instead of hanging out on the streets. He feels it would be a real tragedy if the Teen Center were to close. He urged the Commissioners to seriously consider the funding for this Center in light of the positive impact it has on the youth in that community. Chester Prudhomme, Substance Abuse Director for the County, introduced Warren Steurer, County Recreation Director; Chuck Russell, business owner in Port Hadlock; Michelle Sanchez, staff member of the Teen Center; Ann Burns, member of the Coyote Foundation Board; and three students from Chimacum School (Tiffany, Tyler and Rochelle). The Teen Center is filling a gap in the community. It has been funded through a start up grant from the State that is no longer available. The plan is to get the funding of the Teen Center from the private sector and the Coyote Foundation is working toward that. Ann Burns reported that the Teen Center provides support for teens who may not be involved in other activities. Warren Steurer stated that the County, through this Teen Center provides teens with a place to go that hasn't been available before. The Teen Center provides useful and productive activities for the teens who use it. There is wide community support for the Center. Chester Prudhomme stressed that even though this Teen Center is to provide activities for "at risk" youth, it is for all teens. Michelle Sanchez stated that she doesn't feel that the Teen Center is curing all the prob- lems in Port Hadlock. There is a real need for a better look at ways to provide for the needs in this area. Youth are facing many risks, nationwide. A coordinated effort is needed to address the problems teens are having. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Teen Center will be open longer during the summer when school's out? Michelle Sanchez reported they plan to stay open longer if the County approves the funding request. tVOL 19 r~.G~ 527 -------~ , , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 1993 Page: 18 Chester Prudhomme explained that they are asking for $6,000 from the County. The balance of the funding will be requested from UGN, the local community, and State grants. This funding, if approved, would allow continued operation of the Teen Center through the end of 1994. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the payment of $6,000 from the Community Services Fund for the Port Hadlock Teen Center. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: MEETING ADJOURNED ATTEST: éldu{l.~~ o!J~ rna L. Del ney, .I ~erk of the Board LVOl 19 r~c~528