Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072693 c..¿~ 'V" ~ò~ M I N UTES WEEK OF JULY 26,1993 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt, in the presence of Commis- sioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford. The Board met in executive session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding litigation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Commissioners' Briefin2 Session: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the garbage from Seagull Field, the Quilcene Little League fields and the Quilcene Cemetery has been dumped free of charge. With the new Solid Waste fees and the problems with the solid waste budget, this practice needs to be reviewed. He asked what budget these charges should be paid from? Commissioner Hinton suggested that the bills be sent back to the Public Works Department to handle within the Solid Waste budget. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were commented on: Support for a public trail from the City to Adelma Beach, the need for the raise in Solid Waste fees, the impressive way the Recycling Center is operated and erosion and contamination problems on a parcel of private property. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve as corrected the minutes of July 19, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Plannin2 Department Findin2s and Recommendation; Preliminary Subdivision LP- 03-93; Develop a 20 Acre Parcel into a 4 Lot Lon2 Plat; Ea21emount Road; Don Lofall. Ap- plicant: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reviewed this preliminary subdivision of a 20 acre parcel in the Eaglemount Road area into four lots. This project has been reviewed by the Planning Department staff who found it to be consistent with the requirements for a large lot subdivision under the Subdivision Ordinance and recommend preliminary plat approval. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there was no response from the Chimacum School District on this subdivision. He asked if the School District was notified of this subdivision? Jerry Smith reported that the School District was notified about this subdivision, but they have not been responding on subdivisions of this nature and size. They have been commenting on larger subdivisions. VDL 1 ,~ L >7'''9 r.~G~ j.~ t r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 2 Commissioner Huntingford moved for approval of the preliminary subdivision as recommended. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion for discussion. He asked if the active recreation area of a subdivision can be reduced in size? Jerry Smith reported that the ordinance requires a minimum of 10% in dedicated open space, with 30% of that area to be reserved for active recreational pursuits. The applicant can request a reduction in the size of the active open space area to as low as 0%. This request can be made now or before the final subdivision approval. Commissioner Hinton then asked about Condition number 8, which says that the road maintenance agreement must be reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney and approved by the Board of Commissioners? Jerry Smith reported that there is a requirement that all private roads be maintained. This is a standard condition for a road maintenance agreement. The Prosecuting Attorney reviews the maintenance agreement language to make sure that it is legally correct. Commissioner Hinton then noted that condition number 16.c. says that prior to any clearing or filling on the site, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed to the standards of the State and submitted to the Public Works Department. He feels that this condition should indicate that an erosion and sediment control plan only be required prior to development. The Public Works Department has revised the standard condition wording to reflect this. Commissioner Hinton moved to amend the motion to revise the wording of condition number 16(c) to say that an erosion and sediment control plan be required prior to development of the lots. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Examiner Recommendation; Conditional Use Permit IZ-37-93 for a Bed and Breakfast in the General Use Zone; Center Road in Quilcene; Jim and Delores Haley: Jerry Smith reported that Jim and Delores Haley are proposing to ·convert two bedrooms in their existing single family residence in Quilcene for use as a bed and breakfast. Concerns were raised by adjacent property owners at the hearing regarding compatibility with farming, and impacts to property values. The hearing examiner reviewed this project, the testimony, and concerns and recommends approval of this conditional use permit. Delores Haley stated that opening a bed and breakfast in their home has been their dream for the past five years. They feel that the type of people that come to a bed and breakfast want to get away from the city and relax. They don't consider their bed and breakfast a destination resort. This is one way to bring character to Quilcene and to encourage people to stay and spend some money. Kristy Ackerman stated that she feels her property value will go down because her property would be located next to a bed and breakfast. She said that her farm and logging operations generate a lot of noise and she feels that may bother anyone staying at the bed and breakfast. She added that she does not want to tie up her property because of the well radius needed for the Haley's well. Chairman Wojt asked if the well has been in place for a number of years? Kristy Ackerman reported that is correct. Chairman Wojt explained that the regulations require a well protective radius for new wells not existing wells. Chairman Wojt asked KristyAckerman how this bed and breakfast would impact her property values? Kristy Ackerman responded that she feels people with families would not want to purchase her property if a bed and breakfast is next door. She added that she wants the Haley's to know up front that their operations make noise. Delores Haley stated that the only noise they hear from the Ackerman's is the lawn mower which is to be expected. She added that if the noise increases, from any part of the neighborhood, once they open their bed and breakfast, they would feel it was being done on purpose. She added they have children living on three sides of their residence and there have never been any problems with noise. La V erle Ackerman stated that she lives next to Kristy and they have all kinds of logging and other equipment going between their places all the time and the machinery is noisy. She added that it is not known what kind of people will use this bed and breakfast. She feels that they will complain about the noise. Chairman Wojt noted that the complaints would have to come from the Haley's because anyone using the bed and breakfast wouldn't come back or recommend the bed and breakfast to their friends if they had a problem with the noise. Commissioner Huntingford added that it sounds as if the Haley's know the sounds in the area and have accepted that. l VOL 1 9 rAC~ 720 r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 3 James Haley stated that they can live with any noise that is legal and proper in a residential community. They ask that the noise level be kept to what is normal for a residential community and during the hours that would be appropriate for that activity. Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels that condition 5 gives the Planning Department staff to much discretion with regard to hours of operation. He added that he doesn't know how a bed and breakfast can expect to operate on a specific schedule. Jerry Smith reported that the ordinance says that the Planning Department will review each noise complaint created by the bed and breakfast. Any complaints are reviewed with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Department Director to decide what, if any action will be taken. He added that the wording in this condition is based on the standards in the ordinance for bed and breakfast establishments. The condition has to do with noise generated from the bed and breakfast, not noise generated outside the bed and breakfast. Commissioner Hinton then asked if Condition 7 is a standard from the ordinance? Jerry Smith reported that the ordinance requires provision for adequate on-site parking to be designated by appropriate means. It does not require striping or wheel stops as stated in this condition. Delores Haley stated that she interpreted this condition to mean that a sign to mark the parking space for each room must be installed. Commissioner Hinton then asked if Condition 8 means that all existing outdoor lighting fixtures have to be hooded? Jerry Smith reported that only new lighting fixtures have to be hooded. Jerry Smith will reword this condition to reflect when hooded fixtures are required. Chairman Wojt asked if these changes are considered substantial, and if they would require the Board to hold its own hearing? Jerry Smith stated that it is his opinion that the Board has clarified existing conditions as recommended by the Hearing Examiner and that would not require another public hearing. He will review these changes with the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Hinton moved to adopt the findings, conditions as amended (Conditions 5 and 8), and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT re: Consultant Work on Plat Processin2; ShockevlBrent: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reviewed the scope of work for this plat processing work by Shockey Brent. He reported that Shockey Brent has revised their cost estimate. The current cost estimate is $13,464.00 which includes a 10% contingency. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the contract at the new cost estimate. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Harriet Small. Chairman. Port Townsend Community Center Advisorv Board and Facilities Mana2er Warren Steurer re: Community Center Grant Request: Warren Steurer introduced Harriet Small and Harold Gruver, members of the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Board to discuss a grant request. Harriet Small reported that the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Board is budgeted $4,000 each year for projects such as signs and minor repairs at the Center. The big complaint over the years has been the acoustics in the large dining room. That room was to be carpeted in the original Center plans, but because of lack of money, that was not done. The Advisory Board has come up with several proposals to help the acoustics in this room, but they are not experts and they feel that a professional should review the situation and determine the best way to correct it. It is expected that this professional will cost about $500.00. They would like the County to hold over their $4,000 for this year until next year so, with next year's allocation, the problem can be addressed appropriately. The Board concurred that this amount be held over. Harold Gruver stated that the Advisory Board would like the Commissioners to write to the Port Townsend Seniors to address how the building will be manned on the weekends. After discussion of the needs, the Chairman asked that the Advisory Board review the needs further and make specific recommendations to address them. ~ VOL 1 9 fA('~ 721 r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 4 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve items 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and to delete items 1 and 4. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (Items 3, 5, 6, and 7 are addressed later in the minutes.) 1. DELETE Hearing Notice re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision to Deny a Building Permit; To Convert an Existing Gas Station to a Retail Food Store; Quilcene; Marion Lakenes 2. Reappointment to the Stormwater Management Advisory Board; Perry Spring to a Three Year Term (Term to expire 7/16/96) AND Approval of Advertisement for Person Interested in Serving in an "At Large" Position 3. SEE BELOW - ORDINANCE NO. _ re: Establishing Fees for the Solid Waste Division; As Approved July 19, 1993 4. DELETE CONTRACT re: Professional Services for Design and Building of the Solid Waste Transfer Station; R.W. Beck 5. SEE BELOW - CONTRACT re: Striping County Roads MT1097; Apply-A-Une, Inc. 6. SEE BELOW - AGREEMENT re: Engineering Services on CR0953; Chimacum Road Improvement; Parametrix, Inc. 7. SEE BELOW - AGREEMENT, Supplement #2, No. CA-111891-1; Continuing Forest Resource Land Analysis and Mapping and Creating Parcel Based GIS Data; Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 8. Approve Public Works Recommendation; Road Easement Width Reductions for Proposed Public and Private Access Easement; Ludlow Point Village Division 4, LP-02-93; Pope Resources 9. HEARING NOTICE re: Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 15-1228-92, the Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule to Add an Item Under Current Use Tax Assessment Applications for Transfer Applications; Setting Hearing for Monday August 16, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 10. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; $390.00 from American Legion Post #26 11. Approval of Final Short Plat SP#03-92; 4 Lot Subdivision Located off of a Private Road in Brinnon; Charles Robinson, Applicant 12. Setting Date for Consideration; Planning Department Findings and Recommendation; Preliminary Subdivision LP04-93 Rasmussen Long Plat; Bob Rasmussen, Applicant; August 2, 1993 at 10.35 a.m. 13. HEARING NOTICE re: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance; Puget Sound Power and Light Shoreline Permit #SDP92-017; Hearing set for Monday August 23, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners' Chambers Establishin2 Fees for the Solid Waste Division; As Approved July 19. 1993: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 06-0726-93 establishing the fees for the solid waste division. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion and called for the vote. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. HEARING re: SEPA Miti2ation and Plat Approval Conditions; Adequate Provisions for Schools and Fire; Inn at Port Ludlow Proiect; Pope Resources: Chairman Wojt reviewed the hearing process and asked the following question: "Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? If there are objections, please state the reason for it." Peter Eglick, Attorney for Chimacum School District stated that they don't have any objection at this point, but they did send a letter to the Prosecuting Attorney two weeks ago asking that information be provided about a meeting that took place between the Commissioners and representatives of the applicant possibly concerning the matter before the Board today. Without that information, they are not able to evaluate what might have occurred and whether matters that might affect the appearance of fairness were taken up at that meeting. He asked that this disclosure be made now. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the purpose of the meeting was an executive session to discuss the filing of a law suit by the Chimacum School District versus the County and Pope Resources based on the approval of the plat. The purpose of the meeting was to form a litigation strategy and how to defend the suit. The meeting did not involve the substance, but the procedure of the matter. Peter Eglick then asked if the idea of whether or not to hold a reconsideration hearing was discussed as a litigation strategy? Mark Huth reported that it was discussed. Mr. Eglick then asked the substance of that discussion and in particular what was said about reconsideration. He also asked who was present at the meeting? Mark Huth asked the Commissioners to place their answers to the following questions on the record: ~ VOL In 1 ~ rM)~ 722 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 5 · As a result of the meeting being referred to, do any of the Commissioners feel they won't be able to decide today's matter fairly? All three Commissioners answered no. · Do any of the Commissioners feel that their ability to reach a decision on the matter before them, will be in any way biased as a result of the executive session that occurred? All three Commissioners answered no. Mark Huth then stated that he would prefer to provide answers to Mr. Eglick's other questions in writing. He stated that the purpose today is to hear facts and not to get into the legal issues surrounding the lawsuit. He advised the Board to move on. Peter Eglick stated that it is important for them to know who was at that meeting. The purpose of the exception (for executive sessions) from the Open Meetings Act, Mark Huth explained is that the entire meeting be privileged so that the County's position regarding litigation isn't disclosed. That is why he prefers to answer in writing. He added that attorneys and clients from both parties were present at the meeting. Paul Bates, Attorney for Pope Resources, stated they have no objection to the Prosecuting Attorney identifying who was at that meeting, now or in writing later. Mark Huth noted that he doesn't remember exactly who was present and that is one reason he will not respond immediately. The purpose of this hearing is not to respond to the litigation, it is part of the plat approval, and he feels sticking to the facts will better serve all the parties involved. His advise to the Commissioners is that the purpose of this meeting is to get facts about, a) whether a direct impact exists with regard to SEP A issues that are before the Board, and b) if that impact exists, what the underlying facts are that could serve to mitigate that impact. Chairman Wojt continued by asking the Board members the following questions: · Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in the property at issue? Each of the Commissioners answered no. · Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? Each of the Commissioners answered no. · Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner. Each of the 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? Each of the Commissioners answered no. Craig Ward said that the Planning Department staff has no report. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, reported that present today from Pope Resources is: Greg McCary, Executive Vice President for Development; Tom Ringo, Chief Financial Officer; Tony Puma, Project Manager for the Inn at Port Ludlow; and Paul Bates, Legal Counsel. David Cunningham asked if the Board will be dealing with fire as well as schools? Mark Huth reported that the hearing notice said fire and schools, so both will be considered today. David Cunningham then explained that on May 17, 1993 the plat was approved with conditions that adequate provision be made for schools and fire. Pope Resources was to meet with the Fire District and the School District to reach an agreement with regard to adequate provision. No agreement has been made with the School District. He then reviewed what Pope Resources considers pertinent facts and key issues: Student generation rate - The School District has fairly reliable figures on the number of students generated per household throughout the entire District. Their number has fluctuated between .31 and .37 students per household. Pope Resources disagrees with the number of students generated in Port Ludlow in general and the number generated by the Port Ludlow Inn project, specifically. Schools were not identified in the Inn project EIS, but they were identified in the programmatic EIS. One of the keys issues was student generation. Pope Resources took the 1992 enrollment from the Chimacum School District records and compared the student addresses with the Port Ludlow Water Company records (the Water Company serves every home in Port Ludlow), to determine the number of students that live in Port Ludlow. From that information the student generation rate of .06 students per household was derived. Exhibit A (attached) shows this information. It was found that Pope Ludlow (a 25 year old community) generates approximately 1/6 the number of students per household that the rest of the District generates. ~ VOL J 9 fAC~ 723 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 6 In October the School District submitted correspondence to the County, David Cunningham continued, that indicated that their facilities were at capacity. Pope Resources has asked for some sort of analysis on those facilities. To date they have not seen a quantitative demonstration that the school district facilities are inadequate. In the spring of 1993 a publication called The Chimacum School - Facing the Challenge of Growth in the Schools (Exhibit B - attached), was circulated by the School District. This document shows that there is capacity in the school, in portable facilities. These portable facilities are used by School Districts across the State and in the last bond issue for facilities, portables were in use at the school and continue to be used. Pope Resources feels that the District's own publications and documents demonstrate that they have adequate facilities. There has been discussion of the District's accommodation of transfer students from outside the District, David Cunningham continued. He asked how as many as 90 transfer students are accommodated, when the District allegedly has no more capacity in their facilities? Another demonstration of adequate capacity is listed in Exhibit C (attached) as enrollment forms from the District that were picked up last week. David Cunningham then stated that the final concern with regard to adequate facilities is, if there isn't adequate facilities, how can the Inn at Port Ludlow make adequate provision for the impact to the school system? If the District facilities are at capacity, the District will have to offer a bond issue to the people in the Port Ludlow district. Based on the cost of land and construction of a building, a new school to house 470 students would cost $7.3 million. That debt can be amortized at today's rate of 6%, over 15 years, based on the District's current assessed value of over $500 million, at a bond millage rate of $1.41 per thousand of assessed value. Applying the $1.41 to the total assessed value of the Inn at Port Ludlow project would indicate that the project would contribute roughly $29,000 per year toward the cost of retiring bonds for new school facilities. In roughly 2 1/2 years the project would completely pay for its share of school facilities for the fewer than 5 students it will generate. Mter that it would continue to generate funds for retirement of the bond debt. David Cunningham then noted that another aspect of student generation is how many students would be generated from employees of the Inn? The employees of the Inn will consist primarily of a couple to manage the Inn. They will be provided with a living unit and will probably not have children. The unit that they will be provided will not be designed for children and the kind and intensity of the duties they will have managing the Inn will not be conducive to them having children. There will be other employees in housekeeping, landscaping, and maintenance. These will be minimum wage jobs and the expectation is that no one will move into Jefferson County or the Chimacum School District to acquire a minimum wage job. Their conclusion is that this project will generate less than 5 students. The Chimacum School District has adequate facilities to handle those students and in the event that isn't the case, the project will pay its share of the cost for new facilities. Pope Resources is asking that the Board now determine what is appropriate for adequate provision for schools, David Cunningham continued. This issue needs to be resolved on a scale that is bigger than a single project. Pope Resources has four critical projects in the process and they would like to see the Board tackle this issue as soon as they possibly and legally can. Chairman Wojt then asked the School District to make their presentation. Peter Eglick stated that one thing that struck him about Mr. Cunningham's presentation was how much it didn't refer to the final Environmental Impact Statement. He said that the key is that the PElS must accompany all of Pope's applications through the approval process. He doesn't agree that the Board can make a decision today on anything other than the Inn project. Mark Huth agreed that the Board can only make a decision on the Inn project today. Based on the PElS, which is the County's document, it is agreed that the District is at or exceeds its permanent capacity and in a few years will exceed its capacity even if portable classrooms are taken into account. The PElS also agrees that portables (classrooms) are not counted by the State. The PElS calls portables temporary emergency facilities. The permanent capacity is exceeded. Another issue, Peter Eglick continued, is transfer students. The number of transfer students on a net basis is only 43. The District is not accepting more transfer students now that the capacity situation has come about. On page 8 of the outline (attached), even if transfer students are eliminated, the school is over capacity and will continue to be over capacity. '! n 72A ; VOL J ~ fAG" _''± Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 7 Student generation factor. Peter Eglick reported that the issue with the student generation factor is that Pope is arguing for a generation factor that is quite radical compared to the rate experienced as a whole in the District, and low compared to other similar districts. The.31 or .37 generation rate is a good middle ground. The argument has been made, and not upheld in the PElS, that any new development more than pays for itself in a short period of time and then starts making a net contribution to retirement of existing bonds. The argument today assumes that there will be a bond issue. Right now there isn't a bond issue. Determining if appropriate provision is made for schools can't be based on something that doesn't exist. Peter Eglick stated that what is being dealt with here is a question of who pays. If Pope is able to get this project approved with no mitigation then nobody pays. The Comprehensive Plan says (page 33) "and more often than not it is existing County residents who must share in the financing of new residents migrating into the area." Assuming there is a new bond issue, the existing taxpayers will be asked to shoulder a share of the burden of financing new school construction to accommodate the new students generated by Pope projects. Mitigation, in this case, can consist of: a voluntary agreement to pay impact fees, a dedication of land (valuable property), a denial of the proposal, or a conditional denial saying the proposal is denied until a bond issue passes or until Pope Resources decides to mitigate. They do not believe that mitigation can be just a request that the parties talk about the issue and leave things up in the air. He asked that the Board consider any of these mitigations. As far as negotiations go, Peter Eglick continued, we've (the School District) tried quite hard. There is a strong feeling on Pope's part that there is no impact to be mitigated. There is a feeling on the School District's part that there is an impact. They are willing to go to mediation or get an arbitrator or facilitator as soon as possible. They've been told by Pope that unless they are willing to drop their Court challenge, Pope is not willing to mediate. Peter Eglick said that the suggestion today is that the Inn project will generate five or less students. So far there's been no mitigation even offered for five students. At a previous hearing, the Planning Director said that based on information from Pope, 7.7 students would be generated. They feel the student generation rate is higher than that because the PElS says there will be 15 students generated from the project as a result of employees working for Pope. Commissioner Huntingford asked if that figure was for the Inn only or for the overall development? Mr. Eglick answered that was for the whole project. He added that you have to assume that a large proportion of the long term, permanent employment generated will come from the Inn and the associated facilities. He urged the Board to review the tapes from the previous hearings. He then submitted an outline of the Chimacum School District's testimony (see attached.) Commissioner Huntingford asked if the School District has a capital facilities plan in place so they could go for a bond issue? He added that he has asked for that plan numerous time and it has not been presented yet. Peter Eglick responded that only the Growth Management Act requires a Capital Facilities Plan before mitigation can be imposed. To make appropriate provision for schools as required under subdivision law and SEPA, doesn't require a Capital Facilities Plan. Commissioner Huntingford asked why the School District isn't pursuing a bond more actively, if the District is so in need of facilities because they are at capacity? The discussion continued regarding the subdivision, SEP A and Growth Management provisions and the affect that impact fees may have on the School District passing a future bond issue. Chairman Wojt then opened the public hearing. Dr. Terrv Eade (curriculum vitae - attached) stated that the existing student generation rate for single family housing in the South Kitsap District is .53 and .30 for multi-family housing. Sampling was done and it was found that the rate from new housing developments was actually .67 for single family housing and .40 from multi-family housing. The .37 figure Chimacum is reporting is conservative. Chairman Wojt noted that Pope's argument is that this project is a retirement community and does not have the same characteristics as a general development. They are seeking and selling to customers that are beyond the child rearing age. He asked if Dr. Eade had any information on the student generation rate for that type of development? VOL 1. 9 rA('~ 725 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 8 Dr. Eade answered that Kitsap County had reviewed and addressed that same argument. A developer can't say that they will only sell to people 55 and over because there is serious doubt that they could legally turn away a buyer that has children. The cost of the property is another factor. Neighborhoods go through cycles where they generate children and then the children grow up and move away and the student generation drops. Then as the people get older they sell and move away and younger people buy their houses again. Dr. Eade doesn't feel that it can be said that an area won't generate children. Commissioner Huntingford stated that Pope used historical data over a 20 year period. He asked Dr. Eade if Kitsap County had an opportunity to evaluate an area with historical data? Dr. Eade reported that they did not go back 20 years. Chairman Wojt asked if the communities are alike, since there is basically no industry in the Port Ludlow area? Dr. Eade stated that they are finding that the demographics of the area are changing as people move out from the populations centers and are willing to commute to work. Dr. Eade continued by discussing the adequacy of portable classrooms. The State Board of Education in Washington does not recognize portable classrooms as permanent student housing. When they look at the need for a school district to provide State matching funds, they do not count portables. In Kitsap County, the long range capital facility plan reflect capacity based upon the number of teaching stations in permanent facilities. Portables can only be attached to permanent buildings. They are not adequate as far as operations. Only so many can be attached to existing school buildings, they are not economical to operate, and core facilities become overloaded. Chairman Wojt stated that as far as utilizing space, essentially a quarter of the year the facilities are not utilized. He asked if changing the way the school year runs would essentially add to the school's capacity? Dr. Eade agreed that year around schools would increase the capacity of the school, but this change would have to be acceptable to the citizens. In the State of Washington, that is not something that citizens have gone along with. The other item, Dr. Eade continued, is how much money would be raised by adding to the assessed valuation of the district from this project. School District bond issues are on a stated sum of money and all that is done by adding to assessed valuation is to essentially lower the millage rate that applies to each property owner. Commissioner Huntingford said that on his tax statement about 60% of the taxes go to schools (State and local). He asked if that level of taxes is consistent around the state? Dr. Eade explained that the School District does not receive the amount on tax statements that is identified as State school tax. There is no relationship between what the State provides each district and what the State school tax collections are in that District. The School District gets about 80% of their budget from the State general fund. There is no source of funds from the State for busses or portable classrooms for new students. Commissioner Huntingford noted that Kitsap County implemented impact fees about a year ago. He asked what fee the Chimacum School District is asking be collected per lot? Peter Eglick reported that the actual impact per student is $17,000. Then if the offsets with the State are considered that amount comes down to $4,000 or $5,000. This is not the fee that the School District has requested, but it is the actual impact. Mr. Eglick reported that on a per unit basis, Kitsap County's impact fee is $962 and Bainbridge Island's is $2,240 (single family) and $2,700 (multi-family). Commissioner Huntingford said that he would like to see a fee set that is fair to everyone. He then reported the following from other counties: ' Island County - $500 to $1,500 per dwelling unit Clallam County - working on a fee. Mason County - negotiating under SEP A for between $450 and $600 per unit. Kitsap County - $962 for single family and $555.00 for multi-family. He asked how $5,000 can be compared with what is being proposed in surrounding Counties? Dr. Eade answered that when Kitsap County went through their process, the figure started closer to $3,500 for schools, but by the time the political process was completed, the figure came out extremely low. That fee is only enough to purchase portables. He added that the school district cannot legally turn away a student who resides in the District, even if they don't have adequate facilities. , '/OL ~ n tj2~ .1 ( ¡AU I ",I) Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 9 Commissioner Huntingford asked what has happened with the law suit threatened by the school district in Kitsap County because of the impact fee amount? Dr. Eade stated that the lawsuit has not been pursued. Commissioner Hinton asked what figure the School District is comfortable with? Peter Eglick stated that he did not come today prepared to negotiate. After explaining how the negotiations have proceeded to date, he suggested that a mediator be brought in on this. David Cunningham responded to the School District testimony by pointing out that he was not attempting in his presentation to downplay the EIS. The PElS substantiates the .06 student per household rate. The matter of how many students might be generated from employees of the Inn, he feels, is absurd at 11. The School District has forgotten that the PElS of the development program, also dealt with 47,000 square feet of new commercial retail space over 10 years. That's where the employees and student from the employees will be generated, not from a 36 room inn. The School District submitted documents that say that new construction has higher rates of student generation than older construction. They don't feel that's the case in Port Ludlow and they are prepared to submit data from the last 150 new housing units constructed in Port Ludlow. That data indicates that the student generation rate is actually lower than .06. He added that information has been provided on many school districts in the State, but they need to talk about Chimacum School District. There has not been any empirical evidence offered that substantiates the .31 or .37 rate, or ties that rate to Port Ludlow. There is not a shred of evidence that the facilities at Chimacum are inadequate to handle this particular project. Peter Eglick then introduced Mart Kask and submitted his curriculum vitae. Mart Kask, Kask Consulting, stated that his consulting firm has worked for 43 school districts in Washington on school financing, capital financing and impact fees. In his previous employment he worked with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He has expertise in housing and demographics. With regard to the student generation rate, his conclusion is that the .06 rate, as presented by Pope, is very low. The generate rate in the Chimacum School District is .37, which includes the current Port Ludlow development. If the current Pope Resources development in Port Ludlow was subtracted from the rate it would be considerably higher, which would bring the student generation rate in line with many other school districts in the State. Student generation rates vary substantially from county to county. After the 1980 census, the average student generation rate for single family residences was about .7, while the multifamily rate was from .3 to.4. The demographics are changing substantially. More and more young families are moving out on the fringe of urban development. The assumption can be made that the development at Port Ludlow will receive new home buyers that include young people of child bearing age or who have schoolage children. Another issue is whether low wage jobs generate fewer students, Mr. Kask explained. It was found in the Tacoma School District that the reverse was true. With regard to portable classrooms, Mart Kask reported that they are not equivalent to permanent facilities. The State does not give the school districts money to buy portables. He then reviewed how school districts receive funding from the State. When the State defined adequate basic education, there was no provision for permanent school facilities. Bond issues are passed by the electorate in a school district. The electorate is concerned about the impacts of growth and the legislature reacted to those concerns by passage of the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act allows for impact fees. Impact fees can be calculated using the cost of constructing one space for one student. These costs vary widely from school district to school district and for type of school being built (new school facilities run about $11,000 per elementary students and about $25,000 per high school student.) The cost figure is multiplied by the student generate rate to determine the mitigation cost. Mr. Kask then reviewed impact fees used in other school districts in western Washington including how the Snoqualmie Valley School District's impact fee program impacted vote on the school district's bond issue. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the impact fee for the Snoqualmie School District was to be paid at the time of plat approval or build out? Mart Kask answered that the school district asked that it be paid at plat approval. This allowed the school district about two years to arrange financing for construction. The school districts have negotiated the time that this fee must be paid. Paul Bates, representing Pope Resources, stated that its' not clear from Mr. Kask's remarks how recently he has been involved with analysis of Port Ludlow or how much of a study he made. He did make a point that he doesn't take issue with the student generation figure in the PElS on the Inn project. . VOL 1 ~ >¡21ð1 L d r~C;- I '" I Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 10 Mr. Bates continued by saying that the Subdivision statute says that impact fee can be required of a developer, if there is an impact fee ordinance. This would mean that the fee would be applied across the board to all developers and it would be based on a Capital Facilities plan from the school district. There has not been capital facilities data provided by the School District so the County can make a determination on an impact fee. The information on what the capital facilities are going to cost has not been provided by the Chimacum School District. Peter Eglick asked Mr. Kask to say how long he has been out of the area? Mart Kask answered that he was gone for two weeks, and he has been a consultant to the school districts in Jefferson County, including Chimacum, for the last two years. He has studied the condition extensively. He added that he did not concur with the .06 (student generate rate) being adequate or appropriate for Port Ludlow. He said he did not disagree with the method used to calculate this rate. What they are saying is that changing demographics will not sustain that rate in the future. Chairman Wojt stated that the EIS required that this issue be addressed periodically against the actual experience of the development. Mart Kask stated that it will take the school district build about six years to build a school and the district has to go to the electorate to approve a bond to pay for the entire amount of the school construction. The State contributes a third of the cost as a reimbursement after the expenses have been incurred. A school can not be built, unless the District has the cash in hand. After discussion of how much longer the testimony would take and what type of information would be presented the hearing continued. Marsha Harris, Superintendent Chimacum School District, reported that the School District plans to present a Capital Facilities plan to the County before the July of 1994 deadline. She then presented an update of the data presented to the County in February, which included enrollment, construction and capacity information. She noted that even without the 40+ transfer students, the student enrollment at Chimacum exceeds capacity. Chimacum School District is looking at an increased student enrollment of approximately 800 students over the next 10 years. Alternative school years may be a way to help with capacity issues, but it will not accommodate the growth coming from developments which are currently being approved by the County. Chairman Wojt asked what each party understands about what is to be done after the hearing today? Peter Eglick responded that they have been asking the same question since they read the notice of the hearing in the newspaper. They are trying to provide the basis for why they believe that the Inn project will result in unmitigated impact on the School District. Marsha Harris continued by stating that the past does not necessarily predict the future, and that the School District does not have the ability to turn students away who live within the District. Chairman Wojt then asked what the impact of this particular project is on the School District? Marsha Harris answered that the EIS record indicates (March 18, 1993) that there will be 7.7 students generated by this project. She reported that the School District's calculation, based on their historical data, is .37 students times the 58 residential units (.37 X 58 = 21) plus 11 students from employ- ees of the Inn (for a total of 32 students.) The per student facilities cost to the District is $17,680. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the School District is looking for a mitigation fee of over $530,000? Peter Eglick interjected that mitigation under the subdivision law and SEP A is not limited to a mitigation fee. There are other options available. He added that he would be hesitant to say that the School District wants a dollar figure. The School District has to deal with the capacity issue. Mitigation is not a precise science and they feel that there are facts involved that a mediator or arbitrator could make a binding decision on and with a fair process they would be willing to do that. Al Boucher submitted a written statement (see attached) and in addition said that he feels that standards should be set for any mitigation negotiations. He proposed that the Board make no effort at this time to resolve difference between Chimacum School and Pope Resources. He feels a Board decision should be deferred until the County develops a set of standards which would provide guidance for fixing mitigative exactions. David Douglas, 20 Phinney Lane, Port Ludlow, reported that he has submitted a written statement (see attached.) He added that this (the Inn at Port Ludlow) is not the only issue. There are four other applications from Pope Resources in process. The Board will be bogged down in hearings of this nature for weeks, if the County doesn't have a process that recognizes the need for impacts fees to cover schools, fire districts, and highways. There was no written notice of this hearing provided \/OL 19 rACÇ 728 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 11 to the lot owners adjacent to this project, which he feels is a basis for continuance of this hearing. Tony Puma presented a site plan of the project. He noted that the issue is whether the 25 year record of student generation at Port Ludlow is going to be changed by virtue of the Inn development. This project has 58 two bedroom townhouses, which are designed for an elderly owners market. The conversion of existing houses during the past 25 years in Port Ludlow, from elderly to something other than that, has not occurred. If the County deals with the secondary employment issue as the School District has suggested, the County would be penalizing anyone who provides employment in the County. The dollar amount for impact will have a chilling affect on everything. If a large impact mitigation number is adopted then developers won't develop and people will build on the currently platted lots which will not change the School District's problem at all. As the price of housing goes up by virtue of the imposition of impact fees, less housing will be developed which will have a tremendous impact on the number of students generated. Peter Eglick stated that State law says that a finding must be made for subdivisions before plat approval that appropriate provision has been made for schools. Mr. Eglick asked the Board to keep in mind that if there are not impact fees, it doesn't mean that the costs don't exist and don't have to be paid. Before this plat is approved appropriate provision has to be made for schools. He urged that the Board review the previous record. David Cunningham reported that the number of 7+ students may have been a number that was offered when this project started with over 90 units. Now the project has 58 units. From recent Port Ludlow information, for the last 166 units developed at Port Ludlow, three students have been generated which is a student generation rate of .018. Paul Bates added that the issue that Pope Resources agrees the Board is considering today is whether appropriate provisions are made for the health, safety and general welfare for the Inn at Port Ludlow project including playgrounds, schools and school grounds. An EIS provided information about ~tudent generation rates which indicated that the Inn at Port Ludlow project would generate ~pproximately 1.8 students which is a student generation rate of .06 per unit. The School District ~as presented information today that this project would generate 32 students and they propose that with money or some other in kind contribution that $585,000 be paid for some sort of mitigation r~lated to the Inn project. It is his opinion that there has to be an impact fee ordinance adopted before impact fees can be imposed on anyon-going development. Testimony was also submitted tþday that there are 43 transfer students, not 90, but there has been no apparent decision to reject tþose transfer students. As far as the student generation rates in the EIS, Mr. Bates noted that he f~els that the history of the area must be reviewed to try and project what the situation is likely to be in the future. The Chimacum School District proposes that the future be predicted without looking at the past, and that mitigation be imposed on the basis of no information. Pope says learn from the past, go on the basis of what the situation is now, monitor carefully and if the situation changes make the appropriate response in future subdivisions. I ~. Bates then discussed the testimony presented regarding what other school districts in other Qounties have done. The thrust of what the School District is proposing is a delay of the project for Iþediation or until a bond issue is passed, or for more discussion. Pope Resources has waited since ~991 and delay is tremendously damaging. Mr. Bates suggested that the School District drop their l~w suit, and permit Pope Resources to proceed with its development projects without the threat of l~tigation on one plat after another. Pope Resources supports the County getting an impact fee qrdinance adopted which will permit a determination of amounts, if any, to be paid for Pope projects qr any other projects on a principle basis rather than hypothetical speculation. Pope Resources is not qlear about what it is precisely that the School District wants. The School District does not have a Qapital facilities plan from which a determination can be made about how much they should receive iµ the form of mitigation. Ms. Harris has provided information today which indicates that the School District would propose to build a new 1,400 student school in addition, apparently, to the 1,270 s~udent school they already have, Paul Bates continued. They would spend $22 million on that project and on the basis of that, they suggest that the County impose massive fees on Pope Resources. Fope Resources suggests that the County can't and shouldn't do that, because information is needed, Which has not been provided, to support any proposed amount. The EIS is correct and it says that t~e Inn at Port Ludlow project will generate 1.8 students. F1eter Eglick responded that mediation doesn't have to involve delay. He stated that the School ~istrict would do it tomorrow, if there is a concern about delay. He added that no one is trying to ~elay this. He noted that the School District cannot just build a third of a school, it has to build a whole new school. He asked that the Board review the material presented. VOL ~ >") 72q ,;' ,¡ 1_ u rAr,; ,"-" Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 12 Commissioner Huntingford asked how the School District would respond if the County agreed to set a date to have a County-wide impact fee ordinance place? Peter Eglick asked if such an ordinance would cover Pope Resources on this project? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that Pope Resources would be vested under the regulations in place at the time of their completed application. Peter Eglick suggested that Pope Resource stipulate that they would be covered by such an ordinance. Commissioner Huntingford added that he wants to make it clear that if the County goes ahead with an impact fee ordinance, that the School District understands that any problems they have with bond issues because of the impact fees, will be their burden to carry. Hearing no further comments on the issue of adequate provision for schools Chairman W ojt indicated that the portion of the testimony was concluded. Mark Huth asked if the record would be left open for written comment? The Board concurred that written comments would be accepted until 5 p.m. on Monday August 2, 1993. David Cunningham then reported on the negotiations with the Fire District for adequate provision for fire and emergency medical services. Agreement was not reached between Pope Resource and the Fire District, but the temperament of the discussions was much more constructive. There were 18 meetings, some of which lasted four and five, hours. Pope Resources made a commitment to the Fire District to continue with discussions regarding the Fire District services. A 20 year capital and operating plan was developed by the Fire District with the help and input of Pope Resources. This plan shows that once the needs of the District are funded for 20 years with existing tax levies, there is a shortfall. If the shortfall is apportioned over forthcoming new development units it would mean a cost of $193 per unit. This is the basis for the voluntary agreement Pope Resources offered to the Fire District. Tom Ringo, Vice President of Finance, Pope Resources, then reviewed the figures developed by the Fire District and Pope Resources (see attached.) Page 1: Shows projected revenues, budget expenditures and underlying assumptions for the property tax revenue (new homes being built, and capital expenditures) for the next 10 years (1994 through 2003.) Page 2: (labeled II) Carries forward the items from page 1 through the next 10 years (2004 through 2013.) Page 3: (labeled 12) Shows salaries, wages, and benefits for 10 years (1994 through 2003.) Page 4: (labeled #3) Shows details about staffing (salaries by position, when new positions would be added, and payroll increase factors) for the next 10 years (2004 through 2013.) Page 5: (labeled 14) Details of operating expenses for the first 10 years. He then explained how the numbers were arrived at and where the detail for each number is in the information presented. This plan goes well beyond what would be appropriate mitigation for Pope's Inn at Port Ludlow plat. He concluded his explanation by stating that the average annual per unit shortfall for the 20 year period is $193.00, and Pope Resources believes that would be reasonable mitigation payment to the Fire District. David Cunningham then presented a draft of the agreement Pope Resources offered to the District and the District's draft response to that agreement (see attached. ) Roy Rodebaugh, Commissioner Fire District #3, reported that the District took the 20 year projection and brought it down to 10 years. This means that the bond indebtedness was spread over 10 years instead of 20 years. The shortfall then goes to $491.00. Then there were several figures in the Pope 20 year plan that were adjusted such as the amount of revenue from sale of surplus equipment, the levy rate (figures used was 1.21, which should be .88), and the EMS levy was not included. With these adjustments the Fire District is asking for $550 per unit. Herb Stowe, Fire Commissioner Fire District #3, then presented an analysis of the call rate for the district (see attached.) The major source of calls the Fire District responds to are aid calls. The Motor Vehicle line of the analysis is primarily the accidents which are occurring on State Highway 104 and Beaver Valley Road (State Road 19.) Ken DeWitt, Fire Chief Fire District #3, explained that it is not clear exactly what was included in the category of service calls in the past. These are calls that are !!Q1 fires, medical, or motor vehicle accidents, but tþey are still calls that the Fire District personnel and equipment respond to. Herb Stowe continued by explaining that the call rate fluctuates from year to year. VOL [] fAr/ 73n Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 13 Commissioner Huntingford said it is his understanding that under the Growth Management Act there is no impact fee provision for fire services. Mark Huth stated that is correct. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this mitigation for the Fire District will be negotiated? David Cunningham answered that they proposed a voluntary agreement with the Fire District. He added that there is more than simply a difference between the $193 per unit proposed by Pope Resources and the $550 per unit proposed by the Fire District. There are other stipulations on the part of the Fire District that are extremely expensive such as: providing a mobile number 2 and installing a mobile building suitable for use (approximately $65,000), $1,500 per unit on multi-family fire sprinkler systems, and the fee for commercial space. He added that there were several creative options that have come up, despite the fact that Growth Management doesn't allow an impact fee for Fire Districts. Commissioner Huntingford asked about the fire sprinkling systems for the multi-family and commercial areas? David Cunningham reported that in the case of the Port Ludlow Inn project the multi-family structures and the Inn structure itself have sprinkler systems. There are other facilities in the Inn structure to make it as safe as possible with respect to fire and emergency medical. Roy Rodebaugh stated that the Fire District asked for a ladder truck based on the impact from the Inn project. Through sprinkling, and working with the Project Manager, the Fire District is convinced that the extra sprinklers that Pope Resources is willing to install in the attics, for example, will take away the demand for the high rise truck. The Fire District would like to see that the fees to be applied to other subdivisions also. If all of the buildings in the District included sprinkler systems, it would help save lives. Sprinkler systems give some extra time to allow people to get out of a building allowing the volunteer fire department time to do an adequate job on the fire. Paul Bates explained that the Board needs information to make a written finding that appropriate provisions have been made for the public health, safety and general welfare, and in this case that would be regarding fire and emergency services. In the EIS, he stated that the analysis is clear with respect to what the impacts of the particular project and what mitigation measures were proposed for it. The impacts are basically going to be the impact on the existing fire and emergency medical facilities, such as increases in calls, and specific hazards with the hotel. He then read the following from the mitigation summary in the DEIS, "Several design features intended to reduce the fire risk have been proposed for the Inn at Port Ludlow. These features emphasize fire prevention, early detection, containment, automatic suppression and include measures that substantially exceed fire and building code requirements. Overall the building design reflects the proponents choice to invest resources in fire prevention rather than to solely rely upon Fire District resources." They feel there is adequate mitigation with respect to the Inn at Port Ludlow project. There are other projects coming on line in the future and Pope Resources has come up with a reasonable basis for the $193 figure and they are prepared to voluntarily pay that figure with respect to future projects. Roy Rodebaugh reiterated that the $193 figure was based on a 20 year plan. The Fire District cannot fund a 20 year plan at this time. The Fire District doesn't feel that they should have to bond for the capital equipment and facilities needs. The fee that they have proposed would take into account the equipment and facilities needs. He continued by reporting on the condition of the equipment and the impact of the growth in the district. Commissioner Huntingford asked if during the original negotiations for capital expenditures the assumption was made that there would be up front fees to pay for these acquisitions or was the assumption that they would be paid for over a period of time? Roy Rodebaugh reported that the assumption was that they would be paid for over a 10 year period. Tom Ringo reiterated that the $193 is derived by projecting a shortfall per year and then taking that and dividing it by the 20 years. The debt was amortized over 20 years, while the Fire District amortized the debt over 10 years~ The debt service doesn't double when it is amortized over 10 years instead of 20 years. It goes from $62,000 to $92,000, which is a 50% increase rather than a 200% increase. There are some significant capital expenditure dollars to be incurred, but the real significant dollars in this plan are related to additional staffing, personnel costs and the implementa- tion of a whole new program for the way the Fire District is run. Pope Resources believes that the new program has a benefit to the District that lives far beyond a ten year timeframe and goes into the next generation (20 years.) Roy Rodebaugh added that after the first 10 years of the program, the building in the District is projected to be less and if the District is going to bond for 20 years, they may run into a stumbling block and not be able to pay the bond. '~ -n 7()"I VOL 1. v rAf.> ,J_( Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 14 Commissioner Huntingford asked when the purchase of equipment and the building new facilities is planned? Has the Fire District looked at how long it will take to implement the plan? Roy Rodebaugh answered that the program plan for a new building no later than 1996, with new equìpment to be put in at that time. Four new employees, which will only provide coverage during the day are projected over a four year period. Commissioner Hinton asked if the four fire fighters to be hired (1993, 1994 and 1995) are as a result of the Inn project? John Parker, Fire District #3 Commissioner reported on the type of people living in the District and their expectations for services. He added that it is expected in the next 10 or 15 years that there will be no more volunteer firemen because people need to work to pay the bills which doesn't leave as much time. The Pope figures don't indicate any possible increase in gasoline taxes. These figures don't show the human quality of the people in the fire district. The people that are moving into the area expect and are willing to pay for quality services. Commissioner Hinton asked if all four position would be needed if Pope was not doing any development in Port Ludlow? Roy Rodebaugh explained that there will be an increase of people in the District whether Pope continues to develop or not. David Cunningham reported that a building permit analysis done of the last three years shows that Pope Resources accounts for about 25% of the construction in the Fire District. With this program that will raise to about 40%. Wìth the School District Pope Resources accounts for only about 15% of the building activity in the entire school district. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of money it takes to outfit and train volunteer fire fighters and medical aid personnel. David Cunningham concluded by emphasizing that Pope Resources has three other projects coming before the County with the same issues to be resolved. Craig Ward reported that the Board needs to schedule a workshop with the Planning Department to go over the testimony presented today. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing. The Board concurred that a workshop be held Tuesday August 10, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers. The meeting was recessed at the end of the hearing on Monday and reconvened at 8:45 a.m. for the Board to review and take action on the following items. All three Board members were present. CONTRACT re: Stripin2 County Roads MTI097: Apply-A-Line. Inc.: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the contract with Apply-A-Line, Inc. for striping County roads. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: En2ineerin2 Services on CR0953; Chimacum Road Improvement; Parametrix. Inc.: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the agreement for engineering services on the Chimacum Road improvement project with Parametrix, Inc. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT. Supplement #2. No. CA-111891-1; Continuin2 Forest Resource Land Analysis and Mappin2 and Creatin2 Parcel Based GIS Data; Economic and En2ineerin2 Services. Inc.: Supplement number 2 to the agreement with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. for mapping was approved by motion of Commissioner Huntingford, seconded by Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The Board members then participated in a workshop on the Planning Commission Report on the Draft Critical Areas Ordinance. ~ n 7C')t) \'QL 1 tJ rM; ,J( , ¡ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of July 26, 1993 Page: 15 d Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board SEAL: MEETING ADJOURNED ON COU OARD OF . ;III ... eft If '. VOL 19 f¥ 733