Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM082393 , 'j '-- '<>' :;:::..o~ ./ MINUTES WEEK OF AUGUST 23, 1993 Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Community Services Director David Goldsmith re: Interim UGA Desienation for the Tri Area and Port Ludlow: David Goldsmith reported that the Growth Management Act requires that the County set interim urban growth area boundaries on, or before October 1, 1993. All incorporated cities are automatically urban growth areas. He then reported on recent meetings held in the Tri Area and Port Ludlow communities to discuss what, if any, portions of those communities should be defined as urban growth areas, and his recommendations for setting the interim boundaries. (See attached) He explained that when the Board decides on the interim urban growth area boundaries, that determination will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review scheduled for September 1, 1993. An ordinance is required to adopt these boundaries with a public hearing scheduled for October 4, 1993. August 24. 1993: The Board concurred with the recommendation for setting interim UGA boundaries as submitted by David Goldsmith. Contract for Outside Leeal Review of Draft Critical Areas Ordinance: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Board is free to seek outside, independent, legal review of the draft critical areas ordinance with the approval of the Superior Court Judge. He added, however, that his review of the ordinance cannot be included with the document sent out for independent legal review. He will not approve any contract for legal services that includes a review of his work. He also cautioned that the firm chosen to do this outside legal review cannot provide the same services for any other party. LVOl 1 P 9f'10' . ' (J fAG~ ì:Jt.: PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: Impact fees on affordable housing, the Prosecuting Attorney's remarks about independent legal review of the draft critical areas ordinance, the County looking for grant funding to help the community planning committees, the recent Shoreline Commission workshop, the money the County is putting into the Solid Waste Transfer station, and the Dungeness Quilcene Regional Water Planning group. · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of August 16, 1993 were approved by motion of Commissioner Huntingford, seconded by Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hearine Examiners Recommendation; Conditional Use Permit #IZ-41-93; Auto Repair as a Home Occupation in the General Use Zone; Curtiss Kennedy: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this conditional use permit is for Mr. Kennedy's business of buying, repairing and reselling "insurance total" vehicles. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the conditional use permit for this home business. Commissioner Hinton expressed concern about the statement that "all storage be contained within the building." Curtiss Kennedy stated that his building is large enough to accommodate all the vehicles he works on. Once the cars are repaired he parks them outside. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the conditional use permit as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Hearine Examiner Findines and Recommendation; Preliminary Subdivision and Variance Request; Subdivision of 17.2 Acres into 23 Lots for Sinele ·Family Residences; LP02-93 Ludlow Point Villaee Division 4; Pope Resources. Applicant: This proposal includes 23 lots, Jerry Smith reported. The original proposal of nine lots received preliminary plat approval. This is Division 4 of a larger project. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed this preliminary subdivision and variance request. The Chimacum School District's position is that the schools are at capacity, the County hasn't followed SEP A procedures, and provision for schools should be made prior to preliminary plat approval. Pope Resources position is that there is adequate capacity in the school and adequate provision has been made, so an additional contribution is not required for this subdivision. The County's mitigation requires that Pope Resources and the School District negotiate an agreement prior to final plat approval. The Hearing Examiner recommends that the active recreation area be reduced from 30% to 0% and that preliminary plat approval be granted. The Planning Department staff understands that the Board is scheduled to make a decision on adequate provision for schools and fire services for another Pope Resources project tomorrow morning. They recommend that the Board not take action on this preliminary plat until tomorrow. Chairman Wojt asked if there is a reduction in the number of lots for this revised preliminary plat? Jerry Smith reported that originally this portion of the project included nine lots. The overall density of the entire Ludlow Point Village Project is less than originally approved. The revision of this division of the plat was considered to be substantial which required re- submittal of the preliminary plat and environmental checklist. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there was any objection to the original plat before preliminary approval was granted? Jerry Smith reported that there is no objection on record from the School District when the original preliminary plat approval was granted in 1988 or 1989. Mark Huth explained that this particular division of the project now includes more lots than originally proposed. The School District population may not have been an issue in 1988. The School District has raised the issue on this preliminary plat approval and the Board should deal with it. ~VOl 19 rAG~ 993 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 3 Commissioner Hinton asked if there is anything in the EIS regarding a construction window which would impact work on this development? Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that there is reference to concern over doing major clearing and grading from November to April. This project was reviewed under the Storm water Management Manual which contains references to certain times of the year when there is more rainfall. The Manual details how much clearing is done during that time and the appropriate way to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The manual does not prohibit this type of work. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, explained that the development of this area was submitted as one plat and one shoreline permit. He reviewed the history of the development of the Inner Harbor. There were 162 units proposed in the overall original plat. Now there are 146 units proposed. The only condition Pope Resources has a problem with is number two which requires that they negotiate with the School District on mitigation. The number of students generated from this proposal will be fewer than two and there is no evidence in the record that the School District is beyond capacity. There has been adequate provision made for fire services within the plat. With regard to the reduction in the active open space, David Cunningham reported that the ordinance requires that 30% of the open space in a project be available for active use. This portion of this plat is linked with the Recreation Center and the community open space dedicated on the point and other active open space which includes a trail system, and the golf course. That is why the Hearing Examiner recommended the reduction in active open space for this Division. Commissioner Hinton moved to defer any decision on this preliminary subdivision and variance request until after the meeting scheduled for Tuesday morning. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Tuesdav AUl:!ust 24. 1993: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the preliminary plat with the modified conditions as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion and then asked if condition 21, regarding the ration of dedicated open space on Lots 12 and 13, should be deleted? Jerry Smith reported that this refers to the lot design and the condition is worded to indicate that the lot width to length ratio meets the intent of the subdivision ordinance. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reminded the Board that they should consider making a finding that adequate provisions for schools and fire services will be made. Commissioner Huntingford modified his motion to include that adequate provision for schools and fire service are made by the payment of a fee as set for the Inn at Port Ludlow project (see page 25 of these Minutes.) Commissioner Hinton seconded the modified motion. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Findings will be drafted for the Board's consideration. Revision of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP88-0016 (Inner Harbor); To Authorize the Preliminary Lone Plat of Ludlow Point Villaee Division 4; Pope Resources: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the area for this shoreline permit revision was part of the Shoreline Permit issued in 1988 for the overall development of the Inner Harbor. Since this division of the plat was revised it requires a revision to the shoreline permit. There has been controversy regarding the development of this area and an allegation of a shoreline permit violation. The Planning Department staff has reviewed the work done on the site and it is their position that a shoreline permit violation has occurred. The question is the extent of that violation. A SEP A review was conducted on the proposal which triggered the shoreline permit revisions and a mitigated determination of non-significance was issued and there is a finding that there are no impacts to shoreline resources, the vegetative buffer has been maintained, the stormwater management plan has been implemented and there are no impacts to water quality or aesthetics. In the Shoreline Act and in the Mastèr Program, a process is defined for when a revised shoreline permit should be issued. The Board needs to consider whether or not this change ! VOL 19 fAG~994 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 4 proposed is a major and significant change. The staff recommends that the Board find that it is not. It must be determined if the proposal is within the scope and intent of the original proposal. Staff recommends that the Board determine that it is. A shoreline permit is the last permit issued in the plat approval process, Jim Pearson explained. Staff recommends that the Board consider this and not take any action until after action is taken on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Huntingford moved to defer any action on this shoreline permit until after the scheduled meeting tomorrow. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Tuesdav August 24. 1993: Commissioner Hinton moved that the shoreline permit for the proposed plat of the Ludlow Point Village Division 4, as modified, is consistent with the Shoreline program and that the revised shoreline permit is approved and is subject to the conditions of the original shoreline permit. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: After discussion with staff from the Planning and Building Department and the Public Works Department regarding items 2, 3, and 4, Commissioner Hinton moved to delete items 15, 17 and 18 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. HEARING NOTICE re: Appeal of Final SEPA Threshold Determination; LL-11-92 Discovery Bay Ridge Large Lot Subdivision #4 and #5; Set hearing for Tuesday September 14, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. 2. Final March Short Plat #SP5-92; Subdivision of 2.87 Acres into 2 Lots; West Side of Cape George Road; Mary and Royer March, Applicants 3. Final Short Plat #SP15-92; Subdivision of 8+ Acres into 2 Lots; Beaver Valley Road; Michael and Leon Korzetz, Applicants 4. Final Bishop Gardens Long Plat #LP-02-92; Subdivision of Four Contiguous Five Acre Parcels into 8 Lots; North Side of Prospect Avenue, 3/4 mile east of the Jefferson County Airport; Loren Bishop, Applicant 5. DEED, Statutory Warranty; Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Block of First Supplemental Plat of Eisenbeis Addition; To Jefferson Transit (As approved by Board - Minutes of July 19, 1993) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 70-93 re: Repealing and Revoking a License to Use Right-of-Way; Colwell Street, Plat of Chalmers No.2; William Meyer 7. RESOLUTION NO. 71-93 re: Statutory Vacation of a Portion of Cedar Street; Plat of Irving Park Addition; Gerald L. Hood, Petitioner 8. RESOLUTION NO. 72-93 re: Vacation of a Portion of Holman Boulevard; Plat of Seventh Avenue Acre Tracts; William Irwin, Petitioner 9. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Design and Building of the Solid Waste Transfer Station; R.W. Beck 10. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance Imposing Additional Sales and Use Tax for Criminal Justice Funding; Setting Hearing for September 13, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 73-93 re: Establishing a Policy for Processing Applications to Transfer Forest Land (RCW 84.33) to Timber Land (RCW 84.34) 12. Applications (2) for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Two applications for $500.00 each; VFW Post #10706 Brinnon 13. PROCLAMATION re: September 1, 1993 as JEFFERSON COUNTY UNITED GOOD NEIGHBORS DAY 14. CONTRACT re: Health Department Grant for State Health Report Project; Washington State Department of Health 15. DELETED CONTRACT re: Health Department Student Assistance Program; Education Services District #114 16. CONTRACT re: Professional Services for the Health Department; Employment of Person with Developmental Disabilities; Skookum Educational Programs 17. DELETED CONTRACT #1-94-768-014 re: Health Department Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse; State Department of Community Development 18. DELETED Two Letters of Welcome to Jefferson County; Economic Development Council lVOl 19 rAG~ 995 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 5 HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mitieated Determination of Non-Sienificance; Transmission System Uperade in JetTerson County; Pueet Sound Power and Lieht Company: Chairman Wojt explained the hearing procedures and then asked the following questions: Q. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A. No one present objected. Q. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A. All three Commissioners answered no. Q. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? A. All three Commissioners answered no. Q. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A. All three Commissioners answered yes. Q. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A. Commissioner Hinton answered no. Chairman Wojt stated that he discussed the merits of the proposal with Byron Swigart. Mark Huth asked Chairman Wojt if he means construction of the project when he says "discussed the merits?" Chairman Wojt answered that they discussed construction and what would happen with the line and the expense of crossing Hood Canal. Mark Huth asked when that conversation occurred? Chairman Wojt stated that he doesn't remember the exact date, but it was about two months ago. Mark Huth asked if that conversation will in anyway affect his ability to decide on this matter in a fair manner? Chairman Wojt answered that it wouldn't affect his ability to make a fair decision and it did not bias his decision for or against either of the parties. Commissioner Huntingford reported that during last fall's campaign he attended a general meeting of the Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce where Byron Swigart made a presentation about the lines under Hood Canal. Mark Huth ask if that meeting would affect Commissioner Huntingford's ability to decide on the issue in a fair manner? Commissioner Huntingford answered that he doesn't think it will. Mark Huth asked if, as a result of that meeting, Commissioner Huntingford had a bias toward either of the parties? Commissioner Huntingford answered no. Jim Pearson reported that the Planning Department issued a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance for this proposal. This is a de novo review of the matter which means that the Commissioners will review the entire record as it is presented today. The Board must decide first if they have adequate information to make a threshold determination, second, what probable significant impacts are identified, if any, and third, if significant impacts are identified and what mitigation measures or revisions to the proposal can be identified to avoid those impacts. Finally in reaching a decision, any mitigation identified has to be based on adopted County policies. Jim Pearson then reviewed the contents of the staff packet submitted to the Commissioners which includes: · Expanded Environmental checklist (two books) with letter from Puget Power dated November 13, 1992. · The report from the Planning staff (including the determination from the Responsible Official.) · The preliminary mitigated determination of non significance. · Copies of comments from State and local agencies. · Letters submitted by the applicant (Ptìget Power) as additional information to the checklist. · Notice of appeal submitted by Christine Nokes, on behalf of the Shine community. ¡VOL 19 fAGf 996 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 6 · A copy of all comment letters and a summary of them. During the preliminary threshold determination it was noted that this proposal could lead to impacts regarding earth and water (soil erosion and sedimentation.) The Public Works comments indicate that those impacts could be avoided by implementation of a stormwater management and soil erosion control plan. Based on the comments received, a lack of information regarding the effects of electromagnetic fields was identified. The proposal is to upgrade Puget Power's transmission line in Jefferson County from a 66 kilovolt (kv) system to a 115 kilovolt system. Based on information reviewed by the Planning staff, this upgrade would result in a decrease in the electromagnetic fields that are generated by the transmission lines. At some point in the next 20 years, given development in Kitsap and Jefferson County, the proposal is to energize this upgraded transmission system to 230 kv. At that point the power would flow into the County in a different configuration than it does now and that may lead to increases in electromagnetic fields. The effect of that future increase in voltage is difficult to estimate and the final threshold determination includes an additional mitigating measure that states: "in order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to environmental health, at least 90 days prior to energizing the Jefferson County electrical power transmission system at 230,000 volts, the proponent shall provide to Jefferson County updated projections of electromagnetic fields that would result. Based on that information and the existing scientific knowledge regarding the health affects of electromagnetic fields, Jefferson County would at that time determine whether significant adverse environmental impacts would result from energizing the system at 230,000 volts. Based on that determination, Jefferson County may, as appropriate, authorize the proponent to energize the system at 230 kv, deny authorization to energize the system at 230 kv, or require mitigating measures necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts to public health." He then reviewed the information used by the Planning Department in making the threshold determination. Jim Pearson continued by noting that Earl Wells of the County Public Works Department is available to address any questions regarding erosion problems and impacts of the project on the Shine Road. Before the threshold determination was made, the Public Works Department stated that they felt that this project would not have any impact on the County road and any erosion problems that exist in the area would not have any affect on this project. The question of aesthetics has been raised in the appeal and in comment letters on the project, Jim Pearson added. He noted that this is an existing system that has been in place in this area for about 50 years. The poles will be replaced predominantly by wooden poles. Jim Pearson concluded his presentation by stating that this project starts in Kitsap County, crosses Hood Canal and Highway 104 and then runs along the Shine Road to its intersection with Highway 104, continues briefly on Highway 104, then goes on the old Beaver Valley Road alignment until it comes into the new Beaver Valley Road. It continues along Beaver Valley Road to the sub-station at Four Corners and then down to the BP A substation in Discovery Bay. There have been comments that this project should not be along Shine Road and that an alternative route along Highway 104 should be considered. The consideration of alternatives is typically something that is done through the Environmental Impact Statement process. At this point the County is reviewing a proposal. If significant adverse impacts are identified, the Board can determine that an EIS is necessary, and alternatives would be considered at that time. It is not within the County's authority under SEP A to say that the project proponent must change the proposal. The Chairman then asked the appellants to present their case. Christine Nokes. 941 Shine Road. stated that she is representing 43 residents of the Shine Road area. This group has informally contacted other neighborhoods between the Hood Canal Bridge and Discovery Bay. The power lines are along a corridor that exists over farmlands and along the highway. Other neighborhoods aren't as concerned because there are open lVOl 19 rAG~ 997 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 7 spaces and the proposed upgrade is not ~ffecting their specific homes. On Shine Road the power lines are in the front yards of the homes, and many of the poles that currently exist are as close as 38 feet to some residen is. As citizens, Christine Nokes explained th t they are concerned about public policy. They are concerned about property values and aest etics. There are at least 12 residents along Shine Road that would be willing to commit th money it would take to pay Puget Power to bury the distribution lines. They are asking th t the power lines be moved up to Highway 104 for the 2 1/2 mile corridor that now goes al ng Shine Road. They are also concerned about the lack f guarantee that Puget Power has been willing to give during their informal discussions wi h regard to the ultimate milligauss that will effect the residents on Shine Road once the 230 kv line is energized to that level in the year 2012. They feel that the staff analysis in cert in areas has been superficial. Superficial in that more site visits should have been done, more data should have been collected, and more observations should have been made regar ing erosion, and the milligauss levels of the power lines now. They are requesting that an e vironmental impact statement be done and that the power lines be re-routed. Gre Roates Roates En ineerin Poulsbo was sworn in by the Prosecuting Attorney and explained that he was retained by the Sine community to investigate and document water runoff and soil erosion issues along Shine oad where it is in close proximity to the shoreline (specifically from the County Park west rly to a point where the road diverges from the shoreline - a distance of approximately 4, 00 feet or 3/4 of a mile.) Mr. Roates reported that he performed his investigation on August 15 and 22, 1993 and it consisted of: 1) a review of current SEP A documents, 2) inspection and measurements along Shine Road, 3) inspection and measurements along the Shine shoreline from the beach level, 4) observation of tidal elevations and wave action at the toe of the bank, 5) review of the Conservation Service soil survey of Jefferson County, and 6) interviews of Shine residents regarding water runoff and soil erosion. He feels that a serious erosion problem exists along Shine Road. It has not been solved adequately by physical improvements because only spot repairs have been attempted, and it has not been addressed in sufficient detail in the SEP A process to date. In a review of current SEP A documents, specifically the mitigated DNS dated June 21, 1993, (exhibit B), the Public Works Department indicates that they don't believe the proposal will effect the road or that the unstable slopes will effect the power lines on the side of the road. Mr. Roates said that his observation is that the unstable slopes are affecting the road and will indirectly, and in some cases directly, effect the power lines. A letter from the County to Christine and Bob Nokes dated June 22, 1993 essentially deals with short term construction impacts and suggests that a final erosion and sediment control plan will be required of Puget Power. It will address all of the erosion and sedimentation concerns per the State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual. Mr. Roates stated that his point is that the construction impacts are not the real issue. The real issue is the long term effect of the bluff erosion on the proposal (road and power lines.) He then reviewed the factors which he explained contribute to the stormwater runoff and soil and bank erosion along Shine Road. High tides and wave action erode at the toe of the bank. This causes the bank to become more vertical, less stable, and it undermines the top of the bank. If there are trees on the top of the bank, the added weight of a tree can result in a sudden loss of material. There is also surface water runoff from Shine Road which tends to saturate the soil materials at the top of the bank. In some instances there is a perched water table. A perched water table tends to flow along the hard pan layer and emerges along the face of the bank saturating the material and further de-stabilizing the bank. Continued residential development in the area increases surface water runoff, and stream flows to the beach. Increase stream flows result in an increase in the average velocity of the stream, t VOL 1 9 fAGf 998 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 8 increased channel erosion, and the potential for increased bank erosion. Wind driven rain directly on the bank surface and freeze/thaw cycles also loosen bank material. Over a number of years these factors are important because they add to de-stabilizing the bank. Chairman Wojt asked if the power poles are all on the upper side of the road? Greg Roates answered that is correct. He explained that not all of the factors that contribute to erosion are present in every single foot of Shine Road beach, however, all of them are present in some areas and are actively contributing to the erosion. He then explained the effect of high tide and wave action at the toe of the bank. Hood Canal is subject to prevailing southerly winds over many miles of open water. These large waves occur in the area of Shine. The Shine shoreline is directly in the path of southerly winds and as a result often incurs large waves on shore. In addition there is the effect of high tides. He believes based on his best judgment that anytime there is a tide of greater than 12 feet, there is a potential for direct wave action against the toe of the bank. The 1993 tide tables indicate that there will be 100 days of tides over 12 feet and 37 days of tides over 12 1/2 feet and 10 days of tides over 13 feet. All of the 13 foot tides are during the months of December and January when the wind blows. He then presented and reviewed photographs of the Shine beach. Chairman Wojt asked how many horizontal feet of bluff erosion Mr. Roates observed? Greg Roates stated that he didn't measure the actual number of feet, but he estimates that erosion is occurring on at least 50% to 75% (1/2 a mile) of the shoreline from the County park past the Harris property. He took measurements along the road, but since you cannot see the road from the beach it is difficult to measure along the beach. In response to a question from Commissioner Hinton, Mr. Roates clarified that the power lines run on the north side of the road (between the residences and the road) and the guide poles that help hold up the power lines are between the road and the beach. Photographs that Mr. Roates took of the bank erosion (taken from the beach looking up toward the road) were then submitted. He explained that they were taken in sequence from in front of the Nokes residence (941 Shine Road) westerly to the Harris residence. Photographs 1 through 6: Pictures of bank erosion. Photograph 8:This picture shows bank erosion with undercutting and a guide pole that is very close to the top of the bank. The anchor line for the pole is actually loose. Photograph 9: Erosion and undercutting in front of 531 Shine Road. Photograph 10 and 11: These pictures show more bank erosion. Photograph 12: Bank in front of Harris residence (341 Shine Road) showing fallen root ball. Mr. Roates then reviewed a cross section drawing of erosion in two specific locations (701 Shine Road and near the Pederson residence). He explained that material, such as that found in the Shine Road area, has a natural angle of repose of approximately one to one. Anytime there is a vertical bluff close to the edge of the road, there will be a problem. He then submitted several more photographs he had taken. Photograph 13: Sign in front of Ashmore residence at 1051 Shine Road. The sign was originally placed 10 years ago and has now been removed because of bank erosion. Photograph 14: Guardrail in front of 701 Shine Road (Stroud) which indicates that the road is being threatened by bluff erosion. Photograph 15: Active slide area in front of Harris property (341 Shine Road) with a bank height of approximately 25 feet. The Harris' have asked the County to do something to stabilize this area, but the County says there is no budget for this work. Water runoff occurs in several ways, Greg Roates continued, such as sheet flow toward the bluff, a perched water table flowing toward the bank, and stream flows in the area. There are five streams that emerge along the Shine shoreline (photographs 16 through 20.) Increased development of the upland areas with good view property will gradually increase and despite lVOl 19 PAGf 999 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 9 stormwater controls, the volumes of water in these streams will increase which means that the velocity of the streams increase, and result in increased channel erosion. Mr. Roates reported that he held interviews with the following Shine residents: Ashmore, Hill, Nokes, Stroud, Smith, Grab os, Harris, Welcome and Santee. The Ashmores lost approximately six feet of bank in 10 years; the Hills lost about 2 1/2 feet in eight years; and the Grabos' have lost 15 to 20 feet in the past 47 years. As a result of observations and averaging those rates of erosion, Greg Roates concluded that there are erosion rates along Shine Road that vary from zero to six inches per year. In conclusion, Mr. Roates, noted that he feels there is a serious erosion problem which has not been solved either by improvements or written and verbal assurances that the problem is not serious. The erosion will, in the future, seriously effect both the Shine Road and the power lines. The entire shoreline needs to be uniformly protected which can be done by either bin walls or rip rapping, or by relocating large sections of Shine Road. The power line alignment on Shine Road is ill advised and Mr. Roates believes that, based on his studies, alternative routing should be vigorously sought. Greg Roates stated that he is a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of Washington. Jerry Lutz, Attorney with Perkins Coie representing Puget Power, then asked the following questions of Mr. Roates: Q. What the potential is for impacts from this project on beach erosion? A. Mr. Roates answered that the impact on beach erosion from this project are fairly slight. The reverse is the real issue. Q. If the road is protected, will the line be protected? A. If the shoreline and road are uniformly protected the entire length of the alignment (4,000 feet), the power lines will be protected. He added that in order to protect a 25 foot vertical bank, it will take more than a six foot rip rap wall at the bottom and a few yards of dirt and asphalt at the top. Q. When you refer to the natural angle of repose, is that based on the type of soils that are found along the Shine Road in particular or is that general? A. It is fairly general, but it definitely applies to the soil types along Shine Road. Q. Do you have particular expertise in soil mechanics to make that statement? A. Not soil mechanics, but he feels that, for a complex problem of this nature, the qualifications for a Civil Engineer are better suited to solving the overall problem. Q. Were there any places that streams hit the existing power poles? where you thought that power poles were creating a problem? A. There was one pole that was within 20 feet of a stream which could pose a problem. Q. If that pole was relocated within another 20 feet or so, would it cause a problem? A. It would not be as serious a problem with regard to direct impact on the pole itself. Q. And the pole wouldn't be impacting the stream? A. Probably not. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the people in the Shine community would have the same erosion concerns if the cable were underground and would the County be able to put roadbed over an underground cable if it was moved inland? Greg Roates stated that it is his understanding that if the line were placed in conduit and ample manholes were put in, the road could go over the top of an underground power line. Robert Nesbit. County Engineer. stated that it is his opinion that the relocation of the power lines will not effect the stability of the bank. The County is in the process of trying to obtain a hydraulics permit to do some bank protection in the vicinity of the Harris and Shroud properties. Earl Wells. Public Works Department Operations Manager. explained that this work will only be spot protection because a major wall would cost major dollars. Part of the problem in this area is not just tidal action. There are drainage problems in the area that have been created by the property owners themselves. Runoff from some of the properties are directed into the ditches which run under the road. There have been trees cut down to improve views that l VOL 19 fAG~ Of} .aoo \ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 10 were stabilizing the bank. There are many different items that are causing the problems in this area. The road maintenance budget can only accommodate repair as it has been done in the past. Eventually, if a major wall is not constructed to protect the road, it will have to be moved over. He doubts that the power line being replaced in this area will cause any other damage to the road. Robert Nesbit. County Engineer. added that he agrees with Mr. Roates, that if the bluff is going to be protected it will take at least a 20 foot wall which he estimates would cost about one and a half million dollars. Jerry Lutz asked Earl Wells to confirm that he indicated that the power lines will not impact the road. Earl Wells said that he doesn't feel that is a problem at all. It is hard to guess how long it would take for the reverse (the erosion impacting the power lines) to happen. There is drainage coming out along the bank that doesn't show up in the road ditch which is an indication that there are underground water problems in the area. Jerry Lutz asked if the County will maintain the road? Earl Wells answered that the County will maintain the road where it is, but it will be done in a stop gap manner, as it has been done in the past. Fred Hill. 1023 Shine Road. stated that if the road has to be moved inland, he doesn't think the road can run under the power lines. Christine Nokes explained that if the power lines were to be moved to Highway 104, the power distribution lines to all of the houses could be buried in the back yards of all the houses. If the power lines were moved, that would make the need to bury the power lines in the front yards of the houses (that face the water) moot. The people of Shine Road question the judgment of Puget Power in their proposal to put the upgraded 230 kv lines along Shine Road in light of this testimony. This upgrade is being done because Kitsap County and Jefferson County need backup power when an outage occurs. Puget Power has indicated that it's going to be costly to move the power lines up to the Highway and that there are concerns about how the rate payers may view that cost. Christine Nokes stated that incurring the cost now to move the power lines would be far better than taking the chance that the roads will erode or that one of the power poles will go over in a severe storm. Christine Nokes then concluded her presentation by stating that they recognize that there is a lot of controversy about EMF (electromagnetic fields), and there have been many studies regarding the possibility of developing cancer from being exposed to these fields. There is no conclusive evidence. The Shine Road residents realize there is no legal basis on which to appeal their concerns about EMF. The residents and Puget Power have taken milligaus readings along Shine Road of the existing 66 kv lines and there are factual differences between these readings. More studies need to be done before the conclusion can be made that 230 kv lines will be operating at a milligauss level that would not be detrimental to health. The studies being conducted say that there could be possible correlations between exposure to two milligauss and cancer. The readings, she measured, under the current 66 kv lines in the Shine area average from 4.1 to over 5 milligauss. She reported that she used a Model 4060, F.W. Bell, ELF meter to make her measurements. Chairman Wojt asked if her meter had been calibrated? Christine Nokes reported that her meter was checked against Puget Power's meter and the same readings were taken at several points along Shine Road. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the milligauss levels for the 115 kv lines are predicted to be less than the 66 kv lines at a measurement of 30 feet? Christine Nokes answered that is what she understands. Her readings were taken under the power lines, not at the residences. Commissioner Hinton asked if readings were taken inside any of the residences? Christine Nokes reported that they did take readings,in the houses (when everything that _ VOL .1 ~ rAGE 00 1001 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 11 would create a reading in the houses was shut down) which were approximately half of what they were under the power lines. Jerry Lutz then asked Christine Nokes the following questions: Q. Are you asking that the Commissioners not consider the other issues (such as noise and wildlife) raised in your initial appeal? A. These issues will not be discussed issue by issue. She asked for the right to refer to some of the other issues and concerns in the discussion of EMF or soils. Q. Do you understand that Puget Power's proposal is to convert the line to 230 kv operation in about the year 2012? A. Yes. Q. Your request is for an EIS to address the issue of EMF from the 230 kv power line now rather than in the year 2012? Explain what particular issues you feel might come out of that study that could not be as well addressed in the year 2012? A. The request for a study and an EIS is to bring more information to the table so that more valid conclusions can be drawn. The staff analysis of the issue has not been in depth enough to draw valid conclusions regarding EMF. Q. Is there something particular that you think would be better answered now than in the year 2012 with respect to EMF in particular? A. If there is an issue or there are more sensitive environmental problems than are understood right now, by leaving it for 10 or 15 years and having the power line there, it will be more difficult to actually make a move or a change. It will be more expensive for Puget Power and the ratepayer if a conclusion is drawn at a later date rather than now. Q. If the Commissioners determine that they have been presented with the best information available with respect to EMF, do you think that is sufficient with the SEP A condition that staff has imposed, to allow the project to go forward without an EIS? A.No. Q. When you took the (milligauss) measurements under the line was that under the transmission lines and the distribution lines? A.Yes. Jim Kerns. Proiect Manager for Puget Power was sworn in by the Prosecuting Attorney. He then introduced the other Puget Power representatives present: Diana Duke, Project Coordinator (primarily responsible for contact with State agencies that regulate portions of the project); Dale Easely, Supervisor of Transmission Line Design Group; Pam Deutch, Industrial Hygenist (responsible for following all health related issues for customers and employees); Dr. Arthur Guy, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington in Departments of Electrical Engineering and Rehabilitative Medicine) and Director of the University's Bioelectrical Mechanics Research Laboratory; and Jerry Lutz, Attorney; Byron Swigart, District Manager for Jefferson County; and Larry Tornberg of the Environmental Permitting Group. · Project Scope: This project stretches from the Salisbury Point Cable Station located on the other side of the Hood Canal Bridge in Kitsap County to Discovery Bay. The cable station on the Kitsap County side will be rebuilt within the confines of its existing fence. A new submarine cable will be installed across Hood Canal and a new cable station will be constructed at Shine Heights. The existing cable station at the entrance to Shine Tidelands State Park will be removed and the site will be restored to a natural wetland condition. A new cable station will be constructed in the trees above the bluff in that area. The cables will be run under the road up to the cable station. At that point the transmission system will run overhead. The proposal is to rebuild the overhead transmission system along its existing route from the Shine cable station to the Irondale cable station (Four Corners area.) The new poles will be 10 or 12 feet taller than the existing poles. The same number of wires will be used but they will be larger in diameter. The pole top configuration will use a cleaner post insulator to replace the 'V' shaped wood cross arms on many of the current poles. At a few locations (maybe 3 or 4 over the 28 miles of the project) the exiting wood poles will be replaced with either a taper steel tube, a laminated wood pole, or a tubular concrete pole, in the interest of eliminating some guide lines. Where there are low voltage distribution lines (which serve customer houses) directly below the transmission lines on the existing poles, they will be transferred to the new poles. They will try to place all the new poles within several feet lVOL 19 rA(;~ 00 1002 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 12 of the location of the existing poles. From Four Corners to the BP A Substation at Discovery Bay, a new, second transmission line will be built adjacent to the exiting line on the right-of-way. The second line will allow 66 kv service to the City of Port Townsend. · Why this project is being done: The existing transmission lines were installed in 1948. Many of the poles are nearing the end of their useful life. Since many of the poles need to be replaced anyway, there are a number of problems with the existing system that will also be addressed. The existing system is not adequate to serve the full customer load in Jefferson County. If there is a failure at either the BPA transformer at Fairmount (the point of delivery for power to the County) or the line from there to Irondale, the cable and small line that currently exist will not allow enough power to be put into the system from Kitsap County to serve all the Jefferson County customers. There is a similar problem in Kitsap County. The proposed upgrade of the system to 115 kv operation, with the contingency to convert to 230 kv operation in the future, will immediately correct the existing problems and provide a contingency for future growth. · Shine Road: It is Puget Power's practice when rebuilding existing lines or siting new lines, to try and avoid creating new or additional environmental or land use impacts to the maximum extent practical. When upgrading existing lines, this practice results in rebuilding alignments rather than establishing a new utility corridor. Puget Power considered relocating the Shine Road section of the project to the Highway 104 corridor before the proposal was finalized. This option was discussed with County staff and the State Department of Transportation staff before the application was submitted. The DOT staff discouraged pursuing that option because there is an existing line elsewhere. Highway 104 is a limited access, scenic highway, which means that the project would require a number of variances from the State, which may be hard to get because of the existing corridor. The decision was made to rebuild on the existing alignment because, 1) it would result in no significant environmental or land use impacts that don't already exist, new impacts on views would be minimal, no additional clearing or tree trimming would be required and 2) relocating to Highway 104 would require the establishment of new overhead facilities where none now exist on the shoulder of a scenic highway. It would require cutting trees along the highway to a depth of about 25 feet into the existing tree line. This would impact not only the highway, but it would also remove the entire buffer for several homes in the area. There would be no significant offsetting reduction in the existing impact on Shine Road if the line were relocated. There are overhead distribution lines on Shine Road which would remain. Items that were not a primary consideration in making the decision regarding the location of this project (specially Shine Road) were: cost, project schedule, or the length of the permitting process. · Specific Issues raised during the environmental review and the appeal: Aesthetics: This proposal will not result in new overhead facilities in places where they do not already exist. No new utility corridors will be established. The new poles will not differ substantially from the existing poles. He then reviewed pictures (Figures 6 and 7 from the environmental checklist) of the view waterward from a point above Shine Road. The pictures show the existing line and a photo simulation of what the new line and pole would look like. Mark Huth asked exactly where the picture was taken? Mr. Kerns answered that the picture was taken from the deck on a home immediately west of, and higher on the hill, than the Weatherford Inn (Nokes property.) The Planning Department concluded after reviewing the information provided that no significant adverse environmental impacts related to aesthetics were identified. Electromagnetic Fields: After reviewing material provided by Puget Power in the checklist and information provided by the federal government, the State of Washington and the City of Bellevue, the Planning Department found that the studies of the potential health effects of EMF to be inconclusive. Additional information included calculations of the magnetic fields contributed by the existing transmission line as well as the proposed lines, and the : VOL 19 fAŒ 001003 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 13 calculations projecting the loads on the lines and the resulting magnetic fields into the future. After reviewing those calculations the Planning Department found that over the next 20 years the magnetic field levels from the proposal would be lower than the existing levels and that no significant environmental impacts had been identified and additional analysis is not necessary. Mr. Kerns then reviewed charts submitted with the additional information provided to the County. He explained that the charts depict only the measurement of the magnetic field (not the electrical portion) which is the area of concern. These charts depict only the field from the transmission line (not the distribution lines because the proposal will not change them.) He added that he doesn't dispute the general measurements taken in the field by the Shine residents. He feels that they match the measurements taken by Puget Power, if they were adjusted to eliminate the measurement for the distribution lines, as Puget Power has done. Puget Power checked their calculations by de-energizing the transmission system for a brief period to allow an accurate measurement of just the distribution system. Chairman Wojt asked if there are seasonal variations in the levels of current being run through the lines? Mr. Kerns explained that there are seasonal fluctuations, but what is depicted in the charts is the average annual field strengths. The magnetic field strength is always proportional to the load on the line. These calculations were done using the BP A Corona computer program which is an accepted method of measurement in both the industry and research community. Average annual loads were projected into the future by Puget Power's System Planning Department in a manner consistent with the growth projections provided to the County for the growth management process. Field strengths are dependent on: the amount of current (load) on the line, distance from the line, and the physical geometry of the wires at the top of the pole. With respect to distance from the line, the readings were made at the lowest point of sag (to the ground) in the line with the line operating at it's maximum current capacity. He then explained what the lines on the charts represent. Mr. Kerns reported that the existing magnetic fields along Shine Road are very low, and will remain low for the foreseeable future (through the year 2012) even if the voltage is increased to 230 kv. As a point of reference he took a reading from a Magnum 310 Dexsil milligauss meter in the front of the Commissioners Chambers (near the office door) of 3 1/2 milligauss, while moving back a row of chairs the reading was 8 milligauss. The proposed conversion of the lines to 115 kv will result in even lower magnetic field levels than the lines in their current configuration. The mitigated DNS includes a condition which requires additional environmental review of the EMF issues at such time as the voltage is increased to 230 kv. Puget Power doesn't feel that mitigation is necessary, but they feel it makes the issue of EMF impacts on Shine Road moot, because at 115 kv, the magnetic field will be substantially less than continuing to operate the system in its current configuration. Audible Noise: Maximum environmental noise levels are regulated by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 73.60. The noise released from Puget Power's transmission lines will always be less that what is permitted for one residential use to another. Puget Power's transmission lines will be below the noise standards that any other resident on Shine Road would have to meet. The Planning Department found that no significant adverse noise impacts were identified and no mitigation measures were recommended. Wildlife Impacts: The only concerns raised by the State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife were related to short term impacts during construction. No potential on-going or long term impacts were identified. With respect to Shine Road, the responsible State agencies identified no potential significant impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat. The wildlife present on Shine Road have lived next to the existing lines for 45 years. Soil Erosion: The existing line has been in place along Shine Road for 45 years. Jefferson County has experienced a very low number of power outages. There have been no unusual problems with respect to storm damage or foundation stability over that period. Puget Power's engineering and environmental staff inspected the several areas of concern that the residents of Shine Road identified during an on-site meeting on March 12, 1993. VOL 19 ~Af,~ 00 :1004 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 14 Reinspection of those areas have been made since and, Mr. Kerns noted that he remains convinced that whatever limited areas of erðsion and instability exist on the banks adjacent to Shine Road, they pose no serious hazard to either the existing or the proposed line. Christine Nokes then asked the following questions of Mr. Kerns: Q. With respect to the conclusions drawn regarding noise, did Puget Power send staff out to stand under the present power line and listen to the noise? Was there any way that you measured the present level? Would you conclude that a higher kilovolt line would have little or no noise impact? A. Noise measurements were taken along Shine Road, but there was no way to know how much noise was from the transmission line versus the noise from the surf on the beach, the traffic on the highway, etc. They found that the noise of the lines is inaudible above the background noise. Q. Did you take your noise readings under the lines at the Stroud residence? The noise under the lines there is almost frightening when certain conditions, such as rain, exist. A. Mr. Kerns indicated that he did not take the readings and he has not heard that noise, but he has not been there during a storm. Q. What criteria did Puget Power use to conclude that the 2 1/2 miles of highway between the Bridge and Teal Lake Road is more environmentally sensitive than the 2 1/2 mile stretch of Shine Road which runs along the shoreline? A. The conclusion that Puget Power made was that there would be some impacts to the highway. They would be establishing new facilities where there are none. They'd be cutting trees which wouldn't have to be done along Shine Road. Neither of those impacts would occur along Shine Road. Q. Then no conclusion has been made that the highway is more or less environmentally sensitive than Shine Road? That analysis has not been done? A.No. Q. Doesn't the milligauss reading go way up when the line is fully juiced to 230 kv and there is a high load on the line? A. The magnetic field will vary throughout the year as the load on the line varies. Q. Is it realistic to believe that in five to ten years the line may need to be fully juiced (230 kv)? A. No. Load growth has been included in the calculations. System normal means that none of the lines are down and none of the equipment is out of service. If the system is not operating normally and the proposed system is in place, it would mean that the lights are out until the load can be switched to another source. With the existing system the lights are out until it is repaired or the equipment is replaced. In the worst case, if the BPA transformer at Discovery Bay goes down, it would take at a minimum, days, weeks or even months, to replace it and the system would be operating abnormally or non-system normal. With the proposed system it would be a matter of throwing a switch and the system could be rectified within a matter of minutes or hours. Q. Is there a guarantee that the system would not be fully juiced at 230 kv - at maximum capacity of current? A. With the proposal that Puget Power has made, it is not possible to energize that system at 230 kv, even in emergencies. The system is proposed to be energized at 115 kv and constructed so that some day it could be energized at 230 kv. The system can't be energized at 230 kv because the Port Ludlow substation is only built to run 115 kv and would have to be rebuilt to handle 230 kv. The lrondale switching station would also have to be rebuilt to handle 230 kv. In order to interconnect the system more effectively with Kitsap County it must be brought up to 115 kv. There are currently no 230 kv lines in Kitsap County for the system to connect to. Q. At least eight of the power poles along Shine Road are dry rotted and about ready to fall over. Approximately two years ago a power pole fell over in front of 1051 Shine Road, and she takes exception to the data that Puget Power is speaking from. She clarified that it was her understanding that the butt of the pole was still in place. A. This supports my point that may pieces of the existing system are nearing the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. VOL 19 rAG~ 00 1005 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 15 Q. Regarding the Puget Power policy about running power lines along an existing corridor, Christine Nokes pointed out that 100 years ago Shine Road was the main route and there was logic in placing power lines along the well traveled route. A highway has been built since then and about 36 miles of the existing corridor goes along that highway. Why has Puget Power adhered to this policy of running the line along the existing corridor when there has been a change in the neighborhood along Shine Road and another highway has been constructed? A. There is no policy that new lines must be placed along an existing alignment. There is a policy to try and minimize new environmental and land use impacts. In practice that often means that they end up upgrading lines on their existing alignments. In this case the staff before finalizing the proposal, looked at the potential impacts of the rebuild versus a new alignment on Highway 104 and concluded that there would be less, in fact no significant impact, if it was rebuilt on Shine Road. Q. Is the fact that several new homes, from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in cost, have been built along Shine Road within the last couple of years, not an impact in the environmental sense? A. I'm sure it is an environmental impact, but not one associated with Puget Power's proposal. The impact of replacing those polls in their existing location would be much less than the construction of anyone of those homes. There are new homes being constructed on Shine Road and the owners of those homes made a judgment that the existing transmission lines wouldn't significantly effect them. Jerry Lutz then asked Mr. Kerns the following questions: Q. Put the impact of erosion rates quoted by Mr. Roates into the context of this project? A. If you assume Mr. Roates is correct by stating the erosion rates of zero to six inches a year, under the absolute worst case scenario, over the 45 years that the current lines have been in place, the head of the bank would move back about 22 feet. This would certainly raise havoc with the County road. The power line at its closest is about 30 feet back from the bank. Q. What is the angle of repose? A. The angle of repose of one to one is commonly assumed for sand or loose sand type materials. The material exposed in the bluffs and cliffs of Shine Road is an over consolidated glacial till, which is commonly known as hard pan. This material is cemented and will naturally and stably stand at near vertical slopes unless it's eroded from the top. We agree on many matters, but Mr. Kerns stated that he feels Mr. Roates is incorrect on his presumptions on the internal mechanics of the soils of Shine Road. Q. What are your qualifications to make that opinion? A. I'm an engineering geologist. I have a Bachelors degree in geology from the University of Washington, a degree in civil engineering, and a Masters Degree specializing in soil mechanics from the University of Washington. I was a consultant for geotechnical engineering firms for five years prior to going to work for Puget Power. For eight years after joining Puget Power, I worked in the design group specializing in foundation and soil mechanics issues. Q. In your view the line will be safe on Shine Road? A. It will be. There are limited areas of instability on the bluffs adjacent to Shine Road, but they are by no means continuous and they can be addressed adequately in the piece meal type of approach the Road Department is proposing to take. Even if these areas were not addressed, a transmission line is not a continuous structure. There is only a pole on the ground about every 300 feet. Even if there was a localized failure that entirely broached the width of the road, it would be a fairly simple matter to relocate a pole or replace it with two poles to span the unstable area. Pam Deutch. 3915 Burke Avenue North, Seattle, W A 98103, was sworn in by the Prosecuting Attorney. She stated that she is an Industrial Hygienist for Puget Power and does occupational safety and· health. She has an undergraduate degree in Biology and a degree in Industrial Hygiene and Safety from the University of Washington. For Puget Power, she works on both occupational safety and health issues and covers the EMF issue. She follows the EMF issue by obtaining studies and large scale reviews as they come out, and maintaining VDr_ 19 rAGf 00 1006 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 16 an EMF library. She also works on projects such as this and responds to customer inquiries. Previous to working for Puget Power, she was a compliance inspector for the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and previous to that she worked for the State of Massachusetts Department of Public Health doing environmental epidemiology (cancer studies.) She explained that she doesn't try and answer the question of whether there are health effects associated with electric and magnetic fields. She follows the studies, and new research that comes out and reads the large scale reviews done by international bodies and looks to the scientific community for their opinions. Jerry Lutz then reported that an energetic report from the City of Bellevue was submitted as part of the staff report for the Board's review. Pam Deutch continued by submitting the following documents: Memorandum dated October 12, 1993 - Science Advisory Board Review of the EPA Document on the Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields - This body came to the conclusion that there is no cause and effect relationship between exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and adverse health effects. EMF in Your Environment - Magnetic Field Measurements of Everyday Electrical Devices, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,· #402-R-92- 008 December 1992. This brochure describes the kind of magnetic fields you can be exposed to from everyday interactions with appliances. Ouestions and Answers About Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (6603J) December 1992. This publication describes some of the questions that Ms. Nokes mentioned, such as the two milligauss level. Two milligauss was an arbitrary value that the EP A points out could have been any other number. There is no known safe or unsafe exposure level. The two milligauss level is not a cutoff point. · Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer: A Report of an Advisory Group on Non- ionizing Radiation, Volume 3 No 1, 1992, National Radiological Protection Board, and a News Release on that report. This Board found in 1992 that there was no cause and effect relationship between exposure to extremely low frequency EMF's and adverse health effects. This Board was reconvened subsequent to the Swedish and Danish studies that came out last fall to see if there was any new information that would change their opinion about adverse health effects being associated with magnetic field exposure. They concluded that there was nothing substantial to change their opinion. Health Effects of Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, June 1992, An Oak Ridge Associated Universities Panel for the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination. This report was produced after a review of all the scientific research issued over a 25 year period. This panel concluded that there was no cause and effect relationship between exposure to extremely low frequency EMF's and adverse health effects. Jerry Lutz added that this is a copy of the executive summary of the document, and the full 350 page document can be made available if requested. · · · · Pam Deutch reported that there is a European committee that focuses on non-ionizing radiation (which ELF and EMF is) and they have reviewed the EMF issue to try and set standards or guidelines for exposure to the public and the working population. In 1990 they set their standard at 1,000 milligauss (time weighted average) for the general public and 5,000 milligauss for the working population. That committee reconvened after the Swedish and Danish studies were released and decided that they would stick with their standard. The latest information from two groups that follow the EMF issue (EPRI - the Electric Power Research Institute and EEl - Edison Electric Institute) suggest that Sweden will more than likely set a 10 milligauss guideline for new transmission facilities. Jerry Lutz asked if there is anything that Pam Deutch is aware of that could be added regarding the EMF issue by going through the EIS process? Pam Deutch answered there is nothing to her knowledge. Christine Nokes then asked Pam Deutch the following questions: VOL 19 f'AG~ 00 1007 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 17 Q. Explain Puget Power's policy to conclude that there is really no concern with EMF when all of this controversy and discussion of the issue is going on. A. Pam Deutch answered that she didn't mean to suggest that there is a study that is conclusive. There have been various scientific advisory groups convened by States, our national government and international governments to take a look at the scientific evidence. Q. Does this mean that Puget Power is not concerned about certain milligauss levels? A. No. Puget Power, because they are not the experts, have to follow the expert bodies. They have to follow the latest evidence provided to them. Q. Is Puget Power spending any money or doing any research of their own? A. Last fall the U.S. government passed regulations that in the next five years $65 million will be spent researching electromagnetic fields. Each utility depending on its size will have to pay a portion of that cost. Puget Power also pays a substantial amount of money to EPRI. Puget Power doesn't have its own independent researchers, but is in the position of providing monies to allow research by private research institutions. Q. Do you feel that Puget Power's policy with respect to EMF is a responsible policy and that the public health is protected? A. I do. All we can do in the process of controversy and confusion is try and stay up with what the current scientific body is saying. Epidemiology is a very inexact science. It is the study of human populations to find trends. If a trend is found then laboratory research is done with animals or cells. With all of the epidemiological studies that have been done, the ones that have actually measured magnetic fields have not found an increased risk of cancer. When surrogate measures have been used, like the Swedish and Danish studies use of computer models and the Colorado study use of wire codes, they find an increased risk. Scientists are trying to figure out if there is something else that is being picked up in these studies. Q. Christine Nokes stated that the residents of Shine Road feel that even if there is a small doubt more study needs to be done before 230 kv lines are installed. Do you feel there is still a reasonable doubt and that is why all the research is going on, or is this just public perception that there is a problem, when perhaps there isn't? A. Pam Duetch answered that if she had to decide how to apportion research money on public health priorities, she would provide money to study smoking and lung cancer, smoking cessation programs, immunization programs, pre-natal care and many other things. She feels that research will go on but there is 25 years of research in this area. There is a Danish and Finish study that showed no increased risk. There is one Swedish study that showed an increased risk and that is the only country that is considering possibly setting guidelines. All other countries have decided not to set guidelines below 1,000 milligauss. Mark Huth asked Ms. Deutch if she provided copies of all of the documents to Mrs. Nokes? Pam Deutch indicated that she had. Dr. Arthur W. "Bill" Guv. 18122 60th PI. NE Seattle. W A 98155 was sworn in by the Prosecuting Attorney. Dr. Guy reported that he has a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science and a Ph.D in electrical engineering from the University of Washington. He has taught electromagnetic field theory in undergraduate school and bioelectromagnetics (the study of biological effects and medical applications of electromagnetic fields) in graduate school. In association with teaching commitments he has done about 35 years of research on biological effects and medical applications. He has been involved with the following committees working on the ELF issue: IEEE Safety Standards Coordinating Committee 28, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Scientific Committee 89, and is also involved with the industry in reviewing proposals for research. Dr. Guy then explained that EMF refers to either electric or magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies (ELF) or electromagnetic fields and higher· ~requencies. In the context of this hearing EMF is really MF, the electric component doesn't have much to do with what is being discussed here. The concern from the epidemiology studies. is about magnetic fields. He then explained the EMF spectrum. VOL 19 rAG~ 001008 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 18 Jerry Lutz asked if the fields from power lines are strong enough to damage genetic material? Dr. Guy answered that they are not. If the strength of the field is not strong enough to damage genetic material, Jerry Lutz asked why the ELF fields are important? These fields are important because they are what we use for power, but also because of the epidemiology studies that have been done. There are studies being done now to resolve the conflict between the results of tests done with wire codes and those being done on animals, cells or known mechanisms predicted by physics and engineering. Dr. Guy stated that he is familiar with all of the reports presented and discussed today and he agrees that the only conclusion you can come to based on what is in the reports, is that there is no direct relationship. He added that he feels that the reports are so up to date at the present time that it would be a waste of money to try and duplicate them. Especially, for a small County government, because they wouldn't be able to match the breadth and magnitude of the groups that have come to these conclusions about the literature at this time. Jerry Lutz asked how the two milligauss level equates to everyday exposures? Dr. Guy answered that it would be very difficult to avoid two milligauss in normal everyday life. Most appliances (especially anything associated with 60 hertz electrical current) has a magnetic field associated with it. In response to a question from Mr. Lutz regarding the data and charts presented by Jim Kerns, Dr. Guy reported that he did his own calculations from the data presented by Puget Power and ended up with exactly the same numbers. He agreed that the EMF's from the new line will be lower than the current line because anytime the voltage is increased it will reduce the current and the magnetic field levels. Chairman Wojt asked what is meant by wire codes? Dr. Guy explained that in 1979 when the first epidemiological study was done on distribution systems near residences, an increase in childhood leukemia was associated with the current carrying capacity of the distribution system. If you have a row of houses with a distribution line servicing them, the current (and magnetic field) will be the highest at the first house and by the time the line gets to the last house on the street, only the current in the line would be for that house, so the magnetic field is lower there. Four different configurations (wire codes), from very high current to a low current, were used and the study found that the association with childhood leukemia was with the high current configuration. There were no measurements made of the magnetic fields in this study. They just assumed that the high current configuration would correspond or be a surrogate of the magnetic field. When later studies were done with using both wire codes and direct measurement of the magnetic fields, the wire codes still showed an association with childhood leukemia, but the measured magnetic fields didn't shown that association. Scientists are trying to determine if it is actually the magnetic fields or possibly some characteristic of the transmission lines. In all of the animal and cellular studies being done now, the only time effects are seen is when the magnetic fields are raised up to 10's and 100's of gauss. In any case where a safety standard has been set for magnetic fields, based on scientific evidence, it has been set between 1,000 and 10,000 milligauss. These standards have a conservative safety factor built in. Christine Nokes asked how current effects voltage? Dr. Guy answered that when voltage goes up, current goes down if the load stays the same. For a given voltage of a line, the current is a proportion of the load. If the voltage is doubled for the same current you can supply twice the load. Christine Nokes then asked how many experts there are nationally, who have the same credentials as Dr. Guy, that specialize in making observations about EMF? Dr. Guy reported that there are about 700 members of the Bioelectric Magnetic Society. He added that he has no idea how many of those members give expert testimony on EMF's, or how many give testimony for power companies or citizens groups. Jerry Lutz asked if Dr. Guy feels that Puget Power's project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment due to the EMF's associated with it? Dr. Guy reported that he feels the effect will be on the beneficial side, because it will actually lower the levels. Commissioner Huntingford asked Christine Nokes if she agrees that the 115 kv lines will reduce the milligauss levels? She answered that it will at the current load, but what concerns VOL 19 rAG~ 00 1009 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 19 her is that it is unrealistic to believe that the current load (the number of homes that use the electricity) will stay that way in the future. It seems that Puget Power in their planning for putting in a 230 kv line is planning appropriately for future growth. Commissioner Huntingford then asked if there would still be a complaint if Puget Power were to simply replace the line and poles (with no change)? Christine Nokes stated that they are concerned. She feels that the residents who have moved into the Shine area, and as Puget Power stated, accepted the aesthetics of the poles and the current 66 kv levels, didn't realize the milligauss readings that were coming off the lines. After doing the research they have, they are concerned about the current levels. There are approximately 45 homes that are effected on Shine Road. Moving the corridor up to Highway 104 would effect less than 4 or 5 homes. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Ms. Nokes has talked with her neighbors along Highway 104 about how they would feel if these lines were run across their property? Christine Nokes stated that they have not talked to the neighbors across the highway. She added that the power lines mayor may not be placed on the side of Highway 104 where the homes are located and if they were, the lines would be hundreds of feet from the closest house. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there was any response about this project from residents of Beaver Valley Road or Irondale? Jim Pearson reported that the City of Port Townsend submitted some questions, and there were some general requests for more information from people who live in the City. There are at least 30 houses directly under the power lines, Commissioner Huntingford observed, between the Port Ludlow turnoff and the Chimacum intersection, but they don't have nearly the view the Shine residences do. Christine Nokes added that the lines are in the front yards of the houses along Shine Road. She noted that she feels that the lack of response along the Beaver Valley Road is due to the notification process used by Puget Power. The posted notice of this project in the Shine area was tacked on a power pole next to the substation near Shine Tidelands State Park. She feels that because of the way the public process works, the residents of Beaver Valley up to Discovery Bay aren't aware of this project. The notices posted on power lines are in locations not frequented by residents. She reported that she talked with Dee Barnes at the Beaver Valley Store about the project and Ms. Barnes indicated that she was not concerned about it. Jim Pearson clarified that the permit that triggered the review of this project by the County is a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to bring the cable under Hood Canal, moving the substation out of the Shine tidelands area, and the pole replacement activities within 200 feet of the shoreline. The postings were required to be placed in the area they were because they were appropriate to the shoreline permit review. Notices of the pending threshold determination and what that determination was were placed in the newspaper. Puget Power was also instructed to notify a list of people regarding the proposal. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Puget Power was required to notify anyone (other than for the Shoreline permit) because they are upgrading their transmission line? Jim Pearson and Mark Huth indicated that just upgrading the transmission line would not require public notification. There would not be a permit required for just an upgrade of the transmission line. Jerry Lutz added that building a transmission line over an existing distribution line is exempt from SEPA review. The portion of the line along Shine Road is part of Puget Power's shoreline project. Jim Kerns reported that Puget Power developed a notification process in consultation with the County. The following notification was done by Puget Power: · An informational newsletter describing the project was mailed to every property owner within 300 feet of the transmission line. Puget Power's customer records were reconciled with the County tax records to determine if there were any non-resident owners and they were sent this mailing also. · Advertisements (either full or half page) were placed in the Jefferson CountylPort Townsend Leader and the Peninsula Daily News describing the project, the permitting schedule and a telephone number for more information. . · Press releases were issued and interviews were granted to both newspapers. Editorials and informational articles were run by both publications. VOL 19 rAC~ 001010 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Chairman Wojt then opened the hearing for public comments. Page: 20 Harold Carter. Port Ludlow. stated that he approves of this project which will provide a larger source of power to this area, a more secure transmission system which should have fewer outages because of the new poles and the larger conductor, and the removal of known problems. This will be a much more firm power supply which will give two sources of power to Jefferson County. This project will give a higher level of electrical reliability to all of Jefferson County. He feels if there is concern in local areas, they are subordinate to an overall, better electric system for this area. Larry Smith. resident of Shine Road. read portions of a letter previously submitted to the Planning Department (see attached). He then reported that the photograph with a view of the power lines shown by Puget Power was inaccurate and an out of proportion view. He explained that the photograph was taken from the highest house along the Shine corridor. Not all of the information provided is as unbiased as they would like. If aesthetics is a consideration for not placing these lines on Highway 104, then it should also be considered on Shine Road and he believes SEP A covers that impact. Mariorie Christiansen asked the Board to consider that it would be very tragic if even one child living along Shine Road were to be effected by EMF. She asked about the national study that Seattle City Light contributed so much money to? Pam Deutch answered that City Light's contribution is part of the bill passed by Congress requiring utilities to pay for studying the EMF issue. Ms. Christiansen stated that she feels there must be a lot to the EMF issue, if this type of money is being contributed for research. Sandra Hill. 1023 Shine Road and owns the property at 1021 Shine Road. stated that she has attempted to take part and support the concerns of the residents of Shine Road. She then reviewed a record of the letters she has submitted to the County, and whether or not she received responses to them. With regard to the EMF issue, there is no consensus. There are still studies going on and there are still concerns. Another issue discussed today is the environmental impact of the erosion on Shine Road. She feels that it is in worse shape than has been stated today. If one section of this road goes, the shôtëline length increases, and the water activity increases. The current also plays a part in what happens along the Shine Road. When an area goes, it will not go at six inches (the per year average), it will go in a great big clump. The surface soil is sand and that is what will erode. Fred Gravis stated that the power lines are almost directly above their heads. He reported that he has written to the County Commissioners about the erosion of Shine Road and the bank between Shine Road and the beach. They have also written to the Planning Department urging them not to allow the construction of the power line along Shine Road, but to have it put along Highway 104. Christine Nokes. stated that she has a bed and breakfast business in her residence along Shine Road. The new power lines will be approximately 10 feet higher than the existing ones. Her bed and breakfast has a first floor and a second floor (where the guests stay.) Right now the way the power lines are configured, the guests have a view. If the power lines are replaced and raised 10 feet, they will directly block the view of the business. Puget Power's project will also impact the businesses at the intersection of Paradise Bay Road and Highway 104, by being an eyesore near a new sign to be installed which says "Welcome to Port Ludlow." With respect to EMF, she feels that if there is even a small doubt there could be a health hazard, the Board and Puget Power should be looking at an alternative route, even if it is more costly. With respect to stormwater runoff and erosion, she feels that the case has been treated lightly. Puget Power has not done enough analysis to understand what a problem it IS. Larry Smith then presented the following items for the record: · Copy of the Federal Congressional Record, (March 25, 1993) with the bill Children's Electromagnetic Field Risk Reduction Act. · Studying the Peril. Washington Post Monday March 11, 1991. VOL 19 rAG~ 00 101.1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 21 · Danger Overhead - Two Swedish Studies Provide the Best Evidence so far of a Link between Electricitv and Cancer by Christine Gorman, Time, October 25, 1992. · Fields of Power - Old Town Going Under Amid Electromagnetic Debate. by David Streitfeld, Washington Post, March 11, 1991. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Chimacum School District has commented on this project? Larry Smith reported they have not commented on it. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Smith feels that any more information regarding EMF could be provided if an environmental impact statement were required? Mr. Smith reported that he wants the Board to know that there are experts that believe in both cases. There is evidence that shows that there is a possible link. Commissioner Hinton added that these items are newspaper articles, not scientific studies. Mr. Smith noted that the milligauss readings taken by the Shine residents were different from those taken by Puget Power and he asked if some unbiased party could take these measurements. Commissioner Hinton pointed out that any readings taken would be from lines that are being replaced and wouldn't have much value. The new lines are being upgraded and will reduce the milligauss levels. Mr. Smith agreed that is correct right now, but as the County grows and more power is needed it will become a problem. The kids in the Shine area have no other place to play than along Shine Road. If at some point the studies show there is a problem with EMF exposure, this is the time to stop this major investment by Puget Power. Sandra Hill stated that if the road erodes and must be moved it will cost more in the future to do that. The risk of EMF, and the number of homes effected, as well as the erosion problem can be addressed by moving the lines. She asked what the difference will be in the weight of the new poles? A Puget Power representative reported that the poles will be taller and therefore heavier, however, the higher the pole the deeper they will be placed in the ground. Sandra Hill pointed out that the soil is unstable and even if the poles are placed deeper, there will still be unstable soil. Jim Kerns reported that Puget Power has seen no evidence that the soil on the inland side of the road is unstable. Setting new poles shouldn't effect that one way or another. Sandra Hill stated that Puget Power has indicated that this is a 50 year project and she doesn't feel that Shine Road will exist where it is now in 50 years. Larrv Smith added that the federal government spent $11 million in 1992 on EMF research. If this was not a significant problem they would not increase it as they have this year to $85 million. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the contribution by the utility companies is voluntary or mandated? Larry Smith read from the article which says that the Bill would require a contribution from the utility companies. Helen Gravis stated that her parents purchased property on Shine Road in 1946. When they purchased the property there was 15 feet between Shine Road and the beach. Now there is about three feet in this area. From the beach you can see pebbles and sand drop when a heavy vehicle goes by on the road. Regarding EMF, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center has been granted money for an extensive study on EMF and breast cancer. If there is any possibility whatsoever, why take chances? Christine Nokes noted that on Page 10 of Puget Power's hearing memorandum it is stated that Puget Power believes that the decision to change the operating voltage of the line from 115 kv to 230 kv is not an appropriate subject for local regulation. She reported she was told by a Puget Power representative that it was their policy to defer to the County on this type of project. She asked if this statement is in conflict with the testimony? Jerry Lutz stated that Puget Power has not chosen to appeal the condition in the MDNS which prohibits Puget Power from changing the operating voltage of· its existing facilities without further environmental review being done. Puget Power does work closely with local jurisdictions on locating facilities. Puget Power still feels that the decision to change operating voltage of an existing system is not something that is appropriately regulated by a local jurisdiction. VOL 19 rAG~ 00 :1012 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 22 Mark Huth added that the voltage is being raised from 66 kv to 115 kv by this project, and when and if the voltage is raised to 230 kv in the future there will be more research available and that is why invoking phased review makes sense. When Puget Power notifies the County that they plan to energize the line to 230 kv, then the County will have the authority under this MDNS to revisit the issue and all of the concerns about EMF can be considered again. Jim Kerns then reviewed photographs taken from the middle guest room on the upper floor of the Weatherford Inn. Christine Nokes asked that the Board refer to her letter to Craig Ward dated May 8, 1993 regarding the pictures Puget Power has presented. She noted that the pictures shown were carefully taken and do not show any poles. Also, the new poles would be in a slightly different configuration which is not represented in these pictures. She and Jim Kerns encouraged the Board to make a site visit. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to make a personal inspection of Shine Road. After discussion of possibly holding the written comment period open, Commissioner Hinton stated that he doesn't see the need to leave the comment period open due to the adequacy of the written and oral testimony presented on the issues. He then moved to deny the appeal and issue a modified mitigated determination of non-significance for the Puget Power project. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Commissioner Huntingford moved to defer a decision on this matter until 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday August 24, 1993. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion, and called for a vote. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. The meeting was recessed at the end of the of the scheduled hearing on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all Board members present. Commissioner Huntingford reported that he visited Shine Road earlier in the morning and doesn't see how the power lines will effect the road. Commissioner Huntingford then moved to deny the appeal and to issue a modified Mitigated Determination of Non-significance. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Jim Pearson reported that he will draft findings and conclusions for this action and submit them to the Board for their approval at a future meeting. Decision re: SEPA Miti~ation and Plat Approval Conditions; Adequate Provisions for Schools and Fire District; Inn at Port Ludlow Project; Pope Resources: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that there haven't been any further negotiations between the parties (Pope Resources and the School District or Pope Resources and the Fire District) during the past two weeks. Pope Resources sent some proposed voluntary agreements to the Board after the public record was closed and he feels that the Board should not consider those agreements today. Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that he has provided a memo (dated August 13, 1993) in response to Commissioner Hinton's list of questions presented at the last meeting. Mark Huth then reviewed a memo he provided the Board which includes a calculation for arriving at an adequate mitigation amount for the school district. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels the Board needs to decide a figure that is fair for everyone. Pope Resources has informed the Board that whatever they are required to pay will have to be fair and they expect everyone else in the County to pay the same price. There are items for consideration in developing a formula such as a 48 year useful life for school buildings and the various suggested student generation rates. He feels that a fair formula for everyone in the County would be to use the .31 student generate rate and a per VOL 19 rAGf 00 :1013 , - Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 23 student capital facilities cost of $1,410.00 which is $437.10 rate per student ($1,410 time .31). Commissioner Huntingford added that this formula does not include an amount for buses because he doesn't feel that buses are capital facilities. The cost of buses is reimbursed by the State with an inflation factor figured in. This reimbursement doesn't provide the School with up front money to buy the buses, but he questioned if including this cost in the mitigation fee wouldn't mean that the buses would be paid for twice. Any amount for buses in this calculation would mean that the buses are paid for up front and then the cost would be reimbursed from the State. If the student generation rate of .06 for Port Ludlow proposed by Pope Resources is used, Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't feel it is a rate that could be fairly applied Countywide or district wide. He feels the .31 rate could be used countywide and district wide. The County Commissioners have to view the needs of the County as a whole. Mark Huth added that the School District has presented testimony that indicates that even though there is a historic .06 rate in Port Ludlow, averages in other school districts support the .31 student generation rate. Chairman Wojt asked how the formula will work? Commissioner Huntingford clarified that the $16,117 per student figure was arrived at by dividing the lump sum of $22,563,500 by 1,400 students. This would mean a complete new school, which he feels should be looked at incrementally, but it is a place to start. A life expectancy for the school buildings of 48 years is being used, Commissioner Huntingford continued, and he feels this is appropriate. Commissioner Hinton added that he feels that there is still some confusion regarding the extent that the Commissioners are bound by the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement)? Craig Ward explained that the FEIS says that the County will give the opportunity to the School District and the applicant to come to an agreement on appropriate provisions for schools and if they don't agree then the County will come up with a solution. There are numbers in the FEIS based on considerable research, but the Board can also consider the information submitted by the Prosecuting Attorney and the information presented at the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton asked Commissioner Huntingford what he feels is appropriate provision for fire services? Commissioner Huntingford stated that after looking at all of the information, he feels that Pope's number of $193.00 is fair. He understands that the Fire District may not want to finance equipment with a 20 year bond, but he feels they should look at this as a long term project, because who knows when full build out will occur. At the request of Chairman W ojt, Commissioner Huntingford reviewed how he arrived at the $437.10figure he is proposing. Mark Huth added that the $437.10 would be applied per unit for the Inn project. An amount for the projected 10 students generated by the employees of the Inn could also be included. Chairman Wojt stated that he feels that the only real weak point in this calculation is the 48 year useful life of the buildings. Commissioner Huntingford explained that setting the figure for useful life of the building is where the Board must use their discretion. He feels that the life of the building is dependent on the amount of maintenance that is done. The discussion continued regarding the useful life of the school buildings. Craig Ward clarified that Commissioner Huntingford's calculation would apply the student generation rate to the direct student generator (the number of units) and not to the secondary impacts (employees of the Inn). So, the number of workers is not part of the formula. Commissioner Hinton stated that this decision is very difficult and after studying the numbers submitted by the Chimacum School District, Pope Resources, County staff and the Prosecuting Attorney, he cannot find any rationale to justifra reasonable mitigation fee. He then referenced the Prosecuting Attorney's memo of August 23, 1993. Earlier this year the Commissioners met with the members of the Chimacum School Board and asked that they develop a Capital Facilities Plan and to this date no formally approved plan has been submitted. VOL 19 r~r,r 00 1014 . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 24 He added that he has found no justification to exclude the use of portable classrooms during peak periods as an element of capacity. Neither government or the private sector build to absolute peak demands. He has also found that the Chimacum School District enrollment includes transfer students, home study students, etc. Should the Chimacum School District taxpayers be required to fund facilities for transfer students? Chimacum School District's projection for enrollment increases in the '92-'93 school year is higher than the 2% quoted in an article in the August 22, 1993 Port Angeles Dailv News. He continued by saying that he finds that the Chimacum School District has adequate facilities based on current enrollment and this determination does not preclude the Chimacum School District from developing a formally approved Capital Facilities plan and submitting a request to the public in the form of a bond proposal at a later date. The article in the August 22, 1993 Dailv News indicates that the Chimacum School District is only now anticipating forming a Facilities Committee to look at upcoming building needs. Building permits for new homes in the Chimacum School District have been steadily declining since 1990 (information from the Jefferson County Building Department) and as of June 14, 1993 there has been only 94 building permits issued in that district. Chimacum School District's projections of higher enrollment each year are not consistent with the current or projected increases in housing or employment within Jefferson County. Commissioner Hinton continued by saying that he finds that the Chimacum School District has discriminately targeted Pope Resources projects and has failed to target any subsequent subdivision approvals in the District. He feels that any mitigation fee imposed at this time, with the available data, would result in an arbitrary and capricious decision by the County. He concluded that there is no justification at this time to impose mitigation fees against Pope Resource for the Inn project and 58 units. When the District can demonstrate their need for mitigation the County will consider it. Additionally, Commissioner Hinton added, if prior to successfully passing a future bond in the Chimacum School District, an emergency capacity situation does exist, he will be willing to organize and lead a community volunteer group to solicit funding, materials and labor, to build a portable for less than the projected cost, suggested by the Chimacum School District of $60,000. Regarding the Port Ludlow Fire District, Commissioner Hinton stated that he finds that the Fire District will have immediate impacts on emergency medical, fire, personnel and equipment at the onset of construction of the Inn and 58 units. He also finds that the residential and commercial aspects of the proposed project add immediate additional impacts on the entire District. He feels that the dollar amount of the mitigation fee should reflect the overall impact, adjusted for the District's voluntary capability. Mitigation fees must be based on needs, not wants. The Fire District has not provided adequate capital facilities plans for making a determination, however, based on immediate needs, he recommends a mitigation fee of $15,000 for the Inn project and 58 units. This determination would only apply to the Inn project and 58 units and would not constitute a precedent for subsequent approvals in the County. The Board would additionally direct the Planning Director to immediately develop a reasonable formula for determining mitigation fees for all future subdivisions. Additionally the Planning Department would be instructed to develop criteria for public agencies submitting requests for mitigation considerations. Chairman Wojt asked if it is a State or County requirement for mitigation to address adequate provision for schools? Mark Huth reported that it is a requirement from RCW 58.17 and also the County's Subdivision Ordinance. The term "adequate provision" is not defined. Chairman Wojt asked if Commissioner Huntingford's proposal is what he feels is reasonable to meet the needs of the School District? Commissioner Huntingford indicated that is correct. Commissioner Hinton explained that his proposal indicates that the County doesn't have adequate information to set a figure at this time. The discussion continued regarding when the decision can and should be made on this issue, the adequacy of portable classrooms, and the differences in the proposals presented by Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford. VOL 19 r~rr 00 ilU1S Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 23, 1993 Page: 25 Commissioner Huntingford moved that for the School District (the formula of the .31 student generation rate times $1,410) a figure of $437.10 per unit be set and for the Fire District the figure of $193.00 per lot be set. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. Mark Huth asked if the students generated by the Inn employees are included in the formula? Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't feel the Inn employees should be considered any different than any employee that comes to the County to work. He doesn't feel that the work force in Jefferson County should be penalized any more than it is already. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. Mark Huth reported that findings will be drafted for the Board's review and consideration on the September 7, 1993 consent agenda. Fundine . for the Hood Canal Coordinatine Council: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve $1,000 in funding for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. The funding for this organization will be reviewed again during the 1994 budget process. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT re: Health Department Student Assistance Proeram; Education Services District #114: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the contract between the Health Department and the ESD #114 for the student assistance program. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT #1-94-768-014 re: Health Department Community Mobilization Aeainst Substance Abuse; State Department of Community Development: The contract with the State Department of Community Development for the mobilization against substance abuse program was approved by motion of Commissioner Huntingford, seconded by Commissioner Hinton. . The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: VOL 19 rM: 001016 ATTEST: òI tYU1 c¿¿ f11J0-N4 Lorna L. Delaney, Q Clerk of the Board