Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101893 C:..t~ 'V" ~ö..c: MINUTES WEEK OF OCTOBER 18,1993 Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford. Commissioners' Briefin2 Session: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported on the community service projects he is working on. The Board then met in executive session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding litigation. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The designation of Forest Lands, the reorganization of the Planning Department, a request for the County to provide staff time and $1,000 in funding for a bicycle and pedestrian facility workshop. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Minutes of October 11, 1993 as written. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to delete Items 1, 7, and 12 from the consent agenda and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETE Final Approval; Albert Loomis Short Plat #SP19-92; l1uee (3) Lots Northwest of the Intersection of Oak Bay Road, Osprey Ridge Road and Paradise Bay Road in Port Ludlow 2. RESOLUTION NO. 88-93 re: Hearing Notice; Budget AppropriationsÆxtensions; Various County Departments; Hearing set for November 8, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 3. RESOLUTION NO. 89-93 re: 1993 Budget Transfers; Various County Departments 4. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; One (1) from the American Legion #26 for $200.00, and One (1) from AmVets Post #6 for $150.00 5. Accept Resignation; Beth Williams; Tri Area Community Center Board of Directors 6. No Objection to Special Occasion Liquor License; October 23, 1993 6 p.m to 10 p.m.; Navy Ball 7. DELETE CONTRACf, Amendment #1 re: Discovery Bay Watershed Grant; Department of Ecology 8. Call for Proposals; Project No. SW1113; Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station; Fixed Price Proposals Accepted until 5:00 p.m. on January 7, 1994 in the County Commissioners' Office 1,101_ PÞC~ on :1307 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 2 9. EASEMENT; For Drainage; A Strip of Land Ten (10) Feet in Width and Approximately 40 Feet in Length; Tax 19, Section 24, Township 29 North, Range 1 West (Beaver Valley); John L Barth 10. EASEMENT; For Drainage; North Ten (10) Feet of Tax 20, Section 24, Township 29, Range 1 West (Beaver Valley); John L and Dixie L Barth 11. AGREEMENT re: For Engineering Services; Field Traffic Information and Design Reports for Four (4) Road Projects; Bovay Northwest, Inc. 12. DELETE RESOLUTION NO. _ re: Establishing an Emergency Condition in Regards to the Implementation of an Enhanced 911 Emergency Locator System; Meeting State Deadlines for Master Street Address Guide to Include the West End 13. RESOLUTION NO. 90-93 re: Statutory Vacation of Portions of Certain Platted Streets in the Plats of Quilcene and the Supplemental Plat to Quilcene; Michael Shahda, Applicant 14. RESOLUTION NO. 91-93 re: Establishing the Name for Private Roads; Dunlap Drive and Halgas Lane; Oak Bay Area 15. Approval of Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance; Haida Gwaii Short Sub- division; Ernest Kimball, Applicant 16. CONTRACT re: School Health Services by the Jefferson County Health and Human Services Department; Port Townsend School District #50 17. CONTRACT re: School Health Services by the Jefferson County Health and Human Services Department; Queets/Clearwater School District #20 18. CONTRACT re: Birth to Three/Child Find Services by the Jefferson County Health and Human Services Department; Port Townsend School District #50 19. RESOLUTION NO. 92-93 re: In the Matter of a Notice of Intention to Sell Surplus County Real Property 20. HEARING NOTICE re: The Intention of Jefferson County to Sell Surplus County Real Property; Set Hearing Date for Monday, November 1, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. 21. Letter to Fare Policy Committee, Washington State Department of Transportation re: Frequent Ferry User Discounts and Summer Surcharges 22. AGREEMENT re: State Administration of Local Sales and Use Tax; To Implement l/lOth of 1 % Sales Tax Increase for Criminal Justice Funding; Washington State Department of Revenue BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT HearinS!; Examiner and Shoreline Commission Recommendation re: Multiple Application to Develop a 52 Lot Residential Subdivision on 23.5 Acres near Port Hadlock: Canoe Cove: Rome and Ventura: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this is a multiple application for a subdivision which will create 52 lots, some of which are for single family use. There are three condominiums with 21 units in each building and zero lot line lots also proposed. The project was reviewed under the County's subdivision and zoning ordinances, and requires a Shoreline permit. The application includes requests for variances from the Subdivision Ordinance provisions for minimum lot design standards (the ordinance specifies a width to length ratio), and setback standards for multi-family development. The Hearing Examiner put his recommendation in abeyance until the City provided a commitment for water service for the project. The City of Port Townsend has, since the Hearing Examiner's hearing, provided this commitment for water. The other issue raised was view blockage of neighboring single family residences because of the proposed three story multi-family buildings. The Hearing Examiner suggested that it may be appropriate to consider a design modification to address this issue, however in his recommendation he did not include anything specific to address this concern. The Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the subdivision as well as the conditional use permit and both variances. Chairman Wojt asked what the basis is for granting the variances? Jerry Smith answered that the Hearing Examiner reviewed the variance requests and the applicable regulations and determined that the criteria for granting the variances can be met. Commissioner Hinton asked if the project proponent agrees with the pre-commitment conditions for water from the City of Port Townsend? Kathryn Jenks stated that she is a member of the City Water Advisory Committee and they are revising the pre-commitment process. To her knowledge the City has not issued any pre- commitments. Chairman Wojt reported that there is a letter from the City Public Works indicating that there is a pre-commitment for water for this project. Commissioner Hinton added that Bob Wheeler states in this letter that there is a pre-commitment for water if the taps are purchased before the first of the year. " \);,- "'...J! GD :1307 A Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 3 Commissioner Hinton asked if adequate provision has been made for schools? Associate Planner Jim Pearson stated that the Hearing Examiner has recommended that the same condition regarding adequate provision for schools that was applied recently to a Pope Resources project be placed on this proposal. The condition requires that $437.10 be paid per residential unit to the Chimacum School District. Rome Ventura stated that they have been working with the School District regarding this issue. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the issue of building height is being handled? Jerry Smith reported that the proposed height of the building meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance (maximum of 50 feet.) The Tri Area Community Plan indicates a height limit of three stories. The building has a mezzanine which does not constitute a story. The building meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked Mr. Hansen, who still owns the property, if he has any objection to the proposal as set forth? Mr. Hansen answered that he did not have any objections to it. Jim Pearson reported that the Shoreline Commission has reviewed this proposal and they recommend approval of it as conditioned. Commissioner Hinton asked Rome Ventura if she has any comments? Rome Ventura stated that they are in concurrence with the findings. They are attempting to cluster the housing away from the shoreline. The project will be within the 50 feet height limitation with three stories. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner and the Shoreline Commission with the conditions as suggested for the following: 1) Approval of the preliminary plat for the 52 lot residential subdivision, #LP-08-92 _ Canoe Cove. 2) Variance from lot design standards. 3) Conditional Use approval for a mixed use residential and commercial development #IZ- 46-93. 4) Variance from the minimum building setback standards for multi-family dwellings. 5) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP-92-15 Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Review of Chan2es to Draft Interim Critical Areas Ordinance and SeUin2 Hearine:s: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that a memo highlighting the issues that still need to be resolved or direction provided, was submitted to the Board. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15 and item 5 in the second section can be changed if the Board concurs. The following items were then reviewed: Items 8 and 9 - Protection Standards for Wildlife Habitat - There are standards in the Forest Practices Act that should be reviewed and could possibly be applied as minimum standards in this ordinance to protect habitat outside of stream corridors. Chairman Wojt asked if habitat areas are mapped and if the public is aware of these areas? Craig Ward reported that the Planning Department has maps of priority habitats and species from the State Department of Wildlife, Department of Fisheries, and the Department of Natural Resources which are available to the public and maps of threatened and endangered species which are available to the County, but not available to the public. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth noted that the impacts from a development must be determined to be the same as those from a forest practice, in order to use the Forest Practice standards. A finding would have to be made stating that. The discussion turned to the application of the Public Benefit Rating System to properties required for buffers. Item 12 - Application for Shoreline Permit Exemption are subject to proposed ordinance. It is not clear, Craig Ward reported, what projects are subject to this ordinance. Eric Toews stated that he feels it is important to maintain the reference to ordinances that trigger permits. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that he feels that this issue can be cleaned up by changing the wording in the exemption section. If Shoreline Permit Exemptions are to be regulated by the critical areas ordinance then the ordinance should state that. Craig Ward reported that single family residences are exempt from the Shoreline Management Master 1 n" nl:ì. 1.307 ß tèJ t~,,'- tAJ , ,1i"',1 ,01- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 4 Program permit process. The Planning Department recommends that the triggering permit approach be maintained. Mark Huth suggested that Section 3.40 (exemptions) be deleted. This should be done before the ordinance is published for public hearing. The issue of building permits is a policy matter and can be left for public review at the hearings. The Board concurred that this language be cleaned up as suggested by the Prosecuting Attorney. Craig Ward continued by asking that another workshop be scheduled to address what minimum guidelines are being considered and why they are, or are not, being included in the ordinance. Mark Huth stated that he doesn't see why this would need to be done in a workshop. It can be part of the public hearing. Craig Ward asked if the changes can be made as pointed out in the first section of the Planning Department memo? The Board concurred that the changes outlined by the Planning Department memo (first 15 items) be made. The Board concurred that two hearing dates be set for November 22 and 23, 1993 on this ordinance. The Planning Department will make the changes to the draft ordinance as directed and prepare an agenda for the hearings. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Establishin2 an Emer2ency Condition in Re2ards to the Implementation of an Enhanced 911 Emer2enCY Locator System; Meetin2 State Deadlines for Master Street Address Guide to Include the West End: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION No. 93-93 establishing emergency conditions for master street addresses in the West End to implement the Enhanced 911 emergency local system per State deadlines. Commis- sioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-si2nificance; LL02- 92 Lar2e Lot Subdivision; Brinnon; PulaU Point Partners (Plannin2 Department): Chairman Wojt explained the procedure for the hearing and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commis- sioners in these proceedings? A) No one answered. 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 Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton answered no. Chairman Wojt reported that he spoke with someone about the time the Pulali Point property was purchased about two years ago. He doesn't remember exactly what was said at that time, but it was regarding the purchase agreement. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked Chairman Wojt if that conversation was with parties present at the hearing? Chairman Wojt answered that it was. Mark Huth asked if that conversation would in any way effect Chairman Wojt's ability to decide today's matter fairly? Chairman Wojt answered no. Associate Planner Jim Pearson noted that a copy of the site plan is available including the restrictions under the Bald Eagle Management Plan. He explained that the Planning Department has submitted the record developed on this project to date. Many of the issues to be discussed today are questions of evidence. The Board must determine if there is adequate information in the testimony and record presented today to make a threshold determination, and decide if there are significant adverse environmental impacts likely to result from this proposal. If no impacts are identified the Board would issue a determination of non-significance. If it is determined that there are significant adverse environmental impacts, then the Board must decide if there are mitigation measures adequate to avoid those impacts or determine that it would be appropriate to go through the environmental impact statement process. t 9 r~C' 00 :1308 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 5 This proposal is for a large lot subdivision of a 40 acre parcel into eight lots of between 2.3 to 2.7 acres each with the remainder of the property to be in a common, open space area. The proposal includes construction of an access road, community water and septic systems, a storm water management system, and provision for a common beach access. There are also restrictions proposed by the applicants on development of the property, including the size of clearing for homesites, and on removal of vegetation. The Planning Department staff has identified probable impacts to soils, water, plants (including rare prairie plants associated with stands of Madrona, Manzanita and Garry Oak), native American archaeological resources and impacts to the Brinnon School District. The staff has proposed mitigation measures to avoid those impacts. The applicant has, since the threshold determination was issued, had an archeological and botanical assessment of the site. Mr. Al Reed, a professional Archeologist, did the archeological review and found no evidence of such resources on the site. Based on that report, Planning staff recommends that mitigative measure 6 be eliminated. With regard to mitigative measure 5, Jim Pearson explained that there was reason to believe, based on information from adjoining sites, that there were some locally rare plant species along the shoreline of this site. According to the proponents an assessment of the plants on the site has been conducted and no rare plants were found. If that is the case then there is no reason to impose mitigative measure 5. No report has been submitted to the Planning Department, however. In addition to the impacts that the staff identified there were two other impacts identified through the comments received. They were to wildlife (both upland and marine) and groundwater resources. These issues were then reviewed. The Board must decide if these are probable impacts or speculative impacts. Regarding wildlife, there is a Bald Eagle Management plan for the proposal, agreed to by the proponents and the State Department of Wildlife, which identifies perch trees in the area, and areas around the perch trees that should not be cleared or developed. A significant portion of the property is in open space. Regarding the forest structure in the area of the proposal, it is characterized as a mature second growth stand. The site was either logged or burned around 1920. The question is what kind of habitat does this area provide for priority wildlife species and how do the restrictions of the Bald Eagle Management Plan and those proposed by the applicants effect the use of the area by wildlife. No comments have been received from the State Department of Wildlife regarding use of this site by any species other than Bald Eagles, and potentially Osprey. With regard to groundwater, this area is basically a basalt formation which has been fractured and weathered and includes sand, gravel, clay and different types of material. According to the Coastal Zone Atlas an area like this is subject to varying rates of infiltration of groundwater. There has been testimony that wells in the area do go dry in the summer. A well test has been provided that shows that the top of the well is 100 feet above sea level and the static level, when it was tested, was 23 feet below that. A ten hour pump test indicates a 29 gallon per minute flow rate, and the draw down went from 123 feet to 146 feet. This project would be served by a community water system which would be required to commit 800 gallons per day per residence (4 1/2 gallons per minute.) The required fire flow of 400 gallons per day is included in that figure. Chairman Wojt asked when the test was done? Jim Pearson answered that the test was done in early November 1992. The Chairman then asked if the project proponent would like to address the Board. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that the project proponents are also appealing this threshold determination. Rob Bakemeier, one of the partners, stated that they are representing themselves. He then introduced members of the family present who are involved in this project, to prove that they are not developers: Bill Walker, Mr. Harvey, George Hartman, Roger and Becky Myklebust, Herb Walker, Jill Walker, and Jay and Diane Sacks. He explained that they are proposing to build eight cabins for recreational purposes on this property. These cabins are not for resale and not for speculation. This has been mis-characterized throughout the comment period. He reported that over the last three years there has been extensive review of this proposal. They are asking that the Board affirm what the Planning Department has done, with the deletion of mitigative measure 5, and that the appeal be rejected. Eight families purchased this property (40 acres) together in August of 1990. They decided to do this project together to minimize the \'01_ t 9 r~.C~ 00 :1309 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 6 impact. One of the first things they did was write up a conservation agreement which restricts what can be done with the property. Their goal is to build recreational cabins for intermittent use. The plan for the property was developed with a common water, septic, and road system because they felt it would minimize the impact to the site. Over the years since they purchased the property a number of issues have been raised and they have hired consultants to deal with them. A wetlands delineation and study, a wildlife habitat study, and a Bald Eagle Management Plan have been done on this site. The Bald Eagle Management plan places an extensive set of restrictions on the property (see map) such as: a 50 foot setback from the bluff, specific trees have been identified to be left on the site, small building envelopes identified. An Archeologist was hired to assess and report on the site, and found that there are no native American ar- cheological concerns on it. A botanist has reviewed the site and is prepared to address these issues today. The plant community issues were brought up on the last day of the comment period by Jerry Gorsline of the Washington Environmental Council. His concern was that there were some prairie plant communities associated with poison oak, garry oak and grasses on the site. Mr. Gorsline had not actually been on the property. The County was concerned about this issue and asked that the plant communities be mapped and a 100 foot setback from the bluff be established where the plants are. Having to setback 100 feet from the bluff would essentially destroy the value of the property. A botanist has confirmed that these plant communities are not present on the site and they are asking that the mitigation measure dealing with this be deleted. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth then swore in Mr. Bakemeier. David Mann, of Bricklin and Gendler Attorneys, representing the Friends of Pulali Point, stated that he had no questions. Sara Smith Cooke was sworn in and then related her qualifications: Associate with the University of Washington. She is working on a doctoral degree in plant and soil interactions. In Addition she has: Two (2) Masters degrees - Botanical Taxonomy from the U. of W. Geobotany from McGill University in Canada. A Bachelor of Science degree - With a double major in geology and botany from McGill University. She has been a taxonomist for approximately 14 years and has been consulting in the Northwest since 1985. She explained that taxonomy is the nuts and bolts of identifying plants to a species level. Determining one type of plant from another in terms of its' species designation, sub-species, varieties, etc. She reported that she was asked to do a site reconnaissance for rare, sensitive and endangered plants and also to look for specific plant communities that were discussed in Jerry Gorsline's letter (dated May 14, 1993.) If these communities were found she was to flag and map them. The communities identified by Mr. Gorsline consisted of a meadow poison oak/Garry oak association. Mr. Gorsline also identified a few other potential species (indicator Prairie herbs) from a meadow community normally associated with the Fort Lewis area. She also contacted the Washington Native Plant Society and Nelsa Buckingham, a local botanical expert on the Olympic Peninsula. She then presented a copy of the Washington Natural Heritage Society list of endangered, threatened and sensitive plants found in Jefferson County. She then reviewed the work she did on the site as follows: · She walked each designated lot from the back of the property to the front along the bluff line and examined the bluff frontal area. · She examined the adjacent lot to the east of lot 8 which is where Mr. Gorsline did his original reconnaissance. · She took photographs of each of the bluff faces. Sara Smith Cooke then reported her results. In examining the areas in question for potential habitat she found that, with no exceptions, the areas along the bluff face were no larger than 20 feet before the forested zone would begin. When the forest begins the habitat where the species identified would be found are wrong. The species identified by Mr. Gorsline require dry, open, full sun. Once there is a full forested canopy those species can't exist. There is only about 20 feet along the bluff edge of each lot where the potential habitat could have been found. None of the true oaks were found on any of the lots. She did find a lot of poison oak (Rhus diver- siloba). Poison oak and garry oak look very similar from afar, but they do not look similar up close. Some of the poison oak specimens found on the site were very old and very large. VOl" 1 ~j p~r,t: 00 :13:10 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 7 She reported that she also took specimens of all grasses found in small pockets of meadows (from 2' by 4' to 24' by 30'). Only one grass species was found and it is not a rare species. She did not find the other grasses Mr. Gorsline referred to as indicator prairie herbs. She did not expect to find these grasses because the habitat is not correct. She reported that in her discussion with Mr. Gorsline, he stated that he did not actually go on the site. She discussed Mr. Gorsline's comments with Nelsa Buckingham, who clarified that she has not been on the site and has not verified the presence of the true oak/poison oak community. She also reported that she has never seen such an association. Mr. Gorsline also indicated in his letter that poison oak is rare in this area which he says is the western extension of the distribution of this species. Nelsa Buckin- gham verified that is not true. Poison oak is quite common in this part of the Olympic Peninsula and its western extension is all the way to Lake Crescent. Sara Smith Cooke concluded by noting that she found no endangered, threatened or sensitive species during her investigation. Since the communities were not found, she stated that she doesn't know how they could be mapped. A 100 foot buffer is not necessary because these communities were not found. Chairman Wojt clarified that what she is saying is that if there was a community they would only be within 20 feet of the bluff. Sara Smith Cooke noted that the Eagle Management Plan already imposes a 50 foot buffer from the bluff. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there are any open spots on these lots? Sara Smith Cooke answered that once you are in the forested zone there are no open areas except where the old homestead is located. The forest is very typical for this part of the world. It contains Douglas fir, and Western Hemlock with an understory of Oregon grape, a little bit of red huckleberry, and a lot of poison oak. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the site is second growth turning into old growth? Ms. Smith Cooke stated that it is definitely not old growth. It is a medium or mid age second growth forest. David Mann asked if a setback would be a good requirement if these plant communities do exist? Sara Smith Cooke answered that it would depend on how extensive the plant community was and where it was located. If the communities were found to be present, given the densities of the poison oak as its own buffer, this would have to be determined on a lot by lot basis. Mr. Mann asked Jim Pearson if the mitigation required a buffer around the communities, where they existed, or if it required a buffer across the entire property? Jim Pearson reported that the intent of the mitigation was to establish a buffer only in the areas where plant communities were located. Mr. Bakemeier added that they never excluded Jerry Gorsline from the property, he never contacted them about going on it to do an analysis. Commissioner Hinton asked what constitutes a prairie plant community? Sara Smith Cooke answered that communities are identified by trees and shrubs, known as the dominant species, and the sub-dominant species. Commissioner Hinton asked what quantity would constitute a "co- mmunity." Ms. Smith Cooke stated that community is defined depending on the type of plant. The thing that is important to note is identifying a community on a low growing tree and a shrub, which means that a larger area than found on the bluff face of this site would be needed for a community. Commissioner Hinton stated there are several references to madrona and he asked if that is considered a rare species? Sara Smith Cooke reported that madrona is not considered a rare species in this part of the world. Mr. Bakemeier said that this concludes their testimony. He asked that mitigative measure 5 be deleted since these plants were not found on the property. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there will be a setback from the Shoreline? Jim Pearson explained that there will be setback from the shoreline for residential construction. Mr. Bakemeier noted that the Bald Eagle Management Plan requires a 50 foot setback along the top of the bluff as well as setback around certain large trees. After discussing where the building envelopes are located on the lots of the subdivision, Commis- sioner Hinton asked exactly what is going to be constructed on this site? Mr. Bakemeier reported that cabins are going to be constructed on these sites. The family members have not selected their lots yet. David Mann, representing the Friends of Pulali Point, was sworn in and stated that the studies that have been done are studies that the County is supposed to have to help the Board make an informed decision. There are significant issues that haven't been addressed through mitigation and have potential for significance impacts. They take issue with the piecemeal approach to this project. Basically what the County has now is a proposal for the subdivision. This is a two VOL f] PAC; 00 :13:11 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 8 phase development. There is the subdivision and later the construction of a dock and marina. The staff report indicates that phased review is allowed. The idea behind phased review is to look at the entire project first and then the specific details can be looked at later. In this situation, they feel that the County should be looking at the whole project, including the dock, pier and marina, now, even if the proponent doesn't know exactly where it will be located. There are also questions of water quantity. Information was submitted today (see attached) that includes a compilation from the well logs, showing the depth of the wells and including testimony that these wells have run dry. The map included shows that the entire area accompanying Pulali Point is listed as an area of known water problems. There are questions of water quantity in this area. One well drew down from 20 feet to 154 feet in a ten hour period. What are the impacts of that over a long term? What are the impacts to the other wells and uses of water and the environment in this area? This needs to be addressed. A couple of other issues are: Water quality - There is a very brief discussion in the staff report that there will be a septic system designed. What it will be is not known yet. It is not known if the soils are suitable for a septic system or if there is sufficient water to make a septic system work. It is not known what the impact to water quality will be. Wildlife - The staff reports states that there is testimony about the wildlife in this area. This testimony is basically dismissed because of a study done by a wildlife expert for the applicants. He was on the site for six hours on one day. You will hear testimony from residents who have lived there 42 to 50 years about what actually occurs on the site. There is information in the packet from the National Audubon Society listing this area as an extremely important area both for the habitat it provides and the species that depend on the area. Use of the Shoreline There has been no discussion of the impacts of recreational use of the shoreline. This area includes a DNR public beach with boat and trail access. The Shoreline Management Act and the County's Shoreline Master Plan encourage that access to the publicly owned shorelines be maintained. Kirie Pedersen-Testu. 549 Pulali Point Road, was sworn in, and submitted a video tape of Pulali Point. She reported that she was raised on Pulali Point and in 1988 became a co-owner, with her parents, of the adjoining property to the proposed subdivision. She stated that she has a Master's Degree and is a professor at Peninsula College. She has taken college classes in Ornithology, and is certified by the State Department of Wildlife to observe and count wildlife occurring in this area. She added that she is an Audubon bird watcher and can make positive identifications of species. Pulali Point is not only important to the adjoining property owners, but to all the residents of Jefferson County and the citizens of Brinnon who have used the DNR beach. Wildlife: As life long residents of the area, Kirie Pedersen-Testu stated that they and other adjoining property owners have identified wildlife on this site. She added that the proponent did not voluntarily conduct the wildlife studies. Dick Taylor of the State Department of Wildlife, who is very familiar with the site, says that it would be a pity to have the develop- ment go ahead without further study. Once development is done, Eagles tend not to nest. This summer the Osprey on the site built a nest. This nest has not been studied because it is brand new. The following species have been seen on this site: Harlequin Duck, Loon, and Pileated Woodpecker. Water: With regard to water, Kirie Pedersen-Testu stated that as a child growing up on Pulali Point, she and her sisters had to hike up Spencer Creek and bathe at a waterfall. In 1978 her family drilled a deep well which is similar to the one drilled by the project proponents. It went dry in July. Another, deeper well was drilled and it also went dry. Five of the owners of properties directly adjoining the subject property, have wells of similar depth and similar gallons per minute, and they all go dry in June, July and August. Public access to the beach: The access to the DNR public beach #55 has been totally neglected, Ms. Pedersen-Testu continued. The public has the right to harvest shellfish on that beach. This development would build homes directly over what is a public beach. The neighboring residents have had access to this beach for 50 years. The public's right to approach and use that beach by boat also needs to be addressed. Building a dock or marina there would not protect the public's interest in that beach. There is a record in the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office of the times that she and her family have reported vandalism to structures on adjacent properties. VOL ~j f>AC' 00 ~3:12 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 9 Preservation of Pulali Point: She then pointed out that in the Judith Walls study submitted by Mr. Mann, there is a recommendation that Pulali Point be preserved in perpetuity for the use of all people in the County. The conservation covenant that the proponents of the subdivision have made is not binding. It can be amended by a majority vote of the property owners and therefore the habitat is not protected. The Audubon Society has stated that the habitat that should be protected is where lots 1 through 8 are located on this subdivision. Fire Protection: With regard to fire protection Ms. Pedersen- Testu explained that the Quilcene and Brinnon Fire District did not comment partly because they are volunteer organizations without any staff to respond. Because of the inadequacy of water and fire protection, her parents cabin burned to the ground several years ago, before the Fire District could respond. Law Enforcement: In the last two years there have been two brutal murders in the immediate vicinity of this proposed development. One of these murders is still unsolved. It takes at least one hour for law enforcement to reach Pulali Point. There is not sufficient law enforcement protection in this area. National Defense: Ms. Pedersen-Testu reported that she has been a witness to the top secret testing that the Navy conducts in that area. Dabob Bob is usually closed seven days a week at varying times when the Navy needs to test. A light goes on and all motor boats must leave. Pulali Point and its protection, Ms. Pedersen- Testu concluded, has attracted more attention in this County than any other proposed development. People from across the political spectrum have said that they want to see it protected. They feel that this proposed subdivision requires more thorough review by the County. They made a good faith offer to purchase this property and they continue to stand behind that offer. Mark Huth asked where on the site the Osprey nest is located? Kirie Pedersen- Testu answered that it is located at the (top left hand corner of the map) back corner of the property where the drainfield is proposed. Two people from the State Department of Wildlife (Steve Palanoski and Anita McMillan) documented the presence of that nest. Mark Huth asked how she knew that? Kirie Pedersen-Testu responded that they reported that they saw Osprey flying around the site and the State Department of Wildlife came out and located the nest. He then asked if there is anything in writing from the DOW? She answered that these people were just there last week. Mark Huth asked where the trail to the beach is located? Kirie Pedersen-Testu reported that it goes through the middle of lot 5. Chairman Wojt asked where the Pedersen-Testu property is located in relation to this proposed development. She explained that the corner of their property touches the northeast corner of the subject property. Chairman Wojt asked what development there is on the property to the other side of the development? She stated that there are six summer cabins on that property and the whole upland (120 acres) is owned by the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts also own an adjacent 11 acres parcel. Mark Huth reported that the map being referred to is an engineer's drawing of a site plan for the Eagle Management Plan dated March 8, 1993. Hank Pangborn, Department of the Navy, stated that the Navy is also a property owner on Pulali Point. Their concern is regarding the increased noise on the underwater range that they have on Dabob Bay. This range is very, quiet and secure and therefore very unique. They need to keep the ambient noise at a minimum. The testing conducted at this range is very irregular and the Navy tries to keep a safe environment for boaters who venture near the range while it is operational. They have a great concern about the operation of that range and the impact that this development and the subsequent dock and pleasure boat traffic might have on it. Chairman Wojt asked if the on-shore noise is a concern or if the noise from a dock and boating facilities is a concern? Mr. Pangborn reported that the noise from the dock and increased boat traffic are the principle concern. He then asked Al Lindstrom to provide more information about the impact on this range. Al Lindstrom swore to tell the truth and reported that Dabob Bay has been a Navy undersea test range since 1955. The Navy's property on Pulali Point faces west. The bottom of Dabob Bay is equipped with a wide variety of electronic instrumentation for tracking, submarines, torpedoes and other underwater vehicles. It is also equipped with a variety of sound instrumentation for listening to noise radiated from submarines, etc. Pulali Point is the closest point of land to the VQi_ 19 PAr,r 00 :13:13 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 10 listening to noise radiated from submarines, etc. Pulali Point is the closest point of land to the Navy's underwater listening instrumentation used for measuring radiated noise signatures. Trident submarines, before they go to sea, come to Dabob Bay for post refit sea trials. During those sea trials the radiated noise signature of the submarine is measured to insure that it has not degraded. If a submarine makes excessive noise they cannot hide in the ocean. Dabob Bay is unique in the United States because it is a deadened basin with no shipping traffic and very little impact from pleasure boat traffic. This allows the Navy to make extremely sensitive acoustic measurements at this site. The only time the Navy does not test is during shrimping season. Their concern is that as there is more development in the area, they will become overwhelmed with boat traffic. One small boat with an outboard motor makes significantly more noise than a Trident submarine and contaminates the noise measurements. A tremendous amount of test time is lost each year because of contamination due to small boat interference. The Naval Submarine Base at Bangor will continue even if Dabob Bay becomes unusable for acoustical measurements. Keyport, on the other hand, would not continue if the Dabob Bay water test site is lost for this work. Keyport employs 3,000 people who are there primarily for testing and evaluation of undersea weapons. If Dabob Bay is lost as an asset, this could have a major impact on the Navy's decision to stay in Kitsap County. Bill Yookum. U.S. Navy from Keyport, swore to tell the truth. Mr. Yookum reported that Keyport has a budget of $300 million per year. Without Dabob Bay the role of Keyport in the Navy would be very suspect. He then read a letter dated May 6, 1992 to the Planning Depart- ment from L. R. Marsh, Rear Admiral. (Planning Department has copy of letter.) The Rear Admiral stated in that letter that he takes no issue with the residential portion of the Pulali development, but expressed strong opposition to the proposed pier and marina. Chairman Wojt asked if there is a boat launch at Point Whitney? Al Lindstrom answered that the State Shellfish Lab does have a boat launch ramp at Point Whitney, which he believes the public can use. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there are any problems from the Pleasant Harbor Marina? Mr. Lindstrom explained that Pleasant Harbor Marina is at the end of the range. The sensitive noise equipment is adjacent to Pulali Point. Commissioner Huntingford then asked if there are any permitted buoys in Jackson Cove? Jim Pearson stated that he doesn't know of any. Mari Phillips. explained that there are buoys outside the Seal Rock area. There is a very rocky bottom in the area, and there is quite a bit of boat traffic. Commissioner Huntingford asked if a dock or marina has been proposed? Jim Pearson clarified that there has not been an application for a dock at this point. The project proponents included this in their checklist, but there has not been a Shoreline Permit application, nor are there any plans to construct a dock or marina. A dock and marina would require additional review by Jefferson County including SEPA review and shoreline permit review. The County is very aware of the Navy's concern about this and would consult with them. Commis- sioner Huntingford asked the proponents if their plans would change for the upland development if this were not allowed? . Mr. Bakemeier answered that they thought that maybe they would build one dock someday. This was very tentative. They don't have any specific plans. It would not effect the upland project. They haven't decided if they even want a dock and they don't feel that this issue is even before the Commissioners. Mark Huth stated that is why phased review is important. SEP A requires that the action be definite enough to be reviewed. That would mean at least a location, size, etc. If the project proponent doesn't even have plans for it, it is premature to review it at this time. Phased review is appropriate where definite plans are made, such as with the subdivision. If they choose to try to get a dock going, they need to apply under the Shoreline Management Plan and further SEP A review would be required. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Boy Scouts have a large dock in this area? Mr. Bake- meier answered that they do. Kirie Pedersen- Testu added that the Boy Scout dock is restricted to use by non-motorized boats. Her family does not have a dock. She said that the proponents have stated clearly in a number of letters on record that they plan to have a dock. Mark Huth reported that those letters are in the record and the Board can review them. . VOL 1 9 rA('~ 00 :131-4 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 11 Mr. Bakemeier asked if the Navy has taken any action to restrict the public from using the public launch at Point Whitney? Mr. Pangborn stated that the Navy has not taken that action. They post the rules for boaters so they know what to do when the lights go on. Mr. Mann asked if the Navy's concern is the dock or an increase in boat traffic? Mr. Pangborn stated that the concern is the increased boat traffic and noise. Jeffrev Dehlia swore to tell the truth and stated that he is not an expert on water quality but he is an oyster farmer on Dabob Bay Gust north of Broad Spit). Oysters in Dabob Bay are filter feeders and the whole industry is in jeopardy because of development (too many people in a small place.) He asked the project proponents to consider the cumulative long term effects of anything they do. Docks can change the areas where oysters may set naturally. Steven Havden. Board of Directors Olympic Environmental Council, swore to tell the truth. Mr. Hayden stated that not doing a shoreline review on this project epitomizes the problems with interpretation of planning rules in this County. This is a subdivision and subdivisions are not exempt from shoreline review. Once a subdivision is in place, then each house built on the lots, whatever size they are, is exempt from shoreline review. This is the time to look at the shoreline impacts. The Open Space covenants offered as mitigation can be changed at any time by a majority vote of the lot owners. The County has no enforcement authority over covenants and there is no way to insure that covenants will be maintained. The only way to make those kinds of covenants endure is through easements. In issuing an MDNS without reviewing and determin- ing all of the impacts, short circuits the SEP A process. It does not necessarily mean a long, drawn out, very expensive environmental impact statement process. There has been enough tes- timony that scoping exactly what needs to be covered in an environmental impact statement would be a snap. An MDNS at this point is not appropriate. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Hayden what he feels the County can do? Steve Hayden responded that there has been controversy and contradiction pointed out today about what is really on the site and what the impacts might be. These issues should be debated in a format other than a public hearing. Chairman Wojt asked if Mr. Hayden is saying that the major deficiency in the work that has been done so far is that it doesn't address the Shoreline issues? Steve Hayden answered that the review done so far ignores that issue. Additionally it's the "what if" questions that haven't been reviewed. Mark Huth asked Jim Pearson if any of the physical development, other than the residences, will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline? Jim Pearson reported that the development aspects of this proposal (the community drainfield, the easements for power, water and sewer and access roads) are over 200 feet back from the Shoreline. He said that this subdivision application does not require a shoreline permit. The Shoreline Master Program provides for an appeal of any administrative determination on a shoreline issue to the Board of Commissioners. Jim Pearson added that the shoreline issues have been addresses through the environmental review. A shoreline substantial development permit is not required for this proposal. Mark Huth reported that the County cannot require a shoreline permit for this subdivision. A recent Kitsap County case before the Shoreline Hearings Board determined that unless there is some physical activity associated with the development within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, the County cannot require a shoreline permit. Chairman Wojt asked if the fact that this property has been available for public access to the shoreline for the past 50 years is relevant? Mark Huth reported that this access is not a protected public access. This has always been private property. Whether or not a prescriptive easement would be given would have to be settled in Court. The County is not required to protect this type of public access. Mr. Mann stated that the Shoreline Master Program requires the protection of public access to shorelines of statewide significance. That is an environmental impact. He asked if it is true that the Planning Department has no idea of the size or location of any house that will be on the site? Jim Pearson reported that the Department has a certain amount of information i.e. the size of the clearing, the number of homes, the location of the drainfield, the location of the driveways and the location of the well. There is no specific information on each house. Mr. Mann reported that the Shorelines Hearings Board has decided this issue, but no court has reviewed the matter of the County not being able to require shoreline review during the SEP A process. VOi_ 1 9 PAG~ 00 :13:15 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 12 Marilvn Pedersen swore to tell the truth. She stated that the road situation has not been con- sidered. Everyone on Pulali Point Road will be subject to much more traffic because of the one way road. Something drastic will have to be done about the road. This is serious and the County has some responsibility in that. They have lived on Pulali Point for 50 years and no one can put a dock on the Point. The wind blows so hard that the Navy lost an entire pier across from them. She stated that she worries for the children because the poison oak is impossible to eradicate. Their septic system will only accommodate two people. If they have company, the County has advised that they have a Sani-Kan brought in to help protect the shellfish beds. There is a large oyster bed, but something wiped out the clams about 10 years ago. A neighbor put in a large septic system for a development that is on a stream that will drain down to the middle of the oyster beds. The impact to the road, Mrs. Pedersen continued, will be serious, as well as the impact to the oysters and clams. The land in this area is heavy clay that drains down to the water. Jim Harvev swore to tell the truth and then noted that Mrs. Pedersen's daughter, stated that she has tried to buy the property and would still like to buy it. He asked if the purchase would be to hold the property in the state it is in right now, with no development? Mrs. Pedersen answered that she believes that is right. He then asked if there is a relationship between Mrs. Pedersen and/or her daughter with a Buddhist church group? Mrs. Pedersen stated there is a relationship with a conservation group, but not to a church group. Mr. Mann then closed their testimony by stating that the Board must look at the size of the building lots and restrictions and setbacks on them. They need to also look at: the size the cabins could be, the possibility of the potential for increased boat traffic and the water quantity in the area. More specifics are needed on the septic plan and whether it will work. Chairman Wojt asked why a traffic study wasn't done? Jim Pearson reported that the proposal and checklist were submitted to the Public Works Department for their review and they did not identify traffic as an impact. Typically if the Public Works Department has a concern about a project they will send a memo outlining the concerns that they feel must be addressed. Tim Testu swore to tell the truth and asked how many shares have been sold in this project and how much they are going for? Mr. Bakemeier answered that no shares have been sold other than to the people present today and no shares are for sale. He added that the property owners are building cabins for their own use and they are not speculating on the property. Michael Holland, swore to tell the truth and stated that he was the selling agent who sold this property to the Pulali Point Partners. This property was on the market for a year and a half. If money was an issue, Mr. Holland noted that there have been offers to buy that property since it was purchased, for as much as $2 million. David Mann summarized by asking the Board to look at the impacts, because they have not all been addressed yet. This project needs to go through a full environmental impact statement process. Tim Testu added that this is one of the most of the critical, sensitive areas in Jefferson County identified in a study by Judith Walls of the Audubon Society. He feels that what is being proposed is inappropriate. Janet Worthington, 351 Pulali Point Road, Brinnon swore to tell the truth. She read the following statement: "I'm speaking in favor of the Pulali Partner's plan for their 40 acre tract on Pulali Point. I was born when my father logged the Dosewallips in 1909. I have known the Pulali Point property in question for a great many years and was a friend of its long time owner, Mr. Hansen. My home on WaWa Point faces directly into the proposed building sites and I'm well satisfied that the plan is an attractive and appropriate one. Pulali Point was logged and burned in the 1920's. There are no old growth trees on this property. I found it hard to recognize the description of the property or the Pulali partners from the newspaper articles published on the subject during the last three years. I found that fact and fiction are all mixed up. I've known Mr. & Mrs. Myklebus of the Pulali Partners for a very long time. They have been frequent guests at my home for many years. I know Mr. & Mrs. Hardiman and I have met Mrs. Pasquale. I know these people to be sincere environmentalist having every bit as much concern for the preservation of our environment as I do. Anyone who knows me will say that I've been a strong environmentalist long before it became fashionable to be so. While I've been a timberland owner, I have never allowed so much as a acre of my land to be clearcut. The VOL 19 fAC: 00 :1316 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 13 Pulali Partners will surely think two or three times before they cut a tree, just as I do. I believe they are ambitious to have the property as well husbanded as mine. They have done everything asked of them in preparation for this permit and have been exceedingly patient these last three years. I consider, and I know many Brinnon residents agree with me, that any further delay is unreasonable. The Pulali Partners are not developers. They are family people who want to build eight houses on 40 acres of land and that certainly is not too many. All my friends in Brinnon are looking forward to having the Pulali Partners as neighbors, just as I do." Jim Pearson concluded by noting that he was not surprised to hear that there is an Osprey nest on the property. The study conducted by the Partners looked for Osprey and Eagle nests in the area. He reported that he has measured from the approximate location of that nest as indicated by Kirie Testu, down to the lot lines on this project which is about 800 feet. The State Department of Wildlife's management recommendations for priority species under Osprey says that "Land managers should observe the following guidelines around Osprey nests: 1) restrict all human activities within 660 feet of any active Osprey nest from April to October 1, 2) Do not cut down trees within a 200 foot radius of any individual nest. That radius can be reduced to 130 feet when topography dictates, 3) Beyond the 200 foot no cut zone, retain three to five live or dead dominant trees suitable for roosting and nesting and some healthy young trees suitable for future roosting and nesting within 660 feet of the nest tree." This nest appears to be outside of that distance to any residential home site. It may be within that distance to the site of the septic system, and the access road. Regarding Mr. Mann's assertion that this proposal is improperly segmented, Jim Pearson called attention to the letters he sent to the applicant's representative and the letter from them to Jerry Smith which indicate consistency with WAC 197.11.060 (5) for phased review. He explained that the Board needs to delineate between observing wildlife and observing habitat. Wildlife comes and goes seasonally. There is a difference between observing wildlife on a site and observing habitat features which are necessary for a specific wildlife species to be on a site. Those features typically don't change. He noted that the Rear Admiral's letter read by Mr. Yookum, U.S. Navy, states that he takes no issue with the residential development of the site. Any shoreline development in the form of a dock or marina requires SEPA review and a shoreline permit from Jefferson County. With regard to Ms. Cooke's testimony, the Planning Department recommends that Condition 5 be deleted. As far as septic systems, Mr. Pearson pointed out that the proposed location of the septic systems is approximately 800 feet from the water. The system is proposed to be a community septic system and the soils and design will be reviewed by the County Health Department with a monitoring agreement with the PUD. Chairman Wojt asked how the traffic and law enforcement concerns were addressed? Jim Pearson answered that the question is whether those items constitute a significant adverse environmental impact. The Planning Department's determination was that there would not be a significant adverse environmental impact on the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. Chairman Wojt then asked if Public Works reviewed the traffic impacts of this proposal? Jim Pearson answered that the Public Works Department was sent a copy of the environmental checklist, the site plan, and vicinity maps for review. Chairman Wojt suggested that a response be requested from Public Works to say that there is or isn't a problem so that it is evident that the issue as been addressed. Mark Huth advised that the Board request that information be provided. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to have the Public Works Department provide more information on traffic impacts. He then asked the proponents if they are going to have some type of a binding plan for the Open Space to require that no further subdivision of it be allowed? Mr. Bakemeier stated that it is their intention to do that and it is his understanding that this is now a condition of the plat and is binding on them. The Bald Eagle Management plan protects that area in perpetuity. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like more information on this open space. Commissioner Huntingford asked if a soils analysis has been done for the septic area? Mr. Walker reported that they have submitted system designs and soil tests to the County Health Department. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Health Department has asked how many bedrooms there will be in the eight houses to see if there is adequate capacity? Mr. Walker reported that was part of the original design submitted. Commissioner Huntingford asked about the setbacks from the shoreline? Mr. Bakemeier said there is a 50 foot setback and each building permit will have a setback requirement for the VOL. 1 9 rAG' 00 :13:17 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 14 location of the cabins. Mr. Walker reported that the proposal is to clear less than 5% of the 40 acre site. Commissioner Huntingford asked the square footage of the wetland on the property? Mr. Bakemeier stated that the wetland is less than a quarter of an acre and it is marked on the map which is part of the Eagle Management plan. Chairman Wojt asked if this property slopes toward the adjacent property on the backside? Mr. Bakemeier reported that this site does not drain toward the Pedersen property, it drains toward where the lots are proposed. Jim Pearson clarified that there is an intermittent stream that flows away from the Pedersen property. He then reviewed the conditions of the Eagle Management plan in more detail for the Board. Mark Huth reported that the County does not enforce covenants or the Eagle Management Plan. Mr. Bakemeier stated that as far as the phasing of the proposal is concerned, he doesn't feel that it should be an issue because the Planning Department staff and the Prosecuting Attorney have addressed this. As far as the marina is concerned, this was based on possibly one dock that may never be built. As far as the Shoreline Permit is concerned, they have also heard that trying to require a shoreline permit for this project wouldn't be proper based on a decision in a case from Kitsap County by the Shorelines Hearing Board. They don't feel that issue is properly before the Board on this appeal because it was not mentioned in the notice of appeal. The issue here today is that three years of environmental review has gone on and all of the concerns raised today have been considered and have either been mitigated or have been determined not to be significant impacts. With regard to traffic, the agency that is concerned with that looked at it and didn't have a concern. He noted that they are proposing an intermittent use. He feels that an EIS is not necessary. Tim Testu stated that they are talking about cabins, and the proposal mentions 4,500 square feet, plus clearing of 6,000 square feet. He feels a cabin is about 1,000 square feet or less. He suggested that Mr. Gorsline be invited to visit the site to provide a second opinion. Kirie Testu stated that she doesn't feel that the traffic impact can be negated. This is still a one way road. The non-binding covenant permits rental of the homes. There is no guarantee that there won't be year around residents. George Hata, one of the owners, stated that his intent is to put up a platform so that he can put up a tent and go hiking in the mountains. He doesn't plan to build a cabin. He wants to keep the site as natural as possible and have a place to go on weekends. Chairman Wojt stated that he would like a written statement from the Public Works Department regarding the roads. Commissioner Hinton said many of the same concerns stated here today were also expressed about the development at Port Ludlow where an EIS was required. Pope Resources spent several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars and those concerns are still out there. An EIS doesn't necessarily solve all the problems. Chairman Wojt closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford moved to continue this hearing to Monday October 25, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mr. Bakemeier asked if the meeting on Monday would be limited to the issue on roads or if more testimony will be taken? Mark Huth and Commissioner Huntingford both indicated that the public testimony portion of the hearing is closed. Final Approval; Albert Loomis Short Plat #SP19-92; Three (3) Lots Northwest of the Intersection of Oak Bay Road. Osprey Rid2e Road and Paradise Bay Road in Port Ludlow: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that the amount to be paid to the School District ($437.10) only applies to residential lots (1 lot) and the amount for the Fire District ($193.00) applies to both residential and commercial (3 lots). Mr. Loomis has paid all mitigation fees. Commissioner Huntingford moved to issue approval of the Albert Loomis Short Plat #SPI9-92 with the changes as reviewed by Craig Ward. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried. VOL L 9 rM)~ 00 :13:18 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 15 The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. at the Tri Area Community Center. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Interim UGA Boundary Ordinance at the Tn Area Community Center: 22 interested area residents were present when Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing and explained the hearing procedures. Community Services Director David Goldsmith then reviewed the proposed interim urban growth area boundary. He reported that the three questions to be reviewed with regard to interim growth area boundaries are: 1) why at all, 2) why now, and 3) why this way? The Growth Management Act requires that population be accommodated in urban growth areas (UGA's) over the next twenty years. All incorporated areas (the City of Port Townsend) are defined as Urban Growth Areas. Why at all? The Growth Management Act asks that the County look at ways to maximize the investments already made in infrastructure and minimize future infrastructure invest- ments and to anticipate and plan for future population. Why now? The State Legislature imposed an October 1, 1993 deadline for the establish- ment of interim UGA's. This deadline, as other GMA deadlines, is somewhat fluid, as long as the County is moving forward on the matter. Establishing interim UGA's is a first step toward doing the capital facilities and community carrying capacity analysis to figure out if the projected growth (1,000 homes in the Tri Area) can be accommodated in the next 20 years. Why this way? The timeline originally established by the Legislature said that the communities should start their comprehensive planning and the County would designate UGA's at some point to come up with a unified document. By establishing interim boundaries now the analysis can be started. One of the major components of the proposed interim boundary is the Tri Area Community Plan previously adopted. The Tri Area Plan attempts to preserve the rural and small town nature of the Tri Area. The proposed UGA boundary for the Tri Area incorporates the area identified in the Tri Area Plan as residential, the commercial areas of Port Hadlock, the highway business district along SRI9, and the area identified for a potential sewer district near the Old Alcohol Plant. This boundary incorporates most of the infrastructure (water system provided by the City of Port Townsend), the school, the community center, and the library. He concluded his review by explaining that the boundaries of the interim UGA's will more than likely be altered as time goes on. The proposed UGA Boundary Ordinance differentiates between urban growth areas and those areas outside of a UGA by saying that those areas outside are rural. There won't be an extension of urban services outside UGA's to serve urban development. That doesn't mean, however, that existing water lines outside the boundary won't be used. They can be used up to whatever the platted density is, or at a density of one unit to the acre for resub- division. Gregg Knowles, 527 Kennedv Road: In reading the Growth Management Act, Gregg Knowles stated, that it is his understanding that the State Legislature is asking that the public accept the concept of urban growth. If the urban sprawl can be confined and spending of financial resources reduced by planning we will be healthier and better. What Mr. Knowles stated that he doesn't see, is why we must give up our concept as individuals of a small house in the country. A city, by the urban growth definition, can be anything we want it to be. He asked that the Board not start with an urban growth area because it establishes a city. A city is another layer of government and another infrastructure. He feels the best starting point in considering boundaries is to use the capital facilities plan to see what kind of growth and expansion can fit in those UGA's which are already established (the City of Port Townsend). It is very important that future private community developments (like Port Ludlow, Adelma Beach) are reserved for the future. Philip Akridge, 150 Hadlock Avenue, Port Hadlock: Mr. Akridge stated that he agrees with Gregg Knowles in general. He explained that he has expertise, through his work, with water and electricity which he believes should be public facilities in the County. Port Townsend has the water in this area. Port Townsend is one layer of government. If a UGA is established it will require another water entity which will have to buy water from Port Townsend. Groundwater may not be reliable. It might look good for awhile, but it will run out. To establish this UGA VOL 19 rAG~ 00:131.9 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 16 sewers will have to be considered. He finished by saying that he would like to see one UGA (port Townsend), because it means one layer of government being the entity that has the water in the area, and it can serve the rest of the county without setting up secondary layers of govern- ment. He feels that septic systems are better in every way to a sewer system. Mahlon Gane, 1730 Kala Point Drive, Port Townsend: Mr. Gane stated that the rural nature of the area (Tri Area) is what is attractive to the population of the area. The definition of a UGA is an antithesis to rural. Consideration for a rural service area has been avoided and perhaps that will be considered if the Urban Growth Area doesn't work out. As far as the proposed interim boundary presented, Mr. Gane stated, the Act specifies that areas that are homogenous, contiguous and urban in type should be considered. At the north end of this proposed boundary, the Airport, the Woodland Hills development, and the Marvin Garden areas are left out, while Kala Point is left in. He feels this is inconsistent and that an error has been made. He suggested that the boundary be adjusted to the area around Port Hadlock which is more urban. The Kala Point area has assessed property owners to develop the underground wiring for electricity and telephone, road improvements, and has areas that are reserved for community use. He stated that he doesn't see what being an urban growth area will do for developing an area that has already been sealed off in a way and developed according to a very detailed set of covenants. A meeting was held at Kala Point with Commissioner Hinton and David Goldsmith about the urban growth boundaries. He reported that the sentiment of the people at that meeting ran two to one against Kala Point being part of the Port Hadlock UGA. The people there did not want to be identified with an area that far removed. Mr. Gane asked that the Board consider dropping the proposed UGA boundary down to exclude Kala Point. Guv Rudolph, 1225 Irondale Road: Read his statement into the record (See attached.) In his statement he asked the following questions: 1. Where is the capital facilities plan? 2. Where is a fiscal impact statement? 3. More evaluation is needed before making any UGA designation outside of the City of Port Townsend. 4. Where is the SEP A review? 5. Where has the citizens participation been? 6. What does it mean to be in a UGA or out of a UGA? He urged the Board to ". . .let the homework be done and take the time needed to complete a rational approach to County Planning for Jefferson County and do not designate (interim or otherwise) Urban Growth Areas outside of the City of Port Townsend's UGA designation." Bill Marlow, Irondale: Bill Marlow stated that he was born and raised here and he doesn't necessarily agree with the testimony presented so far. Most of the land within the proposed UGA (for the Tri Area) is already pre-platted land and a good portion of it already has six inch water lines through it. The densities happening there now will require a sewer system at some point. It seems to him that it would be pertinent to go ahead and designate a UGA in the Tri Area, and pay for the infrastructure that will be needed at some point anyway. The Tri Area is an aquifer recharge area and it seems senseless to put a septic system in that area. There has been plenty of public testimony over the last three years regarding the whole Growth Management Act. Rosita Colatrella: Ms. Colatrella stated that she owns property in Chimacum and in Port Hadlock. This is a rural area. The question is who is going to pay? People don't know about this. The people from the area need to know more about what is going on. She said that she feels that before any vote or major step is taken, the people should be given more information. Seven o'clock at night for a meeting is really hard. Dick Broders: Mr. Broders stated that when he looks at the Tri Area he sees an urban area. The law tells us to look at that area and draw lines around it and he feels the map fairly well represents what is urban in this area. He feels that getting a line on the map and getting people to talk about it is a good way to go. Because this is interim, if the lines need to be changed in the future, hopefully they will be changed. Steve Crosland, 140 Hadlock Avenue: Mr. Crosland stated that he prefers to see the area as a rural center. He doesn't want to see another layer of government or another bureaucracy. He is concerned about assessments and he doesn't want to see them rise or put in a special assessment district. If a system is put in, it will be a magnet for growth and people will be able to develop land that they weren't able to develop before, but all the other infrastructure such as fire and VOL 19 rM·' on 1-320 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of Octobe 18, 1993 Page: 17 police, probably won't be able to keep up with it. e feels that the police are barely keeping up with things now and if there is more population im~act in the area, we'll have to beef it up substantially. I Al Boucher, Irondale: Mr. Boucher said that for th~ purposes of complying with 17.61 and to preserve the integrity of the planning process, he w~uld urge that the Board delete the Tri Area for the purpose of the October 1, 1993 response. I Jim Posey: Mr. Posey stated that he would like to þee whatever the County comes up with, be a consistent process of managing the rules and regulations of what goes on. Now it is so inconsis- tent and to even read the documents you need an atforney to understand them. He hopes that there is, in plain english, a consistent pattern of govfrning whatever plan is developed. Phil Akeridge: Phil Akeridge added that his feeling ~s that we should try to keep bureaucracy down. He feels there is a good system here with t~e town (Port Townsend). He would like to see the town expand and provide services without p*tting on an extra layer of government. He also stated that a UGA doesn't have to be put in to?ay. Let's really look at what's gone on in this area before doing something in undue haste. ~et's remain a rural center for now. Nels Johnson, 111 Hilda Street: Mr. Johnson stated that he would like to see the area stay rural. Mahlon Gane: Mr. Gane stated that it appears that ¡,Ill of the growth in population has to be accommodated in an urban growth area. That's not true, however, because we can't stop people from moving into the country. There's going to be rowth in the rural areas too. The burden of accommodating all of the growth in the districts pro osed is not real. I Gregg Knowles, 527 Kennedv Road: In the concep~ of planning one thing that you try to avoid is the collision of hard to site things such as prisons and airports. He asked if the Board realizes how close the end of the airport is to the proposed rban growth area boundary? Guv Rudolph: Guy Rudolph stated that some of thel things on the yellow sheet provided tonight would have been helpful if they had been provided Jp front when this process was first started. He feels that it answered some of his questions, but lit doesn't change his mind. Hearing no further public comment, the Cþairman recessed. The meeting was recon- vened on October 21, 1993 at the South Bay Recrea~ion Center in Port Ludlow at 7:00 p.m. I HEARING re: Interim UGA Boundar I rdinance at the South Ba Communit Center at Port Ludlow: 25 interested area resident were present when Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing and explained the hearing procedu es. Community Services Director David Goldsmith then reviewed the proposed interim urban growth area boundary and the process used in recommending the boundary indicated. Mter his resentation he answered the following questions: Q) How are you going to impact a private de elopment with taxes and why was the area not in the resort itself incorporated in this boundary? What benefit will there be to a private development? A) A private development, such as Por~ Ludlow, that has its' own water system and sewer system makes this easier bec*use the services are being provided. Transportation is a different story bþcause it is a regional issue. Q) Why was the boundary extended to the nohh beyond the Port Ludlow development? A) This was done to deal with the iss es surrounding water. This will allow study of water issues in the 20 year plan ing period. Q) If sewers are put in, where will they be ti d into? A) That can't be answered until the an lysis is done. Q) Does the Growth Management Act speak f the capitalization of the area as well as the planning? A) Part of the responsibility in a UGA is to look at existing carrying capacity, and the ability of the infrastructure to s pport the anticipated population. If it is determined that the population can ot be supported, then an analysis must be made of what the costs would be to upgrade the infrastructure and how those costs could be met. This is done t rough a capital facilities plan. The Growth Management Act gives three option for dealing with infrastructure requirements that are not cost effective: 1) Chan e the UGA boundary to allow the an- ticipated population to be supported in another area where it would be cost VOL L ~1 r G' on :1321 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 18 effective, 2) increase the resource bases (tax and impact fee options), and 3) change the expectation for provision of services. Q) If an area is in a UGA would it be provided funding for sewers, for example, over rural area that may have a problem? A) Yes, that is the concept. Q) If Port Ludlow is incorporated and includes areas that are not in the UGA, do they become urban? A) Yes, all incorporated areas are in a UGA. Q) Can the boundaries be changed? A) Yes. These are interim boundaries now, but even when the Comprehensive Plan update is completed, it and the UGA boundaries can change once a year. The Growth Management Act is very clear that urban services will not be extended beyond the urban growth boundaries. The Chairman then opened the public hearing. Winston Frenzell (for the Robert Bernard family): Each member of Robert Bernard's family has submitted written testimony (see attached.) The Bernard family has property along Olympus Beach and each individual is requesting that the boundary as recommended be altered to exclude the Mats Mats area. Robert Bernard stated that the family holds a little over 3 1/2 acres for each of the six family members. Rae Belkin, 900 Olympus Boulevard, Port Ludlow: Ms. Belkin read and submitted her testimony (See attached) asking that the Mats Mats area not be included in the Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area. Wayne Wilson, Paradise Bay: Mr. Wilson stated that he does not live within the area of the proposed UGA, but that the UGA does have serious implications on the Paradise Bay area. The first problem is the impact of traffic. You said that monies will be spent to take care of the problems inside the UGA boundaries. He asked what will happen to the areas on the outside of the UGA that will be impacted? Another concern is water. It is necessary to assure that the resource and services can be provided in the UGA. Everything he has read and heard since becoming involved in this indicates that there is very serious doubt as to the availability of water in the area from Mats Mats to Shine. There have been instances of salt water intrusion in some wells. He urged the Board to look into this matter further to assure that there is adequate potable water to supply all of the increased population in the UGA, and that it will not affect existing water systems of people served from the aquifer. If a UGA is established before it is known that there is enough water for existing water requirements, such action would be premature and irresponsible. George Randolph: Mr. Randolph stated that he is happy to see that this work on the Growth Management Act moving. He said he has been a property owner here since 1949 and he has seen a lot of development in the area. He feels that Pope Resources has done a good job with all of the infrastructure that has been put in so far. He feels there has been no planning or funding coming into the area and if this UGA is established he is glad to see that the County will finally recognize this area. The Port Ludlow Fire District provides virtually the same amount in County taxes as the City of Port Townsend area. Royce Taniguchi: Royce Taniguchi stated that she lives on Verner Avenue by Mats Mats Bay. When they moved here 20 years ago they made the choice not to live in the Port Ludlow development. Mats Mats Bay is a unique place because it is a glaciated, volcanic bay that has a rural character. She feels that the roads and the bay can't support Mats Mats being included in the UGA. She asked that Mat Mats be eliminated from the UGA boundary. Ecologically this area can't handle this. John Hutsell: Mr. Hutsell stated that he is representing CLOA which is an organization made up of the elected heads of each of the community developments in Port Ludlow. He attended the Mats Mats meeting and heard almost unanimous concern that Mats Mats not be included in the Port Ludlow UGA. He noted that he feels CLOA would be comfortable with the urban growth area that included just the Port Ludlow development. David Cunningham, 281 South Point Road, representing Pope Resources: David Cunningham stated that Port Ludlow is a clear candidate area for an urban growth designation. He is pretty sure that the sewer system has greater carrying capacity, at this time, than even the Port Town- send system. Some of the urban services necessary for a UGA are already in at Port Ludlow. VOL , i I'M.' on 1322 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Page: 19 The research done in the last year by reliable, professional sources, has predicted adequate groundwater resources. It is gratifying to know that once Port Ludlow is designated as a UGA it will begin to receive a greater proportion of tax funds than it has in the past. The assessed value in Port Ludlow is disproportionately high when compared to other areas in the County. He hopes that the County will not consider directing County services to other areas because Port Ludlow already has many of the services. There are public services that the County could help the citizens of Port Ludlow with, such as emergency medical, law enforcement and road improve- ments. He stated that he hopes the County will be creative and fairly broad in thinking of the implications of this UGA on public services in Port Ludlow. Mr. Cunningham added that Pope Resources has no particular opinion on whether the UGA boundary should include Mats Mats or not. As far as the eastern boundary is concerned, the Protect the Ludlow Bay Committee's work a few years ago sabotaged any effort for Pope Resources to extend sewer service along Ludlow Bay Road. The only water quality problems found in Ludlow Bay are from fecal coliform, some of which comes from boaters. The water quality in Ludlow Bay has been getting healthier as there is more development. Whether or not the UGA boundary should be extended to the end of Ludlow Bay Road, to allow those lot owners the opportunity to negotiate with Pope Resource for an extension of the sewer system, is an issue that should be given some consideration. There is a portion of the development plan that was included in the UGA boundary (across from the commercial area on the hillside) which should be considered for an extension of the sewage system in the interest of water quality protection. There must be a SEP A threshold determination made on this ordinance and since Pope Resources just did an EIS for the same area, he feels that the County should somehow do something to participate in that environmental analysis. He pointed out that Section 4 in the proposed or- dinance proposes to lower the density in other areas that are designated Suburban in the Com- prehensive Plan. He feels that by doing this the County may be changing the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance which means, (by State statute) that the Planning Commission must conduct a public hearing before the County Commissioner's have a hearing. This section should talk about gross density and not "net" density as currently stated in the ordinance. David Goldsmith explained that this is an interim ordinance and the County in doing its' Com- prehensive Plan update, has a Declaration of Significance which the final UGA designations will be woven into. This interim ordinance has been issued a Declaration of Non-significance which refers back to the DS and is included in the scope for the EIS which will be done. Dr. Winston Frenzell: Dr. Frenzell stated that he feels the population of the Port Ludlow area needs to know what some of the capitalization costs are estimated to be. He asked that in planning and providing further information to the community that capitalization costs be included for the various things (sewer, water, sheriff, aid cars). What is due the community should be compared to what is provided in the Port Townsend area. David Goldsmith explained that under the county-wide planning policies there will be a planning team formed for each UGA to look at provision of services and costs. This will be the informa- tion source to and from the community. VOl. : :.i..-~ PM·; on .1323 He added that the record for this hearing is being left open until October 29, 1993 for written testimony. Rae Belkin asked when the Board will make a decision on this? Chairman W ojt reported that there is one more hearing scheduled for Monday October 25, 1993 with the City of Port Town- send and there is a time scheduled on November 2, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. for the Board to review the oral and written testimony. Rae Belkin then asked how the UGA designation will effect tax assessments? David Goldsmith explained that the UGA designation will not change the taxing structure. A portion of the property taxes goes to County administration, the school district, the hospital district and the fire district and this will not change. A UGA has no taxing authority. The tax expenditures will be changed, because the County will re-prioritize to spend tax dollars on the areas (UGA's) that are expected to accommodate the increased population. Bettv Thomas. Mats Mats Bav Area: Ms. Thomas stated that the uniqueness of the water area is unbelievable. She urged the Board to think seriously in their deliberations about the uniqueness of the water area and what would happen if you make it an urban zone. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 18, 1993 Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public testimony. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: ' ~ VOL 1 PM: on 1 32.4 Page: 20