Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM010692 ., ...----... u~ 'V" ,?>-O,,-:::-: MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 6. 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both in attendance. Prosecutine: Attorney Mark Buth re: Domestic Violence Grant Proposal: (See also Minutes of December 23, 1991) Mark Huth introduced Kitty Guthrie of the Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program and reported that the legislature passed a law last year to allow each county to adopt and implement a comprehensive Domestic Violence program. The Jefferson County Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program will be contracting with the County to develop such a plan, if the County receives the grant. The Board advised that they had discussed this grant and the development of a comprehensive plan with the representa- tives of the Domestic Violence Program at their last meeting and gave their approval for the grant application. Prosecutine: Attorney Mark Buth and Public Works re: Memorial Field Fence; Interlocal Ae:reement: Mark Huth reported that he had drafted the interlocal agreement for the repair of a portion of the fence at Memorial Field with input from the City. He reported that the "Hold Harmless" clause is as protective as possible. Commissioner Wojt asked what the County's responsibility would be if there is any damage to the City street when this repair is done? Commissioner Wojt added that the County Engineer says there is a big sand pocket under Monroe Street and if the County does the necessary work the Street may be damaged. He feels the City should take care of Monroe Street at the same time this fence repair is made. Mark Huth suggested that wording be added to the Agreement to say that the County will not be responsible for any damage to Monroe Street as a result of this work. He will add this wording to the agreement and see if the City will sign it. #~ Memo re: Cash Purchases Over $1.000 from the 1991 Bude:et: Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign the Memo to all departments directing that any purchases made over $1,000 between now and when the 1991 budget is closed, be reviewed and approved by the Board. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Re-Ore:anization of the Board: The organization of the Board will remain the same for 1992 with Commissioner Dennison as Chairman. ,:,'\.. " .. ~;.,,(18·.,. 00· ~';.'" " ..'~ .... """;\1,' , .~. r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 2 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Bearine: Examiner Recommendation on Road Vacation: Juntara: Eight interested area residents were present when 911 System Coordinator Bob Henderson reviewed a video tape of the area of this road vacation. He reported that copies of the Hearing Examiner's findings and recommendation were sent to all the adjacent property owners who requested them. Four letters have been received since these copies were sent, in addition to two letters faxed to the Commissioners' Office today, which all object to the road vacation due to the possibility of contamination of water wells, the use of the right-of-way for a trail and maintenance for the existing and possible future utility lines that run in the right-of-way. Chairman Dennison noted that this meeting is not a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on this road vacation before making his recommendation. He reported that the Board has a record of all the testimony given at that hearing and asked if anyone present had new information to present? Commissioner Wojt asked if this right-of-way could be used for a trail? Bob Henderson noted that there is a steep bank, but if the community wanted to put the necessary facilities in, a trail could be built on the right-of-way. A number of the local residents have used part of the right-of-way for a trail in the past, but because of the switch backs necessary to go up the steep slope, they were on private property in some areas. Chairman Dennison asked if the additional property from the vacated area is necessary in order to make the two lots of the subdivision large enough to build on? Bob Henderson said that it is his understanding that the 30 feet requested for vacation is necessary to be used as part of the septic system drainfield for these lots. The previous owner of this property had septic system approval on it, and one of the requirements was that the additional 30 feet be vacated. The Juntara's, as far as Bob Henderson knows, have not applied for a septic system permi t. Frank Accettola: Frank Accettola stated that he owns property near one of these lots. He said that he is a licensed, professional landscaper and he has all the materials necessary to build a trail on this right-of-way. He stated that he will make the trail safe. All he needs now is the permission to build the trail. He will build it by hand. Chairman Dennison asked if Mr. Accettola would have a problem with the right-of-way being vacated if public acceSs is still allowed? Mr. Accettola stated that he would not object to the vacation if public access was still allowed. Dave Gastman: Dave Gastman stated that he owns property adjacent to this property as well as property on Dickey Street. This right-of-way is needed for the installation of a waterline down Thorndyke toward the tavern. Chairman Dennison asked if Mr. Gastman would object to the vacation if a utility easement was allowed? Mr. Gastman answered that the problems are: 1) Bridgehaven could not put waterlines in the easement, 2) a bond would have to be put up by a contractor in order to cross the Juntara's land, and 3) the area would have to be put back to the way it was before the installation of the waterline. Commissioner Brown clarified that if a waterline was to be installed in an easement across the property (instead of in the public right-of-way), the property would have to be restored to the same condition it was in before the waterline was installed. This could be expensive if the property was landscaped. Chairman Dennison then asked the Juntara's if they would have any problem if the right-of- way was vacated but public access was allowed for a trail? Darak Juntara stated that this right-of-way is located between their Lot 11 and 43. The slope is very steep on this right- of-way. They would like to have their two lots joined together so they can build something for their enjoyment. If an easement is allowed for a trail it still would be between these two lots. Vt'L'·18 rMfOtl· a Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 3 Commissioner Brown asked if the Juntara's need the additional property for septic system approval? Chaiyong Juntara stated that he has a permit to build his house on Lot 43 with a septic system on Lot 11. Chairman Dennison asked what they will use the right-of-way for? Mr. Juntara stated that half of lot 11 is unstable and he needs the right-of-way to be able to do anything with this lot. He doesn't know what will be done with the street, so he doesn't want to do anything next to the street on these lots. Bob Henderson reported that in the original application it states that Lot 43 has an approved septic system. The line from the septic system to the drainfield will run across this right-of- way. He added that running this type of line across the right-of-way is allowed by permit. Joanne Fultz stated that they don't want a septic system placed on these lots which could possibly contaminate their water springs. Chairman Dennison explained that the Health Department reviews and approves the septic system on any property. They will review all of the health related issues on this property. Don Schultz stated that he owns the community water system in this area and it is his understanding that there has been a change in the location of the septic system for these lots from Lot 43 to Lot 11. Lot 11 is closer to the water system. He then reported on the access to the water system over the current easement. Wally Peterson stated that they need the right-of-way left open without a lot of restrictions because the people of Bridgehaven may need to run sewer lines through it to a drainfield. The discussion turned to the best way to handle this vacation request and still preserve the use of the area for public access and utilities. Commissioner Brown moved to table action on the recommendation from the Hearing Examiner until January 13, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. so that findings of fact can be developed. Finis Brewer re: Lare:e Lot Subdivision; Chimacum Ride:e: Finis Brewer and Alan Carmen, Surveyor, came before the Board to request a variance from the road standards of the large lot subdivision regulations for Mr. Brewer's two lot plat. Alan Carmen stated that Mr. Brewer was told by the County (almost a year after he submitted his application) that he should change his application for a short subdivision, to a large lot subdivision. This change in the application meant Mr. Brewer's subdivision was then subject to the new requirements for road construction. Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that there was a window, for applications when the large lot subdivision regulations were adopted. Applications filed during that window, and met the following criteria were not subject to the new regulations: 1) there had to be a recorded survey and 2) there had to be at least one segregation of a lot within the large lot subdivision. Alan Carmen stated that Mr. Brewer had a short plat in process and it would not have a recorded survey until the short plat was approved. Jerry Smith reviewed the history of this application. Mr. Brewer submitted a short plat application in March of 1990. During the review of that application the Health Department found that preliminary approval could not be granted because the soils on the property were not suitable for on-site septic. In May of 1990 the County adopted the large lot subdivision rules. Shortly after January of 1991 the plat was re-submitted as a large lot subdivision with two lots. A variance was approved for the width of the roads to be reduced from 60 feet to 40 feet. Finis Brewer stated that the subdivision was needed because there was a three way ownership of the property. The short subdivision would have given individual titles to each owner. There was a five year battle for access to this property which is located on top of a ridge about five miles back from the main road. Mr. Brewer noted that when it became apparent that the property couldn't be split three ways (by the short subdivision), he purchased the interest of one of the owners. He is now bearing all of the expense for the improvements to m.: 18 t~ 00', 3 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 4 this property. He has built and graded a 25 foot wide road. He intends to gravel the road eventually, but having to do it now is a financial hardship to him. Public Works Planning and Programming Manager Carter Breskin reported that Mr. Brewer was advised that he can provide a surety bond for 200% of the cost of the gravel, which would allow him up to another year to complete the work. Chairman Dennison asked if Mr. Brewer is asking for a variance from the requirement for ballast and crushed rock on this road? Mr. Brewer indicated that is correct. Mr. Brewer feels his application was vested under the old rules. Alan Carmen added that when the large lot subdivision was suggested to Mr. Brewer because his three lot short subdivision could not be approved, he could have reduced the number of lots of the short plat which would have allowed him to be vested under the old rules. Commissioner Brown stated that he wants to know all of the circumstances on how this project got to where it is now. Carter Breskin added that Mr. Brewer did ask and was granted a variance from the 60 foot road standard, so he must have considered building the road to standard at that time. Mr. Brewer stated that he wasn't sure at that time what the new rules and regulations were going to be. The Board advised Mr. Brewer that he has a choice to é!lpply for a variance from these standards or he can put up a surety bond to do the required work within the next year. The Board will review the process that this subdivision has gone through with regard to whether Mr. Brewer's application was vested under the old rules. HUMAN SERVICES Discussion re: RSN Lee:al Services Contract; Case Law Office: Ella Sandvig explained that the Regional Support Network now handles the legal representation for involun- tary commitments for mental health patients. The Board will determine what budget the contract for legal services should be paid from. PLANNING AND BUILDING Final Wakefield Short Plat #SP21-90; ThreE! (3) Lot Subdivision Adjacent to Paradise Bay Road; North of the Bood Canal Bride:el Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this short plat is located in the Bywater Bay area. A mitigated determination of non-significance was issued on it because of the slopes on the site. All of the mitigative measures from the environmental review are restrictions on the plat. All required County departments have signed off on this plat. Commissioner Brown moved for final approval of the \Vakefield Short Plat #SP21-90. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Final Kellen Short Platt SP4-91; Re-division of Lot # 103 of Olympus Beach Tracts; Mats Mats: Jerry Smith reported that the Kellen Short Plat is a re-division into two lots of Lot 103, Olympus Beach Tracts. All of the conditions of summary approval as well as of the vacation, of the right-of-way adjacent to Lot 1, have been satisfied on this plat. All required County Departments have signed off on this plat. Commissioner Brown moved to issue final approval of the Kellen Short Plat as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Final Caryl Short Plat #SPII-91; Division (]If a Five Acre Parcel; Gardiner: Permit Technician Michelle Grewell reported that this three lot short plat is located off of Old t'1.. 18;rMÆOO. A . .iI " ,;fJ. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 5 Gardiner Highway. All the conditions of summary approval have been satisfied and all of the required County departments have signed off on this short plat. Commissioner Brown moved to issue the final approval of the Caryl Short Plat. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF TBE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the items as presented on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 1-92 re: Hearing Notice Application for Franchise; Gary Bandy; Setting Hearing Date for January 27, 1992 at 10:45 a.m. 2. Call for Bids: One (1) Conveyor System for Handling and Sorting Recyclable Materials; Bid opening set for January 27, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 3. Approved recommendation for Bid Award; Interior Lighting Modifications at the Jefferson County Corrections Center; to Ahearn Electric 4. CONTRACT No. #91-10-27; Substance Abuse Prevention; Educational Service District 114 and Jefferson County Historical Society 5. CONTRACT No. #2490-084305, Amendment #2 re: Developmental Disabilities; State Department of Social and Health Services. Assistant Planner Eric Toews re: Plannine: Commission Report and Resolution on Adoption of Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; Enere:y Facility Element: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward explained that an environmental review of any proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan must be done before the changes are adopted. Eric Toews reported that on September 16, 1991 the draft language to the Energy Conserva- tion and Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan - a policy guide for growth and development deterring the siting of oil pipelines within Jefferson County, was referred to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the changes on October 16, 1991. The Planning Commission has submitted their report and recommendation in the form of a resolution on these proposed changes. If the Board is satisfied with this language, then staff will begin the SEPA process on these changes. The Board concurred that the staff begin the SEP A process on this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Assistant Planner Eric Toews re: Review and Possible Adoption of the Interim Zonine: Ordinance: (See Minutes of December 23, 1991) Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that the two items that the Board suggested be added to the proposed emergency zoning ordinance have been completed: 1) a finding on the changes in assessed valuation in the County and 2) specific language lifting the moratorium as a result of adoption of this ordinance. Assistant Planner Eric Toews read the additional finding drafted to show the value of new construction and new subdivisions occurring in the County. This finding is based on . information provided by the Assessor for the period of 1982 through 1991. The finding says "The Jefferson County Assessor's Office data indicates that the total value of new construc- tion and newly created subdivisions within the County has increased significantly, from $59,685,363 for the five years ending on July 31, 1986 to $197,767,740 for the five years ending on July 31, 1991. This rapid rise in the value of new construction and newly created subdivisions is symptomatic of the acute growth pressures the County is presently ex- periencing." He also reported that a repealer clause was added (Section 17) to clearly indicated that Resolution 105-91 (the moratorium) will be repealed on adoption of this emergency control. Chairman Dennison explained to the interested residents present that this ordinance is to replace the County's Development Code which was overturned by the Court, until such time 'Itl 18 ,MI· fir' s Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 6 that the deficiencies in that Code can be remedied or until the Growth Management regula- tions have been completed and adopted. In response to concerns regarding the "emergency" need for this ordinance, Eric Toews read the 22 findings that the Board is using to substantiate the need for this emergency interim zoning ordinance. The discussion continued regarding the County's growth rate and the whether there is truly an emergency. Chairman Dennison reported that the issue of whether there is an emergency or not is a judgment. The only alternative to adoption of the emergency interim zoning ordinance is to keep the moratorium in place until such time as controls can be adopted through the normal process. In response to a question about Finding 16, Eric Toews reported that it says that people who wish to litigate the validity of the ordinance, must exhaust their administrative remedies under the ordinance before filing such a judicial challenge. Craig Ward added that this remedy is specifically for individuals who have property in an existing commercial area which was not included in those listed in the ordinance. Commissioner Brown reported that the Board has had the Prosecuting Attorney advise them on proper process for review and adoption of this emergency interim ordinance and that he reviewed the document itself. He feels that all required procedures have been followed. Eric Toews reported that the wording in Finding 17 should be changed to read Finding 11 where references are made to Finding 10. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve Ordinance No. 1-0106-92 based on the finding that there is an emergency. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Assistant Planner Eric Toews re: Discussion of Proposed Subdivision Or- dinance: Craig Ward reported that the Board held a public hearing on five proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance. During that hearing, the only testimony presented was on issues that were not part of that hearing, but were part of the Planning Commission hearings, on the original document. He asked if the Board wants to hold another hearing on the entire subdivision ordinance or if they would like to proceed with the environmental review of this proposed ordinance? Commissioner Brown stated that the Planning Commission held the public hearings on this document and the only reason that the Board held a second public hearing, was for input on the changes in wording that the Board made. The Prosecuting Attorney determined these changes to be significant enough to require another public hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to send this Ordinance forward for environmental review. Commission Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mary Phillips asked if the exemption for gifts to children has been eliminated in the subdivision ordinance? Mark Huth reported that the exemptions for gifts to immediate family members (except testamentary gifts) have been removed from the County's ordinance to bring it in compliance with State law. He reported that the County's ordinance now has only the exemptions allowed by State law. Mary Phillips clarified that if she was going to deed some of her property to her children she would have to go through the short or long subdivision process. Commissioner Brown indicated that is correct. Mark Huth then read one of the exemptions which says "divisions made by testamentary provisions or the laws of dissent. . ." (provisions if there is no will), are exempt from the subdivision ordinance. City's Mitie:ated Determination of Non-Sie:nificance for Their Slude:e Treatment Proiect to be Located at the County's Landfill: Mark Huth reported that the City has assumed lead agency status for SEP A on their sludge treatment project at the County's Landfill. There is a question regarding whether they have the authority to declare that they are the lead agency on this matter. A letter will be drafted to the City explaining to them that this matter needs to be discussed further. ~" 18 t~C 00 ,,,,,. , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 7 At the conclusion of the business for the day the Board recessed their meeting and reconvened on Tuesday, January 7, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. with all members present. Determination of Sie:nificance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS; Mixed Use Residential. Commercial and Recreational Development (SDP91-0017); Inn at Port Ludlow; Pope Resources: Chairman Dennison explained to the 20 interested area residents present that this meeting is for the Board to begin the scoping process for the environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Pope Resources Inn at Port Ludlow project. Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Board has to decide if they want to follow the normal or expanded scoping process. The purpose of scoping is to narrow the issues to be addressed in the EIS and to identify reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures. The normal process (WAC 197.11.408) has a 21 day scoping period during which time written comments are invited. WAC Section 410 (expanded scoping) suggests using question- naires, coordinated workshops and public meetings to narrow the issues. There is a 30 day time period for this method. The comment period starts from the date that the DS is sent to the State Department of Ecology. Chairman Dennison stated that due to time constraints he doesn't feel there is an advantage to going to the expanded scoping process. In order to make the process as efficient as possible he stated that he feels the normal scoping process is appropriate. Commissioner Brown agreed with that statement. Mark Beaufait, Representing the Port Ludlow Community Council, stated that the Board can hold a meeting during the comment period without invoking expanded scoping. He feels that a meeting would be helpful, if it was held toward the end of the comment period. He added that the Port Ludlow residents he represents aren't opposed to reasonable development on the site and are not seeking to delay the project, but they do want to make certain their concerns are addressed by the EIS. Mr. Beaufait continued by noting that a major concern is that there be some review of the overall development of Port Ludlow being contemplated by Pope Resources. Some disclosure and review (other than what is in checklist) of the overall program should be done in the scoping process. In the project description, Pope Resources listed this project as part of the overall program for the development of the Port Ludlow community. This EIS will have to be, in part, a programmatic EIS which determines how this project is part of that overall program. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, introduced Tony Puma, Project Manager and Leslie Hoyt of the Farris Company who will be doing the environmental documents. Pope Resources agrees completely that a review of the overall Port Ludlow development plans should be included in a programmatic EIS which will look at cumulative impacts. He added that they don't see any benefit in going to the expanded scoping process, since this application has been in the works for five months and the County has received numerous comments about the environmental issues on the project. He added that only matters that have "more than moderate" impact should be addressed in the EIS. Mark Huth added that since Pope Resources has stated that they are willing to do an EIS on their overall plan for this area, the cumulative impacts can be added to the issues identified in the Planning Department's draft DS. The Planning Department could not assume when they drafted this document, however, that a programmatic EIS would be sought because all they had to review was the project that was submitted. Chairman Dennison asked if the overall plan is inclusive of the development that has happened at Port Ludlow up to this point or if it takes off from what has happened to this point? David Cunningham stated that the overall plan contains the projected build out (an additional 700 residential units, marina expansion, etc.). It's the continuation of residential development. They expect that any impact analysis that is done will look at the future plans, the current development in place, and the build out of the development that has occurred in the last 20 years at Port Ludlow. Mark Huth noted that Pope Resources has indicated that '4 18 r~ .(1) '7 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 8 within two days they will present a written description of the overall development plan for Port Ludlow. Al Webber, Port Ludlow resident, asked about the cumulative impacts of the unbuilt lots in the North Bay area? David Cunningham stated that Pope Resources cannot be responsible for the impacts of building done by projects other than their own. They will assume that the lots in the North Bay area are built upon when they look at cumulative impacts even though they are not legally required to do an impact analysis on them. Mark Beaufait stated that it is imperative that a written project description be submitted. It may even require its own environmental checklist and should not be used as a project EIS. David Cunningham answered that they understand that the programmatic EIS would not be used to address specific project issues for any project brought forward in the future, but could be used to address cumulative impacts for future projects. Mark Beaufait added that he feels there should be a written programmatic proposal on which a SEP A declaration would be issued. He feels it would be better for the County to retain the consultant that does the EIS, rather than the proponent. Mark Huth stated that if there is a programmatic EIS, a phased review can be done on individual projects as they come on line. The programmatic EIS isn't the final environmental review of the entire development. Subsequent individual projects mayor may not require further environmental review. Chairman Dennison asked if a separate SEP A review needs to be done on the overall plan. David Cunningham stated that he doesn't feel that another threshold determination is necessary. Mark Huth added that the scope of the programmatic EIS is what is at issue. Having an additional SEP A review of the overall development is not necessary at this point depending on what the overall development plan says. Commissioner Brown stated that the letters from the citizens and the Ludlow Community Association have to do with concerns about cumulative impacts. Mark Huth stated that the environmental checklist needs to be updated to include the overall development. Commis- sioner Brown asked the Prosecuting Attorney to give the Board direction on what they need to ask the applicant to provide. Mark Huth stated that the options are: ask for new checklist on the overall project and do another threshold determination, or ask for an amended checklist that includes the overall project. Mark Beaufait suggested that an environmental checklist could be submitted by Pope Resources on the overall project and they could concede that a DS be issued on it. If this was done the County could go right into setting the scope of the EIS. He feels this would cover the technical issues being discussed. David Cunningham stated that if Pope Resources had agreed to do an EIS the checklist would not have been necessary. They did not agree to do an EIS initially. They did not agree to do one up until two weeks ago. The Commissioners made a legitimate threshold determina- tion requiring that the EIS be done based on the environment checklist. That environmental checklist was only required on the specific project because the County has no licensing authority on the overall development plan. He feels that they should not go back and amend the environmental checklist. Mark Huth stated that Pope is free to include an EIS of their overall development if they choose. It's up to the County to decide if they will accept it as a programmatic EIS. A development plan is not subject to SEPA unless a permit is applied for. He added that the benefit to the developer, if they do this programmatic EIS, is that this document underlies all of their future proposals and parts of it may be folded into or adopted as part of future environmental review on specific projects. David Cunningham agreed that Pope Resources will provide a written description of the overall development by the end of this week. Chairman Dennison suggested that once this description is received the Commissioners hold a meeting for Pope Resources to describe the overall proj ect. . 18 f~ 00 8 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 9 Commission Brown asked who and how the Port Ludlow Community Council was formed and what type of membership they have? Mark Beaufait reported that it is a voluntary association of homeowners that have circulated materials in the area. Herman Schweizer added that when some of the property owners became aware of Pope Resources plans they circulated petitions and got over 300 signatures. Since then they have solicited funds and received donations from approximately 160 people. Chairman Dennison reiterated that it is agreed there will be a programmatic aspect to the EIS as well as the specific project aspect. There will be additional information provided to the County on the programmatic aspects by the end of this week to be presented at a public meeting Tuesday, January 14, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. Chairman Dennison explained that anyone that has made a comment on this project up to now is not precluded from making a comment during the scoping process. The draft Determination of Significance provided by Planning Department staff was then reviewed item by item. * The project description needs to be expanded, Mark Huth stated, with an additional paragraph after the last asterisks to include a synopsis of the docu- ment that Pope will be providing on the overall development plan, once it is received. * David Cunningham suggested that two graphics be added to this DS: 1) for the specific site plan, and 2) for the overall plan. Herman Schweizer reported that the Community Council is concerned about density and views. There are 72 residential units and a 36 room Inn. This needs to be considered with the residential units that have already been built as well as those planned for the North Bay area of Port Ludlow and other areas. The density of this development will impact the views. Chairman Dennison reported that the density allowed in the area is determined by the County's Comprehensive Plan. Jim Pearson added that Mr. Schweizer is discussing two issues: views (aesthetics) and density. The EIS will include alternatives and these issues may be addressed in that way. David Cunningham stated that the density of this project is about 4.1 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan allows five units per acre in this area. The overall project has densities less than one dwelling unit per acre. The existing North Bay neighborhoods are about 2 to 3 units per acre. This project is well within the scope of the density standards of the Comprehensive Plan. He doesn't feel that density should be a topic of the EIS. Chairman Dennison noted that aesthetics is a valid concern to be added to the scope of the EIS. David Cunningham questioned if the aesthetic element is a legitimate concern for the EIS and asked what standard of measure and comparison would be used for it? Commis- sioner Brown reminded the Board that each element of the EIS has to be determined to be a "more than moderate" impact. Jim Pearson reported that there is a provision in the Shoreline Master Program to address view blockage and heights. Ann Quantock, President of the Protect Ludlow Bay Committee and a member of the Port Ludlow Community Council stated that she would rather not see aesthetics limited just to view. Another issue is that all of the North Bay residents are limited to earth tone colors for their houses. They have been told that this project will be white. She feels that this development should conform to the restrictions that the rest of the community is held to. She also stated that she is concerned about seasonal impacts. Port Ludlow in the winter is pretty empty, while in the summer the resort is busy and the harbor is full of boats. She would like to see peak cumulative impacts addressed, not average impacts. She also asked that a limited expanded scoping process be considered which could include active solicitation of input from the State Department of Ecology, Natural Resources, Fisheries and any other agencies that have some direct impact on what happens in this environment. George Randolf stated that aesthetics must be compared to structures on the waterfront in the area currently. Mark Beaufait stated that once the description of the overall development plan is submitted for the programmatic EIS, he feels that some review will have to be done of programmatic .IA2. '\.IIi. 18 rA~~ 00 '9 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 10 alternatives. He added that there should be some review of the impact on this project of the pending land use control and questioned if this project would be vested under the previous controls. Mark Huth reported that sometimes an EIS will list all of the regulations that the development is subject to. David Cunningham reported that this was done in the environmen- tal checklist. The comments impacts identified in the draft DS were then reviewed item by item: * Soil erosion due to clearing, grading and excavating and the impact of these activities on steep slopes. This concern should be addressed for the specific project and for the overall development of the area. Leslie Hoyt suggested that a qualitative analysis of the clearing, grading and excavating be done for the programmatic portion of the EIS and then the actual amount of clearing, grading, erosion, etc. could be calculated for the specific project. * Cumulative impacts to marine water quality due to increased storm water runoff from impervious surfaces and due to eroded soils and contaminants in storm water runoff entering marine waters. These concerns will be reviewed on the programmatic and specific project basis. * Cumulative impacts to groundwater resources and existing domestic wells due to increased consumption of groundwater. This should be addressed in the programmatic aspect of the EIS, David Cunningham advised. * Cumulative impact to fish and wildlife habitat. Again this is a programmatic issue, David Cunningham noted. There was discussion of this issue being addressed both program- matically as well as specifically. The Board will make that determination after reviewing the environmental checklist. * Environmental Health hazards due to release of and/or exposure to hazardous materials in the soil on the site. Jim Pearson verified that this concern relates to the removal of the fuel tanks and excavation of the soils located at the old mill site which are all project related concerns. * Cumulative impact to the availability of low income housing stock due to increased employment of services workers. Chairman Dennison asked if this would be cumulative or project specific? David Cunningham reported that in addition to the service workers for the Inn there are landscape maintenance workers for the housing development. He noted that it can not be assumed that these workers are linked to needing low income housing. He reported that they will link the income level of the service personnel to their ability to rent housing and do an analysis on available rental housing to assure that rental housing in their price range is available and adequate. It was agreed that this concern be addressed on a programmatic basis. * Impacts to recreation opportunities, parking availability at the existing marina. David Cunningham reported that the analysis of this concern is complete and thorough in the environmental checklist. Jim Pearson explained that there has been discussion of the size of the parking lot, how much parking will be provided under this proposal, what new uses and nu~bers of people will be in the area, and whether or not there will be a reduction in the ability to find parking by people who currently use the marina. David Cunningham reported ithat there was some initial disagreement with members of the community regard- ing dem~nd for parking. The community did its' own demand analysis and found that demand ~s as high as 117 spaces. The project now identifies 130 parking spaces. Herman Schweizer asked that this item be addressed in the EIS because there is disagreer¡nent and concern regarding the overall parking in the Port Ludlow area. He noted th~t the marina will be expanded, and he questioned how the County will know if there is enough parking for an expanded marina. David Cunningham reported that they wil~ address parking for the expanded marina in the EIS. Mark Beaufait brought up the issue of the illumination of the boat dock. The Board will make that determination on this issue. 't1\. 18 (A{Æ 00:10 Commissiorj.ers' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 11 * Cumulative impacts in the capacity of the County road and State highway systems. These concerns will be address on a site and a programmatic basis. * Cumulaq,ve impacts on the capacity of Fire Protection District #3 to provide fire fighting and emørgency medical services. These concerns will be addressed on a site and a programmatic basis. David Cunningham stated that he hopes the Fire District will offer to make available, all of the information for a meaningful analysis of this issue. * Cumulative impacts to the capacity of the Chimacum School District to provide education- al facilities and services. David Cunningham stated that they do no feel this needs to be addressed in the EIS. There are 646 dwelling units at Port Ludlow and there are less than 20 students in those units. Discussion ensued regarding how the market can be analyzed to determine this impact. Mark Huth noted that generally an EIS states if mitigation is necessary to address the impact. Mter further discussion of the possible impacts it was agreed that this concern be ad- dressed on a programmatic basis in the EIS. * Programmatic issues resulting from long term proposed plan. Chairman Dennison reported that a number of these issues have been identified today, but more may be found when the overall development plan is submitted. The following items were listed by the Port Ludlow Community Council: · Area wide service and financial impacts - sewer, water, electricity, schools, library, roads, fire and medical (the Hospital). The discussion turned to the need to address impacts to the library system. Chairman Dennison noted that electricity is provided by a private industry and he does not see how that can be addressed in the EIS. The main concerns that need to be addressed are the items that are provided publicly or that impact public resources. David Cunningham clarified that they would include library, roads, fire, medical, and schools in the programmatic portion of the EIS. · Area wide cumulative impacts for entire program. Chairman Dennison stated t~at these are the programmatic issues that have been discussed. I Provision of expanded health services. This will be addressed under medical (~ospital) in the programmatic portion of the EIS. · · , I F,re and emergency services. This has already been addressed. · Mass and density. This has been discussed and is driven by the County Com- p~ehensive Plan. · Iq.terference with view or viewscape. Chairman Dennison stated that whether to dfal with this, and to what extent, must be decided. T~affic, runoff, water quality, adequacy of electrical services, construction impacts (4ust and traffic), dredge and fill, contaminated soil, fish and wildlife, and air q*ality issues, have all been dealt with previously. i · Jim pearsoq reported that air quality has not been addressed. The environmental checklist discusses air quality as it relates to both dust and smoke. Mark Beaufait stated that he feels air quality ~hould be addressed programmatically. David Cunningham questioned the need to address air fIuality in the Port Ludlow area because of the wind patterns and the weather. Commissio~er Brown reported that in the area covered by the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (slix counties) there are only three non-attainment areas which are the City of Tum- water, City ¡of Lacy and City of Olympia. No other areas in this region are close to threaten- ing violatioa of the air quality standards. : ~'t't.. 18tMt 00 11 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 12 David Cunningham reported that if the Board decides that this is a legitimate issue for the EIS it means that it is expected that the additional houses being built at Port Ludlow are going to put the air quality over the violation threshold the same as the City of Olympia and Tumwater. Mark Beaufait noted that he thinks the Port Ludlow Community Council should do some checking and provide more information on air quality in response to what Pope Resources has indicated on their environmental checklist. Chairman Dennison clarified that unless some information is provided to lead the County to believe there will be a more than moderate impact to air quality, it will not be an issue in the EIS. · Slope stability and geo-technical issues and adequacy. The discussion turned to the issues other than erosion. Herman Schweizer reported that the Coastal Zone Atlas designates this area as having unstable soil, from a seismic perspective. Jim Pearson reported that the maps in the Coastal Zone Atlas are very small in scale and it is hard to pin point areas on a site precisely. There is an area of instability that is close to or overlapping on the western portion of the project site. David Cunningham noted that this site does not contain Environmentally Sensitive Areas (as noted in the Coastal Zone Atlas) that have unstable designa- tions. Jim Pearson explained further that in order to identify an area as an ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) which would trigger SEP A review even on a categorically exempt project, it would have to be in an old or recent slide area as defined in the Coastal Zone Atlas. This area is identified as unstable. Tony Puma, Project Manager added that the geology report done on this site has indicated that it is the flat areas that are unstable, not the slopes. The applicant has agreed to do a geology report on every foundation in this project. David Cunningham suggested that the Board not make a determination of including slope stability in the EIS until the overall development plan is submitted and reviewed. Chairman Dennison agreed to wait on this issue. · Public access to shoreline and recreation facilities. David Cunningham reported that right now there is little public access to the shoreline of Port Ludlow Bay. All the public access that is there is provided by Pope Resources. He asked why this would be a subject of the EIS? Chairman Dennison reiterated that this issue will be determined at a later date. · Impact of peak seasonal usage. The applicant has always looked at the peak usage for cumulative impacts, David Cunningham assured, and they will do that on this proj ect. · Water safety access. Herman Schweizer reported that there is concern that there be an emergency access to get a small boat out in the bay fast. The boat launch that is there now will be removed as part of this project. David Cunningham asked if water craft emergencies in Port Ludlow Bay are normally serviced by someone getting a boat and launching it at the boat ramp? An unidentified man reported that in two or three emergencies last year, the people that live on their boats in the marina have helped get the emergency services personnel to the emergency. David Cunningham reported that there are four boat launches within 10 minutes of Port Ludlow (Mats Mats, Hicks Park, West end of Hood Canal Bridge and one at Salt Creek Point). The Board members concurred that they don't feel this is an item that should be included in the EIS. · Parking in front of the seven houses. A man expressed concern that there will be a built in conflict for parking at the seven houses located near the marina area. Chairman Dennison stated that built in conflicts can be addressed in an EIS, but there is an implied scale when "probable significant" impact must be considered. This will not be part of the scope of the EIS. 'JC'-. 18 f~t;~ 00 12 11 ~ 4: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 6, 1992 Page: 13 Homeowners versus resort area responsibility for on-going road maintenance. The people that live in this project will pay for the maintenance of the roads in the project, David Cunningham reported. Tony Puma added that there will be a separate homeowners association for this project. This issue has been addressed by the applicant. . View and aesthetics. John Hudsel, resident of the North Bay II Condominiums, said that he and his 53 neighbors will be impacted more than anyone else in Port Ludlow by the development that has gone on in the last two or three years. He hopes that this process can provide a happy medium for density. Chairman Dennison reported that density is determined by the County Comprehensive Plan, and this project is under the density allowed by the plan in this area. . This meeting will be continued next Tuesday (January 14, 1992) at 4:00 p.m. at which time the final determination of significance will be issued. Mark Beaufait suggested that when the DS is sent out a reference is made to the need to address reasonable alternatives. He then asked when a determination will be made on the details of who and how the EIS will be prepared? David Cunningham asked what alternatives need to be hashed out? Jim Pearson suggested that this be left to the end of the scoping process. Chairman Dennison advised that he is more comfortable with stating that alternatives will be addressed during the comment period. SEPA is clear that the County is responsible for preparation of the EIS, Chairman Dennison reported, and he wants to discuss this further with the Prosecuting Attorney and the Planning Department staff. Mark Beaufait stated that the Port Ludlow Community Council feels that the consultant who prepares the EIS should be retained by the County and not by the project proponent. It has not been resolved if the following issues will or will not be included in the EIS or if they will be added in the programmatic and/or site specific portion: cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, impacts to recreational opportunities, view and aesthetics, parking, and slope stability. Hearing no further comments the Chairman thanked everyone for their input. MEETING ADJOURNED ¡,:4:CO"" ~ ., / / SEAL: I : ~ " . . ATTEST: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . , , ':~- 18 h\!;~ 00 13