Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM011392 .......... . c..¿~ 'V" ,?>-O,,-:::-: MINUTES WEEK OF JANUARY 13, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. HEARING re: Bud2et Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments: Chairman Dennison reported that the total amount requested for appropriation/extension is $144,532.47 from the following departments: Auditor-Elections, Board of Equalization, Cooperative Extension, Coroner, District Court, Health Department, Facilities Management, Recreation and the Jefferson County Fair Board. He then opened the hearing for public comment. Health Department Administrator David Specter reported that the Health Department's appropria- tion request is a total for the year, not just for the fourth quarter. Jefferson County Fair Board Treasurer Harry Pollard explained that the Fair Board has the money, , they had not planned to spend it but they have had a busy year. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown suggested that the Budget Manager be consulted regarding the impact to the budgeted cash carryover for 1992 before taking action on this request. Later in the Dav: Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 5-92 ordering the budget appropriations/extensions as requested by the various County departments. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS Bearin2 Examiner Recommendation on Road Vacation: Juntara: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that a Resolution is being prepared which includes new findings of fact. The finding is a result of testimony from an adjacent property owner that due to his trail building experiences and willingness to provide the time and materials to build the trail, the Board will add the following condition to the vacation "Said vacation shall be subject to all the conditions mentioned in the Hearing Examiners report in addition to the following condition: An easement shall be reserved and retained to allow the construction, repair and maintenance of a trail within the portion of the right-oilway to be vacated. Both easements herein (meaning the Utility and Trail easement) shall be recorded in the manner provided by law. Said trail shall be constructed to conform with safety standards as provided by the Department of Public Works." I\L" is t~~' 00 58 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 2 Mark Huth further reported that this action will not overturn the Hearing Examiner's recommenda- tion, it will only add to it. With the conditions this application for vacation meets all the road vacation criteria. Commissioner Wojt asked if the concerns regarding contamination of springs have been addressed? Chairman Dennison explained that concerns about well contamination come under regulations enforced by the Health Department. The road vacation process can not be used to stop a property owner from putting in a septic system. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Hearing Examiners recommendation on the Juntara vacation with the additional finding and condition as proposed. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that a Resolution will be prepared on this. Later that day: RESOLUTION NO. 2-92 was signed by the Board. Discussion of Peterson Quiet Title Action; At the End of Peterson Road; Eae:le- mount Area: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that a question has come up about Peterson Road (near Peterson Lake) off of Eaglemount Road. A bridge on this road has been out for a number of years making it effectively a dead end road. Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon explained that the current road dead ends. The road right- of-way beyond the bridge was obtained by an agreement with the Puget Mill Company. That agreement had a reversion clause which states that if the road ceased to be used and maintained as a public road, it would revert to the heirs or assigns of Puget Mill. There were also a couple of properties on the road where the right-of-way was obtained by quit claim deed. The road has not been on the County Road Log since 1955. The 1955 Road Log indicates that the road was maintained to the point that it is currently. Mark Huth reported that after reviewing this matter, he feels that the area that reverts to the owners if the County stops using it as a public road, is not owned by the County any longer. Public Works Director Gary Rowe added that the only interest the County may have in keeping this right-of-way is to assure that property not be landlocked. Mark Huth reported that the portion of the road that the County has quit claim deeds for would have to be vacated. Gary Rowe reported that an inspection will be made of the road to confirm the physical characteristics and a report will be made to the Board at a later date. AGREEMENT re: Road Improvements; Teal Lake Road; Pope Resources: Public Works Planning and Program Manager Carter Breskin explained the agreement for road improve- ments to Teal Lake Road with Pope Resources. This agreement is a result of a requirement of the Teal Lake Village Plat and a traffic study done in that area. Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that Teal Lake Road is a County road and after negotiating with Pope Resources and conferring with the Prosecuting Attorney it was determined that an agreement could be structured to have Pope Resources manage the project and the Public Works Department oversee the work. The County will be reimbursed for time spent on the project. Commissioner Brown asked what authority the County has to assure that the work is done to the required standards? All the work has to be done according to APW A standards, which gives the County the authority to inspect the work regularly. The inspectors can stop the work if it is not done correctly. The project has to meet State requirements for a Public Works project including paying prevailing wage rates. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the agreement with Pope Resources for improvements to Teal Lake Road as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. City of Port Townsend Mayor John Clise and Public Works Director Bob Wheeler re: City's Compostinsæ Proiect at Landfill: City Public Works Director Bob Wheeler reviewed the draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the County for bio-solids and septage management. The MOU includes the following: · The County will allow the City to use property at the Landfill to treat septage. The City doesn't feel that taking septic tank wastes from the County to their septage treatment plant. More checking has to be done to determine if this is a viable option. "Jtt .t8 ¡;~~OO 59 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 3 · The City would take wastes other than yard wastes for composting. Gary Rowe reported that wood wastes and mixed wastes paper are both questionable for composting, whether the County or City is doing the project. The County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan includes a composting element. The City's project allows the County to do compo sting, as provided in the plan, without having to set up a separate compo sting operation. Commissioner Brown reported that originally the plan was that the County would accept sludge from the City for a composting project and the City would accept the septage from the County at their secondary sewer treatment plan. Gary Rowe added that initially the City was going to use commercially purchased wood chips as bulking agent with the yard wastes in the composting project. After discussion of some of the items in the MOU, Mark Huth reported that there will be an interlocal agreement developed to fully set forth the understanding that is reached. The MOU is a commitment for the City and County to start those discussions. Bob Wheeler read from the draft MOU "the City and County will jointly prepare a SEPA checklist on the final project with lead agency status to be agreed upon for that project. Upon preparation of said list a threshold determination will be made by the lead agency. Any previous threshold determinations will be withdrawn." He noted that the City has concerns about this because they are trying to move ahead with procuring a grant from the State. With that in mind the City had moved ahead as the lead agency and issued a mitigated DNS. The City proposes that this section of the MOU be worded as follows: "The City shall be the nominal lead agency for the bio-solids proposal. The City shall prepare an addendum to the original checklist, evaluating the location and final design of the proposal. The County shall share the responsibility of evaluating the addendum and preparing any necessary mitigation measures. The County may determine that a DS or that the environmental checklist be withdrawn if significant adverse impact are found likely in the addendum." He added that he feels this wording provides the County control and still allows the City to move ahead as the lead agency and getting the grant funding. Mark Huth added that the Health Department will be the permitting agency for the composting project. He suggested that since the lead agency issue isn't clear that the State Department of Ecology be asked who the lead agency should be. The County, to protect its property, needs to fulfill its responsibilities under SEP A and should take another look at the Lead Agency status Issue. Bob Wheeler reported that as he understands SEP A there is what is called a "nominal lead agency," and the City can be designated as that. The mitigated DNS fully recognizes the need for addenda to the checklist in the future and that is called for in the mitigated DNS issued by the City. Mark Huth stated that there is still a problem because if the City assumed lead agency status without the authority to do so the threshold determination doesn't mean anything. If the County is the permitting agency, he feels that it should be the Lead Agency and he advised that language should be included in the MOU that makes it clear that any previous threshold determination won't be binding on the County. After further discussion of lead agency, why SEPA review is being required for a grant applica- tion on this project, and who will have the final authority on what will be done on this project, Mark Huth drafted the following to be added to the MOU: "The City has previously assumed Lead Agency status for funding purposes. An MDNS has been issued. The City and County shall jointly prepare an amended SEPA checklist for the final project with Lead Agency Status to be re- determined at that time. Upon preparation of said checklist a threshold determination shall be made by the Lead Agency if necessary. Any previous threshold determination shall be amended or withdrawn based on that checklist." It was agreed that this wording be added to the MOU and Dave Robison of the City will contact the State DOE regarding the Lead Agency Status. PlANNING AND BUILDING Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP91-0006; Repair of an Existin2 Boat Launch for Private. Non-Commercial Use; 214 Nebel Drive oft' of Bachelor Road. Gardiner; Rodney and Nolana Snyder: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that this boat launch is located approximately 1/2 mile east of the Gardiner Boat Launch on Discovery Bay. . 18· rA~€ 00, 60 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 4 The original structure was installed without a permit. This was found when the Snyder's applied for a permit exemption to repair it. The Snyder's are now applying for a permit for the launch and the repairs to it due to damage from a storm in December of 1991. The launch is a concrete ramp which interrupts the drift of material on the beach. Materials are even with the ramp on the west side and drop off on the east side. There doesn't seem to be any impact to the beach further down as the general beach elevation hasn't been lowered the beach is not scoured. The original application was to raise the entire ramp with a cement cap. The Shoreline Commission, Jim Pearson continued, reviewed this application in June and were generally in agreement with the proposal but were concerned about the impact to littoral drift. The Shoreline Commission recommended approval of the application with two condition suggested by the staff: 1) Construction should be undertaken in such a manner that uncured concrete will not come into contact with or enter the water, and 2) that concrete that had been poured onto the beach on the east side of the ramp be removed. The Shoreline Commission recommended a condition that prior to consideration by the Board, the applicant submit a geohydrolic report prepared by a licensed engineer, addressing possible adverse impacts to the beach from the interruption of littoral drift including recommendations for appropriate alternate designs. Jim Pearson then reported that letters have been received from David Walbrecht, representing the Snyder's (present at the meeting), and Myron Hillman a Construction Supervisor for Matsen Construction Company. Mr. Hillman suggested that posts and beams be installed on the ramp to support the rails that the boat trolley runs on. This would allow room for the beach materials to move through. Mr. Hillman is not a licensed engineer, which is contrary to the Shoreline Commission recommendation, Jim Pearson added. This suggestion is a common sense approach to dealing with the problem. David Walbrecht reported that this ramp is a concrete foundation with rails. It has sunk because of settling on the beach. The newest suggestion is to place some posts along the ramp with a concrete beam across which the rails will be mounted on. The rails will be elevated to allow the sediment to flow over the existing ramp. Commissioner Brown moved to approve Shoreline Permit SDP91-0006 with the two conditions as recommended. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. * * * APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Mter reviewing all of the items on the consent agenda, Commissioner Brown moved to approve and adopt all of the items as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT #CA11392-1; CS1009 Bridge Rail Retrofit Project; Consultant to Draft Final Plans and Write Special Provisions; Sargent Engineering, Inc. 2. AGREEMENT, Reimbursable Work re: Use of Road Rater Equipment and Personnel; Clark County 3. Approved Payment of Claim #C-14-91; Repair of Broken Windshield $282.73; Mark Barron 4. Accept Recommendation to Reject Claim #C-15-91; Damage to Buried Telephone Cable $133.67; United Telephone Company 5. RESOLUTION NO. 3-92 re: Cancellation of Unclaimed Warrants 6. RESOLUTION NO. 4-92 re: Changing the Name of the Jefferson County Department of Emergency Services to the Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management 7. Awarded Contract for Upgrade of Courthouse Telephone System and Implementation of Health Department Telephone System; National Services Network Northwest Jim Lindsay, Pacific Fundme re: Citizen Group Proposal versus Plannme Com- mission Proposal on Resource Lands: Jim Lindsay introduced himself and explained that he works for a firm called First Western Development. This firm builds neighborhood centers in the central Puget Sound region. His background is in land use planning in the public, and private sector as well as for development firms. He stated he would like to suggest a compromise for the Board to consider on policies for resource lands from what was presented by the citizens group and what was presented by the Planning Commission. ~O\- '18 rAGf 00 61 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 5 Both groups proposals for forest resource lands would set aside 75% of the resource lands. The question remains what will happen to the 25% that is not set aside. The citizens group allows cluster housing at the existing density. They felt that by allowing the same type of development rights to be implemented in the future, there is not a down zone of the property. The difference on a 160 acre parcel would be that 8 dwelling units would be allowed on 40 acres instead of on 32 acres. This is a change in lifestyle. Counties, such as Jefferson, Clallam and Kitsap have been changing their subdivision regulations in order to not continue to chop up the county into five acre parcels. He further stated that when property is down zoned and land is removed from development the market is being tilted artificially. He feels that if the County follows the Planning Commission proposal, the property that can be developed will fill up quickly and land prices will be inflated. He recommends that the County offer a carrot rather than a hammer in these zones to entice people to implement the types of goals that the County wants. The goal is 75% conservation of the forest and agriculture resources. He then gave an example of a native growth protection easement which is given in King County which locks up the property for the use specified. Chairman Dennison asked how that would be any different than zoning? Mr. Lindsay answered that this easement runs with the land and runs from one owner to another outside of governmental jurisdiction. Chairman Dennison responded that the same thing happens with zoning, it runs with the property regardless of who owns it and regardless of what the use is. Mr. Lindsay stated that he feels easements are a more effective tool for accomplishing long term results and that's why they've been used effectively for roads and utilities. Chairman Dennison stated there will always be a need for land use control. The discussion continued regarding the best method for the County to preserve the use of resource lands. Mr. Lindsay presented a proposal for the Board to review which he feels presents a concept which includes trade-offs. This proposal includes: 1) One dwelling unit per acre on lands west of the Forest Service boundary. 2) Twenty acres is the smallest lot size that can commercially harvest trees. This proposal would allow one dwelling per 20 acres or clustering on 25% of the land if a property owner chooses at a density of one unit per five acres. This gives the land owner an option. When it is mandated that a property owner can only use 25% of their land the issue becomes, is the County taking the other 75% of the land. If the clustering option is offered, Mr. Lindsay added, he doesn't feel the County will run into the taking issue. The discussion continued regarding clustering and what options should be included in the County land control ordinances. Mr. Lindsay urged the Board to direct the Planning staff, when they develop the ordinances, to give some consideration to including options. Chairman Dennison stated that he sees two major goals of Growth Management: 1) to protect long term resource values and, 2) to try and get development to occur where the infrastructure exists to serve the growth. * * * The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day and reconvened on Tuesday January 14, 1992 with all three Board members present. Determination of Sienificance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS; Mixed Use Residential. Commercial and Recreational Development (SDP91-0017); Inn at Port Ludlow; Pope Resources: Assistant Planner Jim Pearson reported that a letter dated January 13, 1992 has been received from Pope Resources regarding their proposal. The only change in the proposal description is the part that says "the proposal is a component of the applicants overall plans for development in the Port Ludlow area in the next ten years.. " The overall development plan includes the following: . The development of 700 residential units on 1,200 acres (approximately 540 single family and 160 multi family units) with densities ranging from one unit per ten acres to five units per acre. The overall density is 0.6 units per acre. Construction of 45,000 square feet of additional commercial space at the existing commercial center. Uses of this space would include grocery, hardware, bank, general use and medical offices and retail shops. . tot. J 8 rA¡;~ 00 62 1\ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 6 · Expansion of the existing marina by 100 slips with parking and utilities. · Infrastructure including roads, integrated water system, sanitary sewers connected to the existing secondary treatment plant, electrical, telephone, cable television systems, sidewalks and trails and a storm water management system. · Open Space consisting primarily of passive areas such as wetlands and buffers, steep slopes, stream corridors and wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. David Cunningham, representing Pope Resources, explained that on the colored map, the portion of the area that was issued a MDNS in 1988 is colored gray (as well as most of what is colored tan). The tan (mushroom) colored areas are the 700 additional units. He confirmed for Chairman Dennison that this is the overall plan revision that was discussed when the Inner Harbor project was reviewed a year or so ago. Commissioner Wojt asked if Pope Resources is responsible to provide sewer services to the areas in white on this map? David Cunningham reported that their predecessor, Pope and Talbot Development was responsible for that and Pope Resources assumed that responsibility. He added that the impacts of items such as traffic have been addressed for all of the areas in the develop- ment. Mark Beaufait, Attorney for the Port Ludlow Community Council asked if sites 17, 18, 19, 20, and 42 have been reviewed through the SEPA process? David Cunningham responded that none of the sites in tan, (that are included within the 700 units shown on the 1992 plan) that have gone through any entitlement process or SEP A review. The items identified in the Pope Resources January 13, 1992 letter were then reviewed: Fish and Wildlife: Commissioner Wojt asked if Pope has any specification for how fish and wildlife habitat will be protected? David Cunningham explained that the letter of the 13th was to give the Board Pope Resources point of view on the four unresolved issues for possible inclusion in the EIS. After further discussion of the fish and wildlife habitat issue, Chairman Dennison agreed that a programmatic review could only be done in general terms, but he feels that is important. David Cunningham agreed to include fish and wildlife as a topic to be reviewed on a programmatic basis in the EIS. Chairman Dennison added that a programmatic review will provide important background information for looking at those specific issues at some point. David Cunningham further noted that on a programmatic basis, a schedule or menu of mitigation techniques for fish and wildlife could be identified which could then be applied on a site specific project when one comes up for review. Chairman Dennison asked if the rest of the Board members agree that fish and wildlife needs to be included in the scope of the EIS? Commissioner Wojt stated that he wants to see a uniform way of addressing the issues of preserving corridors and habitats when individual projects are reviewed, and that is why he feels this issue should be included in the scope of the programmatic portion of the EIS. Commis- sioner Brown added that he feels that sounds reasonable. David Cunningham said that the wildlife issue is now covered and then asked what the Board would like addressed on fish? He added that the critical issue for fish is dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen will be one of the key factors reviewed in the water quality analysis that is being done as part of this EIS. Chairman Dennison stated that he agrees that marine species be dealt with the in the water quality sense. He asked if Ludlow Creek is a viable anadromous stream? David Cunningham reported that there was a recent proposal by a local fish enhancement group to put a small hatchery near the waterfall close to the mouth of the stream to enhance the salmon fishery in the Creek. The community objected to this enhancement project for the lower part of the stream. The upper reaches of the Creek above the waterfall are superior rearing habitat for anadromous fish, but the State Department of Wildlife objects to any projects there because the anadromous fish prey on the Trout. David Cunningham agreed that they could try to determine what species of fish are in Ludlow Creek and what habitat along it is critical to that species. He noted that there are two other, more or less year around streams, that probably have some fish in them and they could be included in this review. Chairman Dennison stated that he is still unclear how far the sedimentation problem at the marina extends or is a problem for the marine species. David Cunningham reported that they have done ''4W . 18 f~ 00 63 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 7 extensive sediment sampling as part of the on-going water quality monitoring program. They also did a sediment sampling after the issue was raised at one of these meetings. The content of the sediment is documented and all that would be needed is an interpretation of the existing informa- tion as to whether it has a deleterious biological effect on fish and other marine species. Tony Puma added that the programmatic review of the marina expansion will deal with some of those issues. David Cunningham asked the Board if they would like more information, on the site specific fish and wildlife issues, than was already provided on the environmental checklist? Chairman Dennison asked staff if there were any site specific wildlife and fish issues that should be reviewed? Jim Pearson reported there are two possibilities: 1) the use of the area by wintering waterfowl in bad weather, and 2) the use of the area on the westerly edge of the original project. Most of this area has been removed from the project. David Cunningham noted that just because an area is covered with trees, doesn't make it a significant habitat and there won't be significant impacts to an area where there is not going to be any development. The wooded part of the area mentioned by Jim Pearson that is still within the project will have no development on it. Chairman Dennison said that a programmatic review of the site should give some idea of how that area fits in to the overall habitat scheme. Mark Huth noted that the programmatic review could be an amplification of the environmental checklist which states that "waterfowl, primarily widgeon and pintail, congregate in winter on the spit and pond." The site specific EIS could address impact from the use of the area and what mitigation should be considered. An unidentified man noted that the characteristic of the pond will be changed and the species that are using it will probably change. Chairman Dennison stated that is important that there is a clear reason for gathering the informa- tion. David Cunningham stated that it is clear that the water quality of that pond will get better than it is today. That pond is just untreated storm water now and once treated it will be better quality. He clarified that they will do a cumulative analysis and a little special attention will be given to this site with respect to water fowl. If there are other important water fowl habitat on the 1,200 acres, it will show in the cumulative analysis. Aesthetics (View Protection) Pope Resources has raised the point that "except in the rarest of situations, Jefferson County's practical authority over view protection is and should be limited to public not private view corridors," Chairman Dennison read from Pope's letter of January 13. Pope states that no sig- nificant public viewpoints will be impart on either a project or programmatic basis. Chairman Dennison continued by noting that the Board realizes this is an important issue to the community, but the County's practical authority is extremely limited in terms of private views. He noted that view protection is not the only aspect of aesthetics. Mark Beaufait said that the main concern of the area residents is density and views. He re- quested that some examination of these issues be presented. Jim Pearson reported that this project will be reviewed under the Urban designation of the Shoreline Master Program. In that program there is a performance standard which states fIno development shall be approved or any new or expanded building or structure more than 35 feet above the average grade level that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences adjoining the shoreline area." The hotel and some of the multifamily structures in this proposed project are above 35 feet. He feels that information is needed on this issue. David Cunningham reported that information was submitted in the form of a photographic view analysis from the three closest residences to this project. This analysis takes the Inn, as the bulkiest and tallest of all the structures, and overlays it on the photograph and shows what the view impact will be. The information was presented so that the Board can decide if there is sig- nificant enough impact to be included in the EIS. Tony Puma noted that there are only six houses that can see this site, to the extent that this site is between them and the water. Only three of those houses have any significant view. The second issue is a passing view along Oak Bay Road, and they could look at that public view and give some sense of what this project will do to that view. AI Weber stated that the people that have spoken to him are concerned about the view from Oak Bay Road. Now it is like looking at a park and the concern is that all that will be seen from Oak Bay Road is roofs of houses. He suggested that an artist rendition of what will be seen from Oak Bay Road would help. Tony Puma stated they would be glad to take a photograph of 'JØl 18 f~ 00 64 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 8 the site at a point along Oak Bay Road and superimpose the profile of the buildings on top of it with a computer. He will work with Mr. Weber to determine the best spot for the photograph. Mark Beaufait asked that the rest of the project be added to the view analysis, not just the Inn. Tony Puma agreed that the project proponent will superimpose the entire project on the whole 180 degree view of the marina. Chairman Dennison reiterated that he hears that there is a willing by Pope Resources to gather the information on view impact. Herman Schwiezer asked if it would be possible to have an elevation drawing from the water? Tony Puma reported that this has already been submitted. Chairman Dennison noted that the question is not if the view will change, it is what impact that change will have. He stated that he wants to make it clear that the County is not gathering information for its own sake and it must be clear what will be done with the information when it is provided. He asked Mr. Schwiezer what he would call a significant impact to the view from across the water? Mr. Schwiezer stated that he understands when the project is complete the view south of the Inn area and across the pond will be a solid row of houses. David Cunningham suggested that Mr. Schwiezer review the landscape plan for the project which was submitted to the County. Mark Huth suggested the following wording for the scope of this issue in the EIS read "ob- struction of views from existing residences and Oak Bay Road. " David Cunningham stated that there are two critical points in regard to this performance standard for views: 1) the houses that will have a view of this project are not adjoining the shoreline and 2) the only structures at issue are those that are over 35 feet in height. If they do a view analysis from a point on Oak Bay Road and show all the structures on the site, they are doing themselves a disservice with respect to this policy. Those structures below 35 feet are not at issue. Jim Pearson stated there is a policy for urban development that public views to the water should be provided for, in addition to this performance standard. David Cunningham stated that there will be 2,000 feet of public access shoreline in this area which will provide views of the water. Chairman Dennison restated that he hears a willingness by Pope Resources to provide information on the view impacts of this project from the residential and Oak Bay Road perspectives which will give information on private and public views. There is already a perspective from the water side which can be used if it is appropriate, in the Shoreline review. Mter further discussion of what kind of information is necessary on this issue, Commissioner Brown reported that if the information provided does not address what the Board feels they need they can ask for more information. Commissioner Wojt asked how the development work will proceed? Tony Puma stated that all of the site work (roads, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, etc.) and the Inn will be developed at the same time and should be done within a six month period. Some of the houses will be started then also. Parking: Pope Resources letter of January 13 stated that "Parking for the Port Ludlow Inn project will fully meet all demands. The 400 proposed spaces exceed needs identified in the recent residents demand survey. Parking also exceeds standards in the previous Jefferson County Develovment Code and will meet standards of the Interim Zoninf! Ordinance." David Cunningham stated that the marina parking will be addressed in the cumulative analysis and it will also be reviewed in the marina Shoreline Permit process. Chairman Dennison stated that parking is being deleted from the scope of the EIS. Slope Stability: Pope Resources states in their letter, Chairman Dennison reported, that the conceptual 10 year development plan is premised on avoidance of potentially unstable slopes. Mark Huth stated that part of the cumulative impacts of slope stability should take into account problems that may have developed from past projects and how they can be avoided on a overall basis in the future. David Cunningham reported that there has not been a single incidence of slope stability problems in any past projects. It is Pope's intention to avoid unstable slopes. The density of the overall plan indicates that the development of slopes and wetlands is being avoided. He added that on specific parcels they will do on ground topography and soils analysis so they know specifically ',11. 18 f~~! 00 6S Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 9 what the slopes look like and can design away from the steep slopes. The County then will review that information when that specific site development undergoes SEPA review. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels the issue of steep slopes will be addressed. Slope stability will be dealt with site specifically and soil erosion will be dealt with on the programmatic as well as the site specific basis. Mark Beaufait stated that the issues that were raised in the letter from the Port Ludlow Com- munity Council at the last meeting were not included in the draft DS Jim Pearson has prepared for this meeting. Jim Pearson explained that he put the issues that the Board indicated were to be included or that were still undecided in the draft. David Cunningham reported that cumulative impacts to water, schools, library, roads, fire and medical were to be addressed on a program- matic basis. Electricity and sewer were eliminated from the scope. Reasonable Alternatives: Commissioner Brown asked if this should be discussed now? David Cunningham added that they need to find out if the alternatives that they propose are ones that the County is comfortable with because they will have to spend money devising them and looking at the impacts from them. Mark Huth read from the WAC 197.11.440 Sub 5. "Alternatives Including the Proposed Action - This section of the EIS describes and presents the proposal. Reasonable alternatives shall include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate the proposals objectives but at a lower environ- mental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. Reasonable is intended to limit the number and range of alternatives as well as the amount of detailed analysis with each alternative. No Action alternative shall be evaluated and compared to other alternatives. Reasonable alternatives may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has authority to control impacts, either directly or indirectly through requirement of mitigation measures." The discussion turned to the intent of this WAC. David Cunningham stated that alternatives to the project portion and alternatives to the programmatic portion of this EIS will have to be ad- dressed. Mark Huth cautioned that for the project portion of this EIS, the County cannot require Pope Resources to consider doing the project at a different site. Mark Beaufait noted that the purpose of the scoping notice is to list the main ideas for people to comment on. He asked that specific alternatives not be selected today because the Port Ludlow Community Council would like to present some, but they are not ready. David Cunningham disagreed with Mr. Beaufait and noted that he feels the object of the scoping notice is to say that since the County has decided that this project is environmentally significant there are specific topics to be covered and specific alternatives to be addressed by the public during the 21 day comment period. Jim Pearson stated that in the WAC section on scoping (408) and the form for the scoping notice suggest that alternatives should be developed in the scoping process. Mark Huth stated that it appears that Pope Resources has a number of alternatives that they would like included within the scoping document. The Port Ludlow Community Council also has some alternatives they would like included, but they aren't ready today, so they could be submitted during the comment period. If the County has any changes they want to make to Pope Resources alternative, then they should do that now. Mark Beaufait stated that he doesn't want to say that he agrees with the interpretation of the WAC that says that the alternative cannot have part of the project moved off site. Commissioner Brown stated that is the interpretation of the County's legal counsel. Chairman Dennison advised Mr. Beaufait that they could present whatever they want to present. The Board will have to make a decision on whether what they present meets the intent of the law. Tony Puma reported that the first of objective of this project is to develop the Inn as a prominent structure. They want to change the image of Port Ludlow. They would like the three story hotel to form one of the dominant character features of that area and of Port Ludlow. The second objective is to return Port Ludlow to some of the character that it used to have historically as a residential neighborhood. This site was a mill for 80 years which included row housing and an Inn. They would also like to put back the natural environment that was there before the mill. The alternative then, Mr. Puma continued, is to not do that. They are proposing that the Develop- ment Code standards be applied to this site as they have been to the balance of Port Ludlow. Jot. 18 rA~! 00 66 · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of January 13, 1992 Page: 10 They would apply the same suburban standard, to this particular parcel. This alternative would be consistent with the previous Development Code and the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Mark Huth stated that the Board must decide if they want a brief description of this alternative in the scoping notice? The Board concurred that a description of this alternative being offered by Pope Resources be included in the scoping notice. Chairman Dennison clarified that the alterna- tive is a proposal that would represent the least change in terms of how people visualize Port Ludlow. Chairman Dennison asked if another meeting is needed at the end of the scoping process? Mark Beaufait suggested that a workshop be scheduled two weeks into the comment period to set the final scope of the EIS. David Cunningham stated that there have already been two scoping workshops held by the Board and he doesn't understand the need for another meeting. Chairman Dennison added that the Board has just outlined what issues will be addressed in the EIS. Now the process is one of gathering comments on those items that have been identified as the sig- nificant and important items to be addressed. The question now is does this public process need to include a meeting to review the identified issues? Commissioner Brown asked the purpose of the 21 days comment period and what people are to comment on? Mark Huth reported that the public can comment on the scope of the EIS and suggest other things to be included in it, such as mitigation and alternatives. This notice is also sent to agencies and effected indian tribes. Commissioner Brown asked what Mark Beaufait would hope to accomplish with another meeting? Mark Beaufait stated that he hopes that it will provide clarity to the written comments that will be coming in. Mark Huth suggested that functionally the County has already had the meeting that Mr. Beaufait is suggesting because the applicant and the public have provided input on the scope of the EIS at the previous two meetings. Chairman Dennison stated that right now there is no way to know what the comments will be and if there is another meeting it would give Pope Resources an opportunity to respond to the comments received as well as give people and opportunity to clarify any item that needs it. David Cunningham suggested that the following recipients be added to the list for the scoping notice: the Peninsula Daily News, the Ludlow Maintenance Commission, the South Bay Com- munity Council, the South Bay Community Association, and the Ludlow Maintenance Commis- sion. Mark Huth then presented the language to address inclusion of alternatives in the scoping notice: "The applicant has proposed the following alternatives intended to meet the requirements for discussion of reasonable alternatives in the £IS: 1) a no action alternative, 2) re-configuring the proposal to approximate current development patterns at Port Ludlow, i.e. subdividing the project site into one third acre lots. The Inn would be located southward to the proposed site toward the end of the spit." Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (See also Minutes of December 23, 1991), with the new language as proposed by the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Cunningham asked that the date for the final decision on the scope of the EIS be set so they can proceed with contracting with a consultant to do the work. Jim Pearson reported that the 21 day comment period will end February 5, 1992. A date will be set for a workshop for the Board to review with staff, the comments received. Pope Resources will be notified of the date of the workshop. Mark Beaufait asked who will prepare the EIS? He urged, that in the interest of keeping this process open, the County contract to have this work done. Chairman Dennison advised that the decision on who will have the EIS work done will be made at a future meeting. 'JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ¡ '\ o \ 1 \ JLl 18 r~ 00 67