Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032392 .. . '<>' ~ ~ , û~ ¿ ~ò.c: MINUTES WEEK OF MARCH 23, 1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. The Board met with Community Services Director David Goldsmith and Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth on the following items: 1. Erwin Jones Letter Dated March 12. 1992 Requesting Obiection to De-novo Hearing: Wilson Eagle Shores: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that this motion can be heard at the time of the hearing this afternoon. Board will allow Mr. Jones to speak about this request prior to the hearing. 2. Agreement re: Repairs to Memorial Field Fence: The City has re-submitted this agreement to the County for review and approval. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to delete item 7 from the Consent Agenda and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 21-92 re: Changing the Name of a Platted Street in Evergreen Addition: From Third Street to Lupine Street 2. RESOLUTION NO. 22-92 re: Dividìng Voting Precinct 203-Coyle into Two Precincts; 200 Coyle I & 203 Coyle II 3. PROCLAMATION re: In the Matter of Proclaiming The Week of April 1-7, 1992 as JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH WEEK 4. AGREEMENT re: Services for 1992 Funding; Jefferson County Historical Society - Maritime Bicentennial Project 5. Approval of Payment of Audit Costs; Teamsters Welfare Trust 6. Accept Resignation; Mary Ragon; Jefferson County Planning Commission 7. Item deleted. Accept Resignation; A.C. "Chet" Dalgleish, David G. Douglas, and Archie L. Barber, Jr.; Jefferson County Board of Equalization 8. Call for Bids: One (1) New Medium Duty Ramp Trailer; Setting Bid Opening for April 6, 1992 at 10:45 a.m. 9. Call for Bids: One (1) New Service Body and Crane; Setting Bid Opening for April 6, 1992 at 10:50 a.m. 10. Call for Bids: 1) 1800 Tons Asphalt CMS-2, 2) 100 Tons Asphalt CRS-2, 3) 100 Tons Asphalt MC-250, 4) 500 Tons Asphalt CSS-l; Setting Bid Opening for April 13, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 11. Call for Bids: Construction of the New Coyle Community Center for Jefferson County Parks & Recreation District #1; Setting Bid Opening for April 27, 1992 at 11:00 a.m. 12. Approved of Request for Installation of Security Equipment at the Tri Area Community Center and Award of Bid for Work to Security Services of Jefferson & Clallam Counties for $854.60 plus tax Vat. 18 !~ 00 .') r-:,. , h..)... .. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 2 13. Olympic Peninsula Primary Care Dental Program Grant; State Department of Health 14. Adopt Findings and Conclusions Regarding Revisions to the Hearing Examiner's Recommenda- tions; Preliminary Plat of The Lagoon at Kala Point; Lagoon AssociatesfRenate Wheeler PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Public comments were received from some of the 15 residents present. The comments covered issues surrounding the Growth Managemebt Act and the intent of the Board in their regulation of sea plane operations in the County. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: Settine Fees; Solid Waste Division: Jeff Frettingham, Solid Waste Specialist, reported that the proposed increase in fees for the Solid Waste Division is based on the additional funds required for landfill closure and capital improvements. The closure plan will be developed by a consultant. Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed fee increases, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown stated that this is a substantial increase and there will be problems with indiscriminate dumping because of it, but the funds are needed for landfill closure. He asked how much has been generated and set aside for the landfill closure to date? Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that $250,000 has been set aside specifically for the closure of the septage lagoon at the landfill. He added that this is an interim increase. Later this year the costs of hauling garbage to other disposal sites will be known and costs will have to be factored into the fees at that time. A reasonable effective date for this fee increase was discussed. Gary Rowe reported that the UTC recommends 60 days and there has been a request from Agness Walker of Olympic Disposal to make it effective in 90 days. Agness Walker stated that she feels the first of July would give her enough time to request an increase in her fee through the UTe. She stated that it is hard to prorate a customer's service fee for a part of a month. Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign Ordinance No. 03-0323-92 setting new fees for the Solid Waste Division to become effective June 1, 1992. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bob Henderson and Prosecutine Attorney Mark Huth re: Openine of Riehts-of- Way and Road Vacation Policies in Plats Dedicated Before 1909: After meeting in Executive Session with the Board on pending litigation regarding this issue, Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Public Works Department has a process for vacating rights-of-way which involves filing a petition and going through a public hearing. There is a question regarding what interest the County has in plats dedicated prior to 1909 when right-of-way has not been opened during the five year period after platting. This issue has come up in a number of situations. Other counties were contacted and some have developed a summary procedure to vacate such a rights-of-way and others require that property owners go to Court for a quiet title action. Mark Huth suggested that the County adopt a summary statutory process for handling this type of vacation. Commissioner Brown asked what would happen if this type of action land locked a property? Mark Huth reported that there have been court cases about this. The County would only deal with these vacations when a property owner makes a request. Chairman Dennison asked if property owners could be notified that their property is landlocked, if such a process is implemented. The discussion continued regarding the County's liability if roads are vacated and a property is landlocked, if property owners should and could be notified of these actions, and how building permits and County regulations would be impacted by this change in policy. In light of the fact that the County's current policy is no longer valid because of Court actions, Chairman Dennison suggested that the Public Works Department, with the help of the Prosecuting Attorney, develop an ordinance to set in place a statutory right-of-way vacation procedure. The Board concurred that this be done. VOL 18 f.~r.[ 0005~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 3 Gene Seton, Discovery Timber Company, stated that he feels the County and the public have no right to this right-of-way. The people that own property in such a plat own the easements in the plat for their use. Commissioner Brown asked what can be done in the interim until this ordinance is adopted to handle requests from property owners? Mark Huth suggested that Gene Seton meet with Bob Henderson of Public Works and himself and settle his issue. Discussion of 300 Foot Extension of North Sandy Shore Road: Gary Rowe reported that the Public Works Department has a request from a property owner (Mr. Hoff) on North Sandy Shore Road that a portion of the road that is currently not being maintained by the County be placed on a maintenance program. A person that lives at the end of the road feels that if this portion of the road is widened (to the same width as the rest of the road) and maintained by the County it would increase the traffic using the road. There is a 30 foot right-of-way which is about 10 to 12 feet wide. Renee Talley, Assistant to the Public Works Director, reported that all of the neighbors except the one at the very end of the road want the road widened and maintained. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the request to add 300 feet at the end of North Sandy Shore Road to the County Road Log. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PURCHASE AGREEMENT re: Tarboo Property; State Department of Natural Resources: Carter Breskin reported that this agreement to sell a piece of County property to the State Department of Natural Resources has been reviewed and approved by the Prosecuting Attorney. This property is located adjacent to a nature preserve the DNR owns on Dabob Bay. H. J. Carroll has removed the "for park purposes" condition of the agreement because wording has been added that the money received from the sale of this property will be put into a special fund for improvements to County owned amateur athletic fields or for improvements to the property where athletic events are held. The money from this sale will be placed in a special fund set up for this purpose. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the purchase agreement with the State Department of Natural Resources. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. FACIliTIES MANAGEMENT Roy Sprineer. Jefferson County Community Action Council re; County Property to be Used for the CAC Self Sufficiency Proiect: Roy Springer came before the Board to discuss the CAC Self Sufficiency project. He explained the areas of consideration for this project are 1) need for project, 2) integrity of the program, 3) location for the project, and 4) community support for the project. A request is being made to the County to lease the property necessary for this project to CAe. They have identified property in the area of Cherry Street, off Old Anderson Lake Road (in the lrondale Orchard Tracts) for the 16 single family residential units and a day care center (at a site at the corner of West Valley Road and Cherry Avenue). The area is currently residential. The need has been determined through the Housing Needs Survey done by the CAe. This program will be handled through CAe. There is community support for the project which is indicated by letters from the Port Hadlock and Port Townsend Chambers of Commerce. Commissioner Wojt asked what the legal ramifications of this request are? Mark Huth reported that the request is for an option to lease the County property for this project. This option is a promise that the County will agree to consider this lease. The option can be granted contingent on certain conditions being met and if those conditions are not met then the property would not be leased. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the option to lease property to the Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council for the properties as they have identified as a part of their self sufficiency project. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Recommendation for Bid Award; Courthouse Roof Proiect: Architectural Projects Inspector Frank Hall reported that the low bidder on the Courthouse Roof project has requested to be removed from consideration because they failed to include sales tax in their bid. It is not clear if the sales tax was or was not included. There have been a number of issues regarding this bidder and Frank Hall recommended that the bid be awarded to the next low bidder which was Queen City Roofing. VOl 18 fA~~ 00 350 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 4 Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that he has reviewed AGCI's request to be removed from the bidding and go with the next low bidder. He feels it is in the best interest of the County to allow AGel to withdraw from the bidding. Commissioner Brown moved to award the bid as recommended to Queen City Roofing for their bid amount of $512,328.00 (including sales tax) and that bid Alternate Number 1 not be included in the contract award. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. He asked if the second bidder is within the engineer's estimate for this project? Gary Rowe reported that the estimate for this work was $600,000.00. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Repairs to Memorial Field Fence; City of Port Townsend: Mark Huth reported that the City has agreed to sign the draft proposed by the County. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement with the City for repairs to the Memorial Field fence. Commis- sioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Jefferson County Parks & Recreation District #1 Commissioners re: Buildin2 Permit; Coyle Community Center: Rob Clark, Commissioner, Parks and Recreation District #1 reported that there is a hang up on the building permit for the Coyle Community Center. The building permit is being held because of a water use permit needed from the State. Mark Huth reported that the State Growth Management Act requires that an approved potable water source be identified for a building before a building permit can be issued. The Coyle Community Center is on an existing water system that has never been approved by the State. The water system permit application was submitted to the State five to six weeks ago, Facilities Manager Frank Gifford reported, but it may take from three to six months to receive this approval. The State does not give a high priority to issuing these permits. Chairman Dennison stated that he feels the County should contact the State Department of Health again to see if they can speed up their review and approval of this permit, and if there is no help from them, the State Representative from the 24th District will be contacted. Commissioner Brown suggested that the County Health Department be contacted to see if there is anything else that can be done. Mark Huth added that the Board could issue the building permit contingent on the water system approval. The certificate of occupancy would not be issued until the necessary water system approval has been received. This could be deferring the problem, however, if the water system approval is not granted. Bob Mosher stated that the problem in this area is that the constituents of the Parks & Recreation District are applying pressure to them (the Commissioners for the District) because they are paying for this community center on their tax bill. He said that he would appreciate any help the County can give them. The Board directed that the Prosecuting Attorney draft a policy to handle these requests in the future. Janet Kearsley. Environmental Planner re: Discussion and Approval of Community Grant Fundin2; Recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board: Janet Kearsley reported that the Parks Advisory Board has reviewed the requests for funding and has made the following allocation recommendations: Irondale Park Volunteers (Basketball Court) Irondale Citizens (park) QuilcenelBrinnon Little League (improve fields) Admiralty Audubon (Naturalist Guide display) $ 9,000 5,600 10,000 No funding Commissioner Brown expressed concern regarding who will do the maintenance of the equipment in parks once it is in place. Gary Rowe reported that the program tries to encourage people to be involved in their communities and to encourage organizations to adopt a park and provide the necessary maintenance. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the funding awards as recommended 'VOl 18 0 · fA~f Q' 35,~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 5 by the Parks Advisory Board. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PIANNING AND BUILDING HEARING re: Appeal of State Environmental Policy Act Determination; Wilson Lan~e Lot Subdivision: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the Board previously issued a Determination of Significance on the Wilson's Eagle Shores large lot subdivision and an appeal of that determination was requested. The Board set a hearing date to hear that appeal, but in the interim period of time the Wilson's applied to the Superior Court to have the Court review that decision. The Court denied their application because it found that they had not exhausted their administrative remedies which are outlined in the County's SEPA Implementing Ordinance. The hearing was then rescheduled by the Board for this date. The County's SEPA Implementing Ordinance (Section 8.31) requires that the appeal be heard on a "de novo" basis which means that the matter is heard from the beginning. Since the hearing date was set Erwin Jones, Attorney representing the Wilson's, has filed a motion to disqualify the Commissioners because they previously heard the matter and filed an objection to the "de novo" hearing. Mark Huth advised the Board that he feels it is best to hear Mr. Jones' arguments before going any further. Mr. Jones also filed a motion that a hearing officer be appointed. Erwin Jones stated that he would like formal rulings on both motions (the motion to disqualify and the motion to appoint a disinterested hearing examiner). The reason he filed these motions is that he feels that the Commissioners are caught in the language of their own Ordinance. He feels it is a contradiction to have the Board hear this appeal of their own decision. Mark Huth reported that he feels that are two issues raised by Mr. Jones. The issue of the Board hearing an appeal of their own decision which is the exact issue that was brought before the Court. That issue has been decided by the Supreme Court which has ruled in a similar case that the agency that makes a decision can hear an appeal of that decision because even though it is the same agency hearing the same facts, the purpose of exhausting the administrative remedies is to correct mistakes, if they exist, and to allow the agency to develop the factual background on which to base their decision. This is to encourage people to not ignore administrative procedures by resorting to the Courts. Mark Huth advised that he feels it is proper for the Board to hear the appeal as stated by the Ordinance. Mr. Jones has also stated concern that two of the Commissioners may have had exparte contacts which he states would cause them to be biased in the matter, Mark Huth continued. He asked that Chairman Dennison and Commissioner Wojt address the contacts they've had with proponents or opponents of the project, prior to today's hearing, and the nature of the contacts and if they feel that contact would cause them to be biased. Chairman Dennison reported that he doesn't remember the date, but he and Commissioner Wojt went to visit the site before making the threshold determination. On that date as they were trying to find the site, they came across Rick Olson's property and asked him for directions. He gave them directions and they told him what they were doing on the property and what the process was about. Mr. Olson gave them direction on where to go on the property and indicated some things that he felt needed to be looked at. Mark Huth asked Chairman Dennison if the things he discussed with Mr. Olson concerned the decision about the determination of significance or non-significance? Commissioner Wojt answered no. Mark Huth asked Commissioner Wojt to report on the things that were discussed with Rick Olson. Commissioner Wojt concurred that when he and Chairman Dennison were going to look at the site, Mr. Olson showed them things that were of concern to him regarding the subdivision. He reported that they didn't ask him and didn't tell him anything about their decision. He added that he and Chairman Dennison did not discuss with each other what their decisions would be. Mark Huth asked if either Commissioner felt that running into Mr. Olson on the site will influence their decision today? Commissioner Wojt stated that only what he saw would influence his decision. Chairman Dennison stated that Mr. Olson didn't give them information on anything other than where he thought certain sensitive areas were. He added that he and Commissioner Wojt checked those areas out themselves. He made his determination based on what he saw. He added that he doesn't feel that the contact he had with Mr. Olson will in any way prejudice his decision with regard to VOL 18 f'AGf 00 ft)r=r- t' ;.:)-..þ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 6 this threshold determination. He noted that Mr. Olson never once said to him that he was opposed to the proj ect. Mark Huth asked if anyone specifically requested that the Commissioners make the site visit? Commissioner Wojt stated that he suggested that they make the site visit. He had some time in the afternoon and had read about this project and wanted to see the site. Mark Huth asked if either Commissioner had any other contacts with anybody concerning this project? Both Commissioners stated they had not. Chairman Dennison stated for the record that he doesn't feel that he needs to disqualify himself because of any ex parte contact, because he does not feel that it has prejudiced his decision with regard to the Eagle Shores project threshold determination. Commissioner Wojt stated that he doesn't feel that any contact that he has had has prejudiced his decision. Erwin Jones, for the record, renewed his objections and requested a formal ruling on his two motions. Commissioner Wojt moved that Mr. Jones two motions be rejected. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Chairman stated that the Board will hear this appeal. Associate Planner Jerry Smith then reported that this seven lot, large lot subdivision application was submitted to the County in June of 1991. Planning staff determined that there are some environmentally sensitive areas on the site after their review of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas checklist. The applicant then prepared the standard SEP A Environmental Checklist which was submitted to the Planning Department in July of 1991. Mark Huth asked what areas were determined to be environmentally sensitive? Jerry Smith reported that the steep and unstable slopes based on the Coastal Zone Atlas and the presence of critical wildlife habitat (Eagle nest on the site). In September of 1991 the Board issued a Determination of Significance and requested comments for the scope of the EIS. Five areas for discussion in the EIS were identified by the Board: 1) impacts on waterfront bluff and soils due to drainage, 2) impacts on the Bald Eagle habitat and use of the site, 3) impacts on shellfish habitat on the adjacent tidelands, 4) impacts to slope stability on the identified critical slopes, and 5) cumulative effect of increasing development in the area. The DS was published and requests for comments on the scope of the EIS were to be submitted by October 17, 1991. The notice of appeal was filed by Mr. Jones on October 7, 1991. Jerry Smith reported that the County has received some comments on EIS scoping. Comments were received from: the local Fire Protection District, Hugh and Anna Hanson, Beryl Olson, the State Department of Ecology, State Department of Wildlife, the proponents and Helen Linn. No written comments have been received regarding the appeal hearing, Jerry Smith continued. He noted that he has been contacted by Rick Olson regarding concerns he has about damage to shellfish and the tidelands. Mark Huth asked if it is Jerry Smith's responsibility to review the checklist? Jerry Smith answered that his responsibility is to review the checklist and prepare a staff report, and then review the findings of that report with the Board of Commissioners as the responsible officials. Mark Huth asked what areas were identified from the checklist as problematic? Jerry Smith answered that on page 3 of the checklist, the comments under earth identified excessive slopes. Slopes that are greater than 15% are identified as being environmentally sensitive based on the County's SEPA Implementing Ordinance. Jerry Smith then read the following from the Environmental Checklist: "Question 2: "What is the steepest slope on site? Identify the approximate percent of the slope." The answer was "Waterfront bluff approximately 65% slope. To creek about 30 to 40%" Based on this response the staff determined that there was an ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) present on the site due to the percent slope. Mark Huth asked if there was any information in the checklist indicating unstable slopes? Jerry Smith read question 4 from the checklist: "Is there surface indications or history of unstable slopes in the immediate vicinity?" The response given was "No slide areas on our property." In their review of the Coastal Zone Atlas, the staff found that there were areas identified as unstable slopes along the bluff of this property. ,l,'ûl 18 r~ 00 356 .7#. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 7 Mark Huth asked if there was anything else in the Earth Section of the Environmental checklist of concern due to environmental impacts? Jerry Smith reported that under Question 6 regarding whether erosion could occur, there is concern because of the steep slopes and the fact that roads have been rough cut across some of the slopes that exceed the 15% gradient. Mark Huth asked if the County would have been responsible for permitting those roads at that time? Jerry Smith stated that the County would inspect the road for compliance with the construction standards of the large lot subdivision provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance which would not occur until after the application is submitted. He reported that he was on this site at the end of June and the roads had already been rough cut. Commissioner Wojt asked if there were any inspections during the building of the roads? Jerry Smith reported that he believes the Public Works Department did make some inspections, but he is not sure when they were done. He reported that he was on the site with a Public Works Inspector later that year in response to a complaint. Jerry Smith noted that the next section of the environmental checklist where he had concern is under water runoff including stormwater runoff (Questions 20 and 22). The applicant is asked to describe the runoff from the project and how that runoff will be collected and handled. The applicant res- ponded that the roads would be ditched and a culvert was installed to direct water into the creek and away from the homesites. Upon his site inspection Jerry Smith reported that he found that the entire 1/4 mile length of the roadway was cut along the contour lines of the slope and a ditch was roughed in along the entire length of the road. He concluded that with a ditch that long a considerable amount of siltation and sedimentation would run off the site in the event of a normal rainfall. He added that was confirmed when he visited the site with the Public Works Inspector. Carter Breskin, Planning and Programs Manager Public Works, reported that in July of 1991 she contacted Scott Kilmer, who did development reviews when this project was submitted. He submitted three inspection reports. The report dated July 15, 1991 states that he inspected the roadway ballast. He indicated that he found substandard widths from 12 to 20 feet for most of the road. The ballast was found to be soft and ungraded and the road is on a side hill and has very steep slopes. He indicated that he had met with Mr. Wilson on the job site the previous year and told him he had to construct the road to standards. It appeared that the majority of the road was less than 18 feet in width. In the July 30, 1991 inspection report, erosion problems were noted and a drainage plan and seeding slopes for stabilization was recommended. There is a report from Chief Inspector Tom Morello, who reported that he met with Mr. & Mrs. Wilson on the site and inspected the road. He noted that some native material had been placed as a gravel base throughout and that it was well graded and appeared adequate. The last report by Bruce Laurie, Construction Engineer is dated November 18, 1991. A discussion with an adjacent property owner is noted on it. The suggestion to him was that he document his concerns about the site and contact the Wilson's to discuss his concerns with them. Jerry Smith continued that he noted on the environmental checklist (question 12) that the applicant indicated there is an unnamed stream which bisects the property (which fronts on Dabob Bay). He noted that the adjacent tidelands of Dabob Bay are listed as important shellfish beds. Under Question 27 (Animals) Jerry Smith reported, an indication was made that Eagles and miscellaneous small birds were found on the site. An Eagle Management Plan was submitted as proposed measures to preserve or enhance the Eagle habitat. Mark Huth asked if Jerry Smith was able to review the Eagle Management Plan? Jerry Smith reported that he has reviewed the Eagle Management Plan which sets up some protection zones for the nest tree on the site and may require some further plat restrictions. One of the issues that came up in the Eagle Management Plan is whether the project should be designed with common open space that would reserve the Eagle nest tree and a considerable distance around the tree or if the area where the Eagle nest tree is located could be platted into lots. The State Department of Wildlife indicated that they preferred that the lots be clustered to allow the area where the Eagle nest tree is located to be utilized as common open space. They left the final decision on which option to use up to the County. The proposal before the County is to divide all the property into lots which would mean that one of the lots would encompass the Eagle nesting site. Jerry Smith further reported that the Planning Department received other correspondence from the State Department of Wildlife indicating that they were revising their preference and were willing to accept either plat design. Mark Huth asked if plants were a matter of concern? Jerry Smith reported that he doesn't recall anything in the checklist that indicated that there may be a potential adverse impact on any of the plants on the site. He reported that the property is timbered. The only clearing of the site, that he is aware of, is for the construction of the road and possibly building sites on each of the seven lots. Mark Huth asked if there was a forest practices permit involved in this project? Jerry Smith responded that he believes a Forest Practices permit was issued for the clearing that was done for the VOL 18 rAtf: 00 357 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 8 road. Jerry Smith noted that he did not identify any impacts under the energy, natural resources, environmental health, and noise sections of the environmental checklist. Under the Land and Shoreline Use Section of the checklist question number 46 regarding ESA's on the site is where the Eagle habitat, the unstable slopes, slide area, and slopes greater than 15% were identified. Jerry Smith reported that the answer to question 40 (current use of adjacent property) says there is a oyster company on the tidelands to the south of this site. These tidelands are directly adjacent to this property. Jerry Smith reported that (Question 27 under Animals) the Wilson's indicated that they didn't own the adjacent tidelands in regard to the impacts to shellfish. Jeffrey Delia stated that he owns the Delia's Broadspit Oyster Company. He says that is seems obvious to him that not much is known about the impact to the oyster industry. He added that this project is impacting the industry dramatically, and the quality of water in Dabob Bay specifically. Mark Huth asked where Mr. Delia's oyster company is located. Mr. Delia answered that his oyster lease is approximately two miles south of Rick Olson's on the eastern side of the Boulton Peninsula. He has been an oyster farmer for 17 years. The siltation covers the oyster beds and the oysters are so small and fragile in their first few years of growth that covering them causes them to suffocate. The use of that oyster bed could be lost for one to three years. There is not much the oyster farmer can do to change and shift the tidelands. This particular area of Dabob Bay has been known, historically, for its production of the wild Pacific Oyster seed. Because of the depth of the water, the currents, and its location (at the end of the Hood Canal) it has the right conditions for Pacific Oysters to spawn. This is one of the last natural spawning areas in the world. Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Delia feels the siltation on his oyster beds is all attributable to this project? Mr. Delia said that he has observed that a good portion of the siltation is from what is being done on this project. Jerry Smith continued that there were no concerns noted in the following sections of the environmental checklist: housing, aesthetics, lighting and glare, and historical or cultural preservation. The next area of concern on the environmental checklist is under recreation. This is an area of shellfish gathering, on the adjacent tidelands, and fishing and boating. The proponent indicated that no recreation areas would be impacted at all. Under transportation it was noted that access to property would be off of Lindsay Hill Road which is a County road and from that point, access within the plat would be across 3/4 mile of existing private roads. The roads on site will have to meet County standards for large lot subdivisions. The number of vehicle trips per day is estimated at 70 for this project. The staff noted, Jerry Smith continued, that increased needs for public services would depend on the profile of the future residents of the seven lots. Under utilities the proponent indicated that electricity and telephone would be provided, while water and septic will be provided by the future lot owners. The staff report dated September 23, 1991 indicates that some of the recommendations in the Eagle Management Plan entered into by the proponent and the State Department of Wildlife would require the property owners to post 20 "Wildlife Protected Zone" signs spaced approximately 20 feet apart, along the protected area boundary and that it would restrict activities (including home construction, land clearing, road building, timber harvest, use of chemicals, aircraft use, use of fireworks, use of off road vehicles) from January 1 through August 15 each year. The DOF was recommending that the County consider other mitigative measures to further mitigate probable significant impacts to wildlife. They recommended: 1) a conservation easement for the protected area be given to the local Land Trust, 2) the construction of a four foot high fence along the protected area, and 3) that since the Management Plan doesn't offer the best protection, they encouraged the County to consider a determination of significance. Mark Huth asked if the protected area refers to the option that requires clustering? Jerry Smith answered that he believes that refers to the option of dividing the parcel into lots. The protected area would be part of several lots. Mark Huth reported that he has provided copies of the previous staff report to each Board member and to Mr. Jones. Jerry Smith advised that in the staff report, he pointed out to the Board their options were under the County's Implementing Ordinance and SEPA rules. The three possible options for the Board to consider were: Ask for additional information, issue a determination of mitigated non-significance or issue a determination of significance. Erwin Jones then asked Jerry Smith the following questions: Q. With reference to the staff report, did you consider any information other than the information from the environmental checklist? VOl 18 rA~~ au' ~58 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 9 A. Jerry Smith said that he considered information on file with the County Planning Office such as the Coastal Zone Atlas, the sub area planning maps of the County which identify environmentally sensitive areas, information provided by the Eagle Management Plan, everything on the environmental checklist provided by the proponent, and what he saw on his site inspections. Q. With reference to the waterfront bluff instability problem, did you suggest that the Commissioners find that as an area of significant impact? A. Jerry Smith reported that he only suggested to them that the Coastal Zone Atlas indicated that there were areas of instability and that there had been recent slides reported. Q. Did you talk to any experts on bluff stability in that area? A. Jerry Smith reported that he did not talk to any geologists. He added that he relied solely on information available off the Coastal Zone Atlas and what he saw on the site. Q. Did you rely on any specific studies of the bluffs on that property? A. No. Q. With reference to the Bald Eagles, you were aware that the Wilson's had entered into a contractual arrangement with the Department of Wildlife. A. Jerry Smith answered that he was aware of that. Q. And you were aware that the Department of Wildlife had signed off on that? A. Yes. Q. Does the County have any specific rules and regulations with reference to Bald Eagles other than those of the Department of Wildlife? A. Jerry Smith stated that he is not aware of the County having any specific rules. The County relies solely on the expertise of the Department of Wildlife in terms of how that habitat should be managed and/or protected. Q. Did you talk with any experts from the State of Washington regarding the shellfish habitat? A. No, Jerry Smith answered. Q. Slope stability is the same problem as the waterfront bluff stability? A Jerry Smith stated that the property does contain some steep slopes away from the bluff and a road has been constructed over some of those steep slopes. Q. Did you talk to any experts with reference to Number 4 slope stability? A. Jerry Smith stated that he had been out on the site with an inspector from Public Works. Q. And they gave you some reports, didn't they? A. Yes. Q. I don't recall seeing those reports in the packet of items sent to me by your office. Is it possible that they got overlooked? A. Jerry Smith answered that it's possible that they got overlooked, but it is also possible that because they are reports that are within the Public Works Department, that the Planning Department didn't receive copies of the inspection reports. Q. Did you talk with Rick Olson? A. Jerry Smith answered that he spoke with Rick Olson in February of this year. Q. Did he contact you or did you contact him? A. Jerry Smith answered that Mr. Olson came into the Planning Department Office. Q. When you were talking about the Eagle Plan you mentioned "they and their." Mr. Jones asked who "they" is? A. Jerry Smith stated that "they" is the Department of Wildlife. He dealt with Anita McMillan and Tim Rymer. He did not talk with the person that signed off on the Eagle Management Plan. VOL 18 fA~C - 00 ~59' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 10 Mark Huth asked Jerry Smith the following questions: Q. When you get an environmental checklist do you send it to other departments in the County for their review? Did you send it to Public Works? Did you receive any comments from them about this large lot subdivision proposal? A. Jerry Smith reported that he does send copies of environmental checklists to other County Departments. He sent this one to the Public Works Department. He added that he doesn't recall if the Public Works Department sent any comments to him. Q. Did you receive copies of their inspection reports? A. Jerry Smith said that he doesn't recall receiving copies of their inspection reports. Q. When you received Mr. Jones request, did you go through the Planning Department file in its entirety? A. Jerry Smith stated that he did and that he did not hold anything back from what he sent to Mr. Jones. If the inspection reports had been in the file, he would have sent them to Mr. Jones. Q. Did you consider those inspection reports when preparing the staff report for the Board? A. Jerry Smith stated that he doesn't recall, but he probably did not. Q. Did you receive comments from any other County Department concerning the Wilson's Large Lot subdivision proposal after the environmental checklist was circulated? A. No. Erwin Jones asked Jerry Smith if he received a copy of the geological report that was sent to the Commissioners? Jerry Smith answered that he has not received any geological report. Jim Pearson, Associate Planner, then reported that he visited the site on August 30, 1991 after receiving a call from an adjacent property owner regarding construction on the site and concerns about the project review under the County Shoreline Management Master Program. He stated that he was looking at the area on the southerly portion of the property where road work was done within 200 feet of the shoreline and if it was subject to review under the County Shoreline Management Master Program. He reported that he didn't notice any impacts to the intertidal areas of the shoreline at that time. Since then he has spoken with Mr. Olson (who owns the tidelands) and Greg Roates, the engineer hired by the Wilson's. He has seen pictures provided by Mr. Olson that show a great deal of sediment on the beach which was borne out by a talk he had with Mr. Roates that the Olson's have been concerned about shoreline erosion and runoff coming from the uplands. Erwin Jones asked if Mr. Pearson had any indication of where the sediment on the beach came from? Jim Pearson responded that he doesn't have a way to comment on that. Mark Huth asked if a drainage plan was required from the Wilson's for this project? Carter Breskin reported that no drainage plan was formally required. Erwin Jones asked if a drainage plan would be part of the Large Lot Subdivision? Carter Breskin stated that it is typical that a drainage plan be required for a large lot subdivision. The Chairman opened the hearing for public comments. Greg Roates. Roates Engineering stated that the Wilson's retained him along with the geologist to examine the shoreline areas, especially where slides had occurred over the winter, as well as to look at the uplands especially where roads are located. He corrected Jim Pearson by noting that he did not express concerns of the Olson's. Mr. Wilson asked him to address shoreline protection and to examine an area just north of the slide area where a natural drainage swale finds its way down to the beach. That drainage swale appears to have been there for a very long time and is well vegetated. It shows no sign of instability or erosion. There are two basic remedial actions: 1) along the shoreline slide area he is recommending that a rip rap rock wall be constructed, (along the ordinary high water mark, from the south property line, north approximately 380 feet) to protect the slope and particularly the area that recently slid. This wall would be to protect the toe of the slope from undercutting by wave action and to reduce any potential siltation of the tidelands. Chairman Dennison stated that what he is hearing are mitigation measures and the information he needs today is whether or not it is necessary to get more information by way of an EIS. He asked if Mr. Roates can give information on whether there are slope stability issues or environmental issues, in his opinion, on this project. vm, 18 í-Mf on .~60 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 11 Mr. Roates stated that he was hired to assess the waterfront slope protection and to make some recommendations for remedial protective drainage measures in the top of the bluff and near the shore area to mitigate potential future impacts. Erwin Jones added that it was his understanding that this is a "de novo" hearing and one of the three choices that Mr. Smith suggested to the Board was the possibility of a mitigated DNS. That is why they have come prepared to give the Board some possible mitigations. Mr. Roates concluded his testimony by noting that he doesn't see any problems on the site that can't be mitigated with standard engineering analysis and design. Mark Huth asked how extensive the slide of the waterfront bluff was? Mr. Roates reported that there was a slide on the waterfront bluff that was about 45 to 50 feet wide at the base and approximately 30 feet wide at the top of the bluff. Mark Huth asked if Mr. Roates was able to determine what caused the slide? Mr. Roates answered that he couldn't specifically determine the cause of the slide, but he read a report that indicated that it was caused by undercutting at the toe of the slope due to storm wave action and he agrees with that report. Steve Pappajohn, Geologist, reported that he was hired by the Wilson's to make a geological assessment of the site. In terms of the slide just discussed, he feels that the area directly adjacent to the shoreline, along the bluff is an area historically prone to sliding. The slides tend to usually be small in extent. The ravines in the area are typically well vegetated and have stabilized in terms of their natural development. As a result there is very little in the way of slide materials that will naturally come from parts of the property away from the shoreline through those ravines. There will, however, from. time to time, depending on storm activity and rainfall, be floods that go through there as a natural course. The storms that were experienced at the end of January are an indication of that. Chairman Dennison asked Mr. Pappajohn to discuss the research he did on the site. Mr. Pappajohn stated that, as indicated in his report (dated November 14, 1991), he did a reconnaissance study. His investigation was one of observation and detailing from pictures. He utilized all of the available public information including the Coastal Zone Atlas and information from the DNR, as well as all other standard sources of information. Chairman Dennison asked if Mr. Pappajohn felt, in his profes- sional opinion, that more information should be looked at before the Board can determine what types of mitigations might be appropriate? Mr. Pappajohn responded that for areas on the Olympic Peninsula, there is quite a bit of existing information on the geological configuration. The discussion continued regarding the geologic information available on properties in this area and how useful that information is for a specific project. Mr. Pappajohn reported that he did not make any site specific recommendations for this project. In response to questions from Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth, Mr. Pappajohn stated that he concluded from his investigation that the slide was caused by storm activity in the later part of January and was not connected with any upland clearing. He added that all of the recommendations that he made in his report are to be used by an engineer. Erwin Jones asked Mr. Pappajohn if he observed anything on the Wilson's property which would deposit three feet of sediment in the bay? Mr. Pappajohn stated that he did not see anything in terms of erosion from natural drainage. In terms of the slides which occur historically along that bluff from natural conditions, he said it would be very easy to have three feet of sediment deposited in the Bay, almost instantaneously. He said that considering the geology of the property and with proper setbacks from the bluffs, he feels the site could easily accommodate seven homes. Mr. Roates stated that with the information he has now, he feels he could design mitigations to address erosion on this project. He added that this type of analysis would be a normal accompaniment to a proposal of this nature. Janet Welch asked that the Board review and assess this project based on the potential development of the area or write a condition on the plat that there will be no further development of these lots. She suggested this because of the problems she has encountered with assessing cumulative effects for proper septic system design in projects where people are re-platting five acre parcels, Sharon Wilson stated that one reasons that they did not want to cluster on this subdivision (an option in the Eagle Management Plan) was due to the slopes on the property. The parcel is suitable for private, five acre parcels. There are really not many more than seven sites on the property. She noted that she and her husband would consider a mitigation that would prohibit further subdivision of the lots in the future since they don't feel there are that many more suitable building sites on this parcel. She then clarified that the two options outlined in the Eagle Management Plan have identical vat 18 rA~~ 00 361 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 12 protected areas. The protected area is an area where no building can take place. The only difference between the two options is that one of them would transfer the ownership of the protected to someone else. Rick Olson explained that he owns and operates a small oyster business which is directly downhill from this proposed development. He owns 25 acres of tidelands and 2 acres of that has been lost to any production of oysters or clams. He stated that he feels the slide on the waterfront bluff was caused by the work done on this property. Mr. Olson then reviewed and explained the pictures that he submitted numbered A1 through A8 and B1 through B9. He noted that there are five places where slides have occurred along the waterfront bank in this area. He has suffered over $20,000 in financial damages to his oyster business from these slides. Ray Sorenson asked where the water coming from the roofs of seven residences will go? This water will go to those natural drainage areas and they won't be able to handle that much water. Before it would have gone into the ground and slowly seeped away. Mr. Pappajohn added that building in close proximity to the bluffs is not something that he recommends. He recommended that standard setbacks from the bluff be required. Chairman Dennison asked why Mr. Pappajohn feels that the slide happened as a result of erosion at the toe of the bluff? Mr. Pappajohn said that it is difficult to say for sure what exactly caused the slide. He noted, however, that the slope of the hillside, the type of gravel, the areas where water is channeled during runoff and the erosion at the bottom of the slide, are factors that point away from the work on the site as the cause of the slide. Erwin Jones, commenting on behalf of the Wilson's, stated that he feels the major concern is the slides. The only expert testimony is that the slides are natural and that they will continue to occur. Further expert testimony was offered by the Engineer that mitigation can address these slides. The issue that the Commissioners are faced with now is to determine if more information is needed about this property. If there is not enough information, Mr. Jones stated that he doesn't feel that necessarily means that the County should require an EIS. He suggested that his client can and is willing to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the Board associated with road construction. Mr. Jones added that he doesn't feel there is anything to be gained by the County requiring an EIS. If the Board wants more specific information on the reports that have been submitted, Mr. Jones stated that he feels his client would be willing to provide that information. The matter of the Eagles has been dealt with by the State of Washington through the Eagle Management Plan. Steve Havden stated that it appears that Mr. Olson is potentially looking at some damages against Mr. Wilson for the slide. He feels the Board should take that into account when they consider the report given by the geologist who has been hired by Mr. Wilson. Mark Huth suggested that the Board formally adopt the testimony received during the meeting when the last SEPA threshold determination was made. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt by reference the testimony presented when the last threshold determination was made on this project. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Dennison asked Mr. Wilson if he would comment on the issue of the natural drainage area being filled. Mr. Wilson stated that a driveway was built in the bottom of the canyon. He invited the members of the Board and the Public Works Department to visit the site with him. Chairman Dennison asked what ballast was used for the road? Carter Breskin reported that the Inspection report noted that Mr. Wilson placed native materials and gravel throughout the project that is well graded and appears adequate (10/4/91 inspection report). Mark Huth asked Mr. Wilson if the access road crosses all seven lots? Mr. Wilson answered that the access road stops at the seventh lot. There is only one driveway off that road and it goes to the beach. The Public Works Department never inspected the driveway, they only inspected the access road. He added that he has pictures of the driveway and the Geologist inspected it and it shows no signs of erosion at all. Commissioner Brown moved that this be put back on the Agenda on April 20, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman Dennison closed the hearing. \JQI,. 18r~r:' on ..,6"') '--, '" , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 23, 1992 Page: 13 Final Plat Approval: Fairwood Villa2e: Within the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21. Township 28 North. Ran2e 1 East. WM: Pope Resources: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this is a clustered, 19 lot development located off of Teal Lake Road. All conditions of the preliminary plat approval have been met and all of the required departments have signed off on this plat. After discussion of the drainage plan for the plat and the drainage problems in this area caused by recent storms, Commissioner Brown moved to issue final approval for this long subdivision. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion and then asked if the only evidence that the drainage plan has been reviewed and found to be adequate, is that the Public Works Department has signed off on the plat? Commissioner Brown explained that all of the concerns about this plat were reviewed at the time the preliminary plat approval was issued. That allows the developer to know what areas need to be addressed and when that is done he can apply for final approval of the plat. Jerry Smith reported that the final plans for construction of the storm drainage and other public facilities on the plat have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Final Plat Approval: Ludlow Point Villa2e. Division 3: Portions of the South Half of Section 16 & 17. Township 28 North. Ran2e 1 East, WM: Pope Resources: Jerry Smith reviewed this 19 lot subdivision located in the Port Ludlow area. All of the required departments have reviewed and signed off on this plat. Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign the final Ludlow Point Village Division 3 plat. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Review Summary of issues and Guidance on Draftin2 Resource Land and Critical Area Ordinances for Growth Mana2ement (Continued from March 16. 1992): Commissioner Brown moved to have this agenda item continued to 2:00 p.m. Tuesday April 14, 1992. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Placement of the Dissolution of the Cape Geor2e Sewer District on the May 19. 1992 Election Ballot: Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 23-92 placing the matter of dissolution of the Cape George Sewer District No. 1 on the May 19, 1992 election ballot as petitioned by a sufficient number of registered voters of the district. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Group Endorsement IT for Medical Insurance for Active and Retired Employees: Kitsap Physicians Service: Commissioner Brown moved to approve Group Endorsement IT for the employee and retirees medical insurance with Kitsap Physicians Services as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: ATIEST: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . 'In! 18 On ' .. > rM~ .,; ~63