Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110992 u~ y> ~Öþ:": MINUTES WEEK OF NOVEMBER 9. 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commis- sioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were present. Discussion of Skookum Jump Rope CDB Grant Application: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the County will be responsible for bidding, project management, and construction of the building proposed by Skookum Jump Rope in the Community Development block grant application. He asked that the Board clarify their intent regarding the responsibilities and priority of this project. Chairman Dennison suggested that since the Port will be the ultimate owner of the building, the County transfer the project responsibilities to them. Commissioner Brown asked that the Prosecuting Attorney review this suggestion to make sure that the respon- sibility as well as the work on the project can be transferred. David Goldsmith added that a portion of the funds of the CDB Grant can be used for administration costs. Facilities Manager Frank Gifford reported that the County, the Port, and Skookum Jump Rope need to be very clear on the responsibly each has for items such as cost overruns, etc. David Goldsmith will work with the Prosecuting Attorney, the Facilities Manager, the Port and Skookum Jump Rope on coordination of this block grant application. Proposed Addendum to Teamsters Union Labor Contract for the Sheriff's Department: David Goldsmith reported that there is a problem in the Sheriff's Department labor agreement with regard to shift rotation. The problem revolves around the number of hours between shifts and whether overtime payment applies if the rotation occurs within 12 hours of the previous shift. This contract addendum clarifies how many hours will be allowed between shifts. The County is proposing that this become effective when signed. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the addendum to the Labor Agreement with Teamster Union #589 for the Sheriff's Department with the effective date of November 9, 1992. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: makeup of the Shoreline Commission, the recent amendment to the Shoreline Management Master Program, whether the County is in compliance with the makeup of the Shoreline Commis- sion as far as representatives from Commissioner Districts, and the procedures for vacating right-of-way. './~1.. 18 P6.~£ 00 1.176 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the minutes of October 19, 1992 as corrected. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as corrected (item 2 changed from Planning Commission to Shoreline Commission). Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Reassignment of Commissioner District Representatives; Planning Commission Mem- bers; Tom Berg from Commissioner District 3 to 2 and Fred Grove from Commissioner District 2 to 3. 2. Accept resignation of Shoreline Commission member; Carl A. Johnson 3. AGREEMENT re: Jefferson County Health Department Construction and Operating Permits for Pools and Spas in the County (RCW 70.90 and WAC 246-260; State Department of Health 4. AGREEMENT, Interagency re: Recreational Shellfish Joint Plan of Operation of the Jefferson County Health Department and the State Department of Health 5. CONTRACT re: Advertising Services for Jefferson County Animal Services; Washingt- on Transit Advertising 6. Election to Install the 10% Aggregate Exchange/Transfer Limit Effective January 1, 1993; Deferred Compensation Program for County Employees; PEBSCO 7. CONTRACT AMENDMENT #2 re: Additional Services to include assistance during bidding for waste transport and disposal services and during bidding for landfill and lagoon closure; SCS Engineers 8. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Charles Baetz $349.00 and Bill Wetwiska $500.00 9. CONTRACT; Professional Services of the Jefferson County Health Department; for the 1992-1993 School Year; Port Townsend School District #50 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS BID OPENING re: One (1) New 10 Yard Dump Truck: County Engineer Bob Nesbitt opened and read the bids received for a new 10 yard dump truck. All bids include sales tax. BIDDERS BID TOTAL: 1. Sea Tac Ford Truck Sales, Inc. 2. Western Peterbilt Truck Co. 3. Pacific Coast Truck Center 4. Kenworth Northwest, Inc. 5 Valley Freightline, Inc. No bid $ 68,625.46 69,562.64 80,771.00 74,813.20 Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department check the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Grantin2 a Non-Exclusive Franchise for Construction of an Emuent Line on a County Road Ri2hts-of-Way; Wallv Pederson: Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO.I08-92 granting a non-exclusive franchise for the construction YOl 18 r~ 00 117"1' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 3 of an effluent line on road rights-of-way to Wally Pederson. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Hearin2 Examiner Recommendation re: Vacation of a Portion of Old Hadlock Road: Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon explained that the Hearing Ex- aminer held a public hearing on the County's request to vacate a portion of Old Hadlock Road which is located between Lopeman Road and Promwell Road (575 feet south of Lopeman Road). The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Board approve the vacation subject to the following conditions: 1. The County shall preserve and maintain an easement within the right-of-way that allows access by the public for walking and bicycling. 2. Lopeman shall dedication 20 feet of right-of-way along Lopeman Road and 10 feet along Chimacum Road before the vacation becomes final. The Chairman invited comments from interested residents present at the meeting. Doug Jovce stated that a similar vacation was considered on this road in 1974 and 1975 when George Cotton petitioned the County to vacate a section of this road. The Commis- sioners recognized the value of this County road and did not approve the vacation. Many people would like to have a portion of the County road in front of their property vacated to allow them to add on to their business frontage, or their front lawn. He feels a vacation for that purpose would set a dangerous precedent for the future of the County road system. Mr. Joyce stated that this old, well used road is an important part of the rural culture of many residents of Chimacum and Hadlock. Phil Ackeridge said that the apparent reason for the vacation is to get rid of a dangerous intersection. He suggested that a barricade be put up to close the intersection. The school bus runs down Old Hadlock Road, and it would be better if the children were picked up on Lopeman Road which has less tràffic. Elsie Lopeman pointed out that this road is not safe. Since the Hearing Examiner's hearing there has been another accident. She stated that it is a dangerous road that needs to be closed. Wayne Moran stated that this vacation would arbitrarily close a piece of road. He hasn't heard about any plan for changing the intersection. He has a business on this road. He feels that the County must come up with a good plan before they close it. Mike Anderson stated that he owns property on Old Hadlock Road and he and his brother use the road quite often. They want to see it remain open. Laverna Kroll stated that it would be a tragedy to close that road with the businesses that are located on it. Since the tire was put in the intersection it has helped define the intersection. She feels if the road is closed it would be almost impossible to make a left hand turn onto the Chimacum/Hadlock Road. Herb Beck reported that he has used that road to get to the Veterinarian with his stock trailer. It is a very handy piece of road. Bill Marlow asked what exact portion of the road is going to be vacated? Is it the portion between Lopeman Road and the Gravel Pit Road? Bob Nesbitt indicated that is the portion proposed for vacation. Bill Marlow stated that it is a dangerous leg of the intersection, and serves no real purpose. Leon Lopeman stated that if this road is left as it is, it will run into a private road. He asked who would be liable? Doug Joyce stated that the Old Hadlock Road is less than a mile long. He feels that the County Engineer can re-align the intersection without any problem. VOL 18 rA~ 001-178 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 4 Phil Ackeridge agreed that the intersection can be improved to make it safe. Chairman Dennison stated that a copy of the minutes of a Commissioners meeting in 1974 indicates the proposed vacation was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked why the Hearing Examiner feels it is now in compliance? Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to have time to check out the inconsisten- cies that have been brought up and if the intersection can be made safe. He moved to postpone action on this vacation to another time. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Discussion of Hearin2 format; Comments on Draft EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow and the Port Ludlow Development Pr02ram (Hearin2 set for November 17, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. at the Port Ludlow Fire Hall): Associate Planner Jim Pearson explained that Pope Resources has held a couple of community meetings to discuss the draft environmental impact statements for the Port Ludlow development and answer questions about them. He stated that he did not plan on doing any type of workshop at the Board's hearing scheduled for November 17, 1992. Commissioner Brown explained that the hearing format followed in the past included a staff presentation and then public testimony. Jim Pearson asked how much detail the Board would like included in the staff presentation? Commissioner Brown stated that the staff presentation should include an explanation of why a public hearing is being held, and what the two EIS's cover. Paula Mackrow reported that the documents (EIS's) came out after the workshops were held in Port Ludlow. She asked how the decision making process will proceed? Chair- man Dennison explained that the comments from the public hearing and those received during the 30 day comment period will be reviewed by the Board to determine if the issues raised are addressed by the EIS documents. After that has been done the Board will make a decision about issuing the final EIS. Paula Mackrow then asked who could answer clarification questions on these documents before the hearing? Jim Pearson report- ed that questions could be directed to the Planning Department staff, the Ferris Company or Pope Resources. Chairman Dennison suggested that people write down their questions and submit them in writing to the Board. David Douglas asked if the contract with Susan Thomas will be extended to allow her the time to help the Board review the comments and put the documents in their final form? Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't know exactly how much time is left on her con- tract, but this will be reviewed. The discussion continued regarding comments made about deficiencies in the DEIS documents that Susan Thomas pointed out. Jim Pearson advised that he will check into the Thomas' contract expiration date. Settin2 Public Hearin2 for Proposed SEP A Amendment Ordinance and Staff Comment on Use of Plannin2 Commission Report: Senior Planner James Holland reported that a public hearing on the proposed SEP A Ordinance needs to be held between December 7 and 18 in order to allow adoption before December 31, 1992. Final 1993 budget hearings are scheduled each day during the week of December 7, 1992. Commissioner Brown moved to set the hearing on the draft SEPA Ordinance for December 7, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Superior Court Courtroom. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ",IOl 18 r~ 00 ':1179 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 5 James Holland then reviewed the updated time line developed for the adoption of the draft ordinances. He reported that if the Board is going to have a hearing on the Clearing and Grading Ordinance, the Planning Commission will only be able to have two review sessions to develop their report for the Board. Commissioner Wojt moved that the Planning Commission be asked to submit their report on the draft Clearing and Grading Ordinance to the Board by November 20, 1992. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. James Holland then reported that members of the Planning Commission felt that their report on the draft SEP A Ordinance was not given enough attention during the Board's workshop. The Board agreed that the Planning Commission report can be released to the public. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Si2niticance; Lar2e Lot Subdivision. Fulton Lake Estates (Continued from October 26. 1992): Chairman Dennison reported that this is a continuation of the hearing on October 26, 1992 because the attorney for the appellant could not be present on that date. Associate Planner Jim Pearson added that this hearing is for an appeal of the final mitigated determination of non-significance issued by the responsible official (Planning Director) on the Fulton Lake Estates large lot subdivision. The proposal includes a provision for 10.5 acres of open space which was accomplished by identifying lots 2 and 4 as open space. Jim Pearson submitted a memorandum dated November 4 for the record (the Board had copies of the same memo dated August 13, 1992). He then reviewed the other exhibits provided to the Board: · A copy of the environmental checklist which has attached to it: * A copy of the modified, mitigated determination of non-significance) * The Notice of Appeal from the South County Coordinating Council (received by the Planning Department on October 9, 1992) * A copy of a letter from David Bricklin, representing the South County Coordinating Council (dated October 21, 1992) * A letter of appeal from the Point No Point Treaty Council (dated October 9, 1992 and received by the Planning Department on October 14, 1992) * A copy of a letter from the Point No Point Treaty Council to Jim Pearson (dated September 21, 1992) * A copy of a letter to the Point No Point Treaty Council (dated September 30, 1992) from the State Department of Ecology * A reduction of a survey map of Fulton Lake Estates · Environmental Reports prepared by Myers Biodynamics, Inc.: * Fulton Lake Estates Reports - Wetlands Evaluation Bald - Eagle Study (dated May 1, 1992) * Fulton Lake Estates Bald Eagle Study · Memo to Jim Pearson from Carter Renner in the Public Works Department (Dated July 24, 1992) which includes: * Memo from James Pearson to Carter Renner (dated July 7, 1992) * Letter from ADA Engineering to Public Works (dated June 30, 1992) * Letter from ADA Engineering to Planning Department (dated April 15, 1992) * Letter from State Department of Ecology to Planning Department (dated August 28, 1992) * Letter from Skokomish Indian Tribe to Planning Department (dated August 27, 1992) ,* Letter from Jefferson County Fire District #4 to Planning Department (dated August 27, 1992) * Letter from Jefferson Transit to Planning Department (dated August 27, 1992) * Letter from Point No Point Treaty Council to Planning Department (dated June 29, 1992) * Letter from State Department of Wildlife to Planning Department (dated August 28, 1992) * Letter from Brinnon School District #46 to County Commissioners (dated August 27, 1992) * Letter from Brinnon School District #46 to Planning Department (no date) VOl 18 fA"! 001180 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 6 Commissioner Brown moved to admit the items listed by Jim Pearson as part of the record of this hearing. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Jim Pearson continued by reporting that Lots 2 and 4 (1 0.5 acres) have been identified as open space. Lot 2 (4.91 acres) is adjacent to Black Point Road and a plat access road and Lot 4 is also adjacent to Black Point Road and Rhododendron Lane. Subdivision regulations allow the subdivision of open space areas through the long plat process. The applicant has proposed to long plat lots 2 and 4 which would make the subdivision 22 lots III SIze. Timely appeals on the final MDNS were due on October 9, 1992. The South County Coordinating Council's appeal was received on that date. The Point No Point Treaty Council appeal letter was received on October 14, 1992, after the appeal period had expired. The issues raised by the Point No Point Treaty Council are in most instances very similar to the issues raised by the South County Coordinating Council. Since this appeal is on a "de Novo" basis, the entire proposal and environmental review are open for consideration by the Board, so the issues raised by the Point No Point Treaty Council can be brought up. Jim Pearson then reviewed the Planning staff memorandum. Under the earth category he explained that the South County Coordinating Council appeal states that erosion caused by the surface water runoff from the development will have probable significant adverse impacts. The SCCC feels that reliance on the requirements of the Public Works Depart- ment to avoid those impacts is not justified by the analysis presented by staff. The staff recommends that the proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts to earth due to erosion of soils exposed during the construction of roads, cul-de-sacs and utilities and recommends mitigation measures 1 through 8 to address these issues. Commissioner Wojt asked if the roads and mitigations are in place? Tom Morello of the Public Works Department reported that the mitigation plan is being followed. The roads are in place but are not all completed yet. No significant environment impacts were identified for the Air section of the environmental checklist. Under Water, Jim Pearson reported the staff concurs with the scientific informa- tion presented by Myers Biodynamics, Inc., but they do not agree with interpretation of the regulations. The issues raised in the SCCC appeal are that surface water runoff from the development would have probable significant adverse impacts; the proposal would result in significant averse impacts to wetlands; the proposed buffer is inadequate, notice to potential purchasers is inadequate and there is no ready mechanism to enforce compliance. The staff concluded that the proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts to water. Mitigated conditions 1 through 8 are proposed to address these impacts. He noted that Mitigation Measure number 8 states "In order to avoid significant impacts to wildlife habitat and wetlands functions and values, prior to final plat approval the applicant shall place a protective covenant on the deed requiring compliance with the wetlands protection mitigating measure of this MDNS." Chairman Dennison questioned if it is appropriate to place mitigation on a plat requiring that a protective covenant which the County cannot enforce? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth answered that the property owners have the right to enforce covenants. If the covenant is a condition of plat approval and the land is subsequently used in violation of that condition, the Subdivision Law gives the County the authority to bring an action to enjoin or restrain the use in violation. The covenants put legal notice on the property deeds of the use limitations of the property. Commissioner Wojt asked if the protective buffers could be made a decicated conservancy easement? Jim Pearson reported that this was suggested to the applicant, but he didn't elect to do that. David Bricklin asked if it is necessary for Jim Pearson to continue reading the staff report that has been provided to the Board? Jim Pearson responded that this review allows people in the audience to know what the Board is reviewing. He noted that the basis of , , ;: \"..\-- 1::Q 'H; 0,0 1.181 u r"", Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 7 the appeal is that the staff analysis is not adequate to draw the conclusion that the mitigations proposed are adequate to avoid the impacts. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would like to hear what the people have to say about the proposal. Jim Pearson stated that he would like to cover the section on animals and the section on historic preservation. He noted that the question with respect to animals is if the project area is a category I or II wetland. It could be either designation based on its nature as an estuarine wetland, its size, the amount of disturbance, and use by wildlife. The amount of buffer is the crux of the issue. He noted that an eagle study was done and there are no eagle nests within a mile or more of the site. The Board needs to consider the intensity and regularity of the eagle use of the site and what type of buffer is required. In regard to historic and cultural preservation, there has been reviews by Dr. Robert Whitlum (the State Archeologist) and Mr. Delbert Gilbow (a professional archeologist). They state this area has cultural significance. He noted that there was not a fresh water source on Fulton Lake which is located 600 feet back from Rood Canal. The question is if the County has the information to determine if it is probable that there is an archeologi- cal site on this property that would be disturbed by this proposal. If there is a probable archeological site, would it be impacted and could it be protected by a proposed buffer? Mark Ruth suggested that the appellant's be allowed to present their case, since this is a de novo hearing. David Bricklin, Attorney for the appellant, noted that this is an appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act regarding whether the correct procedures have been used to get information about the environmental impacts. It is not an appeal about the merits of the project. The specific procedure at issue is if an environmental impact statement should have been required. The Planning Department staff has determined that there are probable significant environmental impacts, but they have proposed mitigation that they feel will mitigate those impacts. The Washington Administrative Code (Section 330) outlines specific factors that the decision makers should take into account when making a threshold determination: · Where specifically is the project proposed; · If the proposal may adversely effect environmentally sensitive or special areas (wildlife, slopes, wetlands, cultural and archeological resources); · When marginal impacts are considered together could they result in a significant adverse im pact; · If there is reasonable potential for significant impacts. An EIS is a specific detailed process, Mr. Bricklin continued, to assure the accurate en- vironmental information is provided. The types of impacts that should be reviewed include the potential further subdivision of the lots in this project. What precedence will the approval of this project have, and will it spur other similar projects in this immediate area? The word probable in this context does not just relate to the probability of something occurring, it also relates to the significance of what occurs (Rule 794). The Board must determine the likely effectiveness of the mitigation measures. An EIS would provide the information to make that determination. The track record of the person carrying out the mitigation must also be considered. He added that just because minimum requirements are set for roads, storm water runoff, wetlands, etc. does not mean that there will not be sig- nificant impacts. Chairman Dennison swore in Jerry Gorsline by having him swear and affirm that the testimony he gives is the truth. Jerry Gorsline stated that he has been doing botanical surveys in wetlands for the last ten years. For the last three years he has been monitoring forest practices for the Washington Environmental Council. During a two year period he participated in the statewide Timber, Fish and Wildlife committee that prepared recommendations for the Forest Practices Board on Forest Practices Act regulations to protect wetlands. The definition of category I wetlands is that they are not common, they have some particular value for a rare species, YOl 18 f~ 00 :1182 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 8 they represent a high quality example of a rare wetland type, they are rare within a given region, or they provide irreplaceable functions and values. According to this criteria, Fulton Lake should qualify as a category I wetland for two reasons: 1) it contains docu- mented habitat recognized by the Washington Department of Wildlife for a threatened animal, and 2) this wetland system would qualify for designation as a locally significant wetland. He then submitted and read from a letter dated November 9, 1992 on Washing- ton Environmental Council letterhead (see record). He added that to avoid significant impacts to the wildlife habitat associated with Fulton Lake and to maintain the regular use of this habitat by wildlife species, the County should follow the State Department of Wildlife's recommendation for a 200 to 300 foot buffer. The State Department of Wildlife is the appropriate agency for setting wetland buffer widths when significant wildlife habitat is involved. He then read from a State Department of Ecology letter (dated September 30, 1992, to Peter Bahles of the Point No Point Treaty Council - see record). Commissioner Wojt asked Mr. Gorsline if the wetlands should be considered as one instead of two separate wetlands? Jerry Gorsline responded that he feels the Planning Department staff ignored the advise of the State Department of Wildlife that there is habitat for a threatened species on this site. He feels that the staff judgement to exclude a portion of the wetland from the acreage calculation was valid, but it is an administrative position without basis in science. He feels the wetland should be viewed as a single integrated system. Commissioner Wojt then asked if the passage way (to Hood Canal) dries up during low tide? Jerry Gorsline answered that it probably does. Several unidentified people reported that the passage way never dries up. David Bricklin asked about adequacy of the buffer and the impact of a trail proposed through the buffer? Jerry Gorsline responded that the buffer must provide a screen if regular wildlife use is to continue. A 100 foot buffer would fail to provide that screening. If housing is placed next to the buffer, the wildlife usage would not continue. The proposal is for a six foot wide trail within the 100 foot buffer. If recreation use is considered an allowed use in a Category I wetland buffer, then a trail would be ap- propriate, but he feels it would be more appropriate for the trail to be limited to a three foot width and be designed and constructed in consultation with the Department of Wildlife to minimize impacts to the habitat and wetland values. Lvnda Hoffman. Eagle Management Biologist for the State Department of Wildlife, affirmed that her testimony is the truth. She reported that she has been an Avian Biologist for five years. When she began work for the State last year, the County knew that Black (Fulton) Lake was designated as a potential eagle territory because of the amount of perching activity observed during the spring. During April (1992) she observed two adult eagles perching close to the mouth where Fulton Lake comes out the outlet. At the same time there was an adult incubating on the Walker Creek nest. These were two separate adult birds which chased off another bird which indicated that they were defending a territory. Myers Biodynamics (who also conducted surveys) found four instances of birds perching within the Black Point area, and one bird perching in a tree adjacent to Fulton Lake. She stated that it appears this is a very important area for eagles. The residents of the area have been keeping track of sightings. Between Halloween and November 6, 1992 there were five eagle sightings made on Black Point. There is speculation that there is a winter roost in this area. The reason that eagles use the Fulton Lake area, Lynda Hoffman continued, is due to the waterfowl in the area. If there is a 100 foot buffer, it may keep the ducks away from the lake which will keep the eagles from securing food in the area. She stated that she doesn't know if a survey done over a six day period is adequate to determine that the mitigation will keep eagles using the area. David Bricklin asked Lynda Hoffman if she observed that the 50 foot buffer required by the Forest Practice permit, was not maintained at Fulton Lake? She reported that she observed clearing all the way down to the Lake in several places. She added that she ~ûl 18 rA~~ 00 1183 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 9 believes the State law requiring an Eagle Management Plan has been overlooked in this process. Because of the heavy eagle use, she recommends that such a plan be undertaken for this development. Mark Huth asked if Lynda Hoffman had read the Bald Eagle Study done by Myers Biodynamics, Inc. (dated May 1, 1992) and if she has an opinion about the methodology used in that study? She answered that she feels there wasn't enough time spent on the survey. Mark Huth asked how much time Ms. Hoffman would recommend be spent to do this study properly? Lynda Hoffman answered that she feels two weeks of eight hours a day would be adequate. The study by Myers does not indicate any amount of time spent by the eagles at the perch locations. The study is good for the amount of time spent and the suggested mitigation is good, but it doesn't indicate a size of buffer. She does not feel the 100 foot buffer is adequate for this wildlife species. Harry Holloway, Attorney for Mr. Boling, asked Ms. Hoffman if she had attempted to determine if the birds observed by area residents were the same birds seen a number of times by different people? Lynda Hoffman responded that the sightings by area residents were on five different days and the composition of the birds were different. It could be the same birds on different days. A map of the Black Point area showing the sightings made by area residents and a map of aerial sightings (made by the Department of Wildlife) and handwritten notes were submitted for the record. Lynda Hoffman reported that the handwritten notes were made by Mr. Arthurs who is a resident of the area. Chairman Dennison swore in Tim Rymer, Head Biologist with the State Department of Wildlife. Tim Rymer said that he has worked for the State Department of Wildlife for 16 years in Clallam and Jefferson Counties. He has submitted a letter that he doesn't agree with the Planning staff classification of the wetland. He feels the wetland should be Class I because of the use by Bald Eagles. Chairman Dennison asked if the classification indicates any specific type of use by wildlife? Tim Rymer responded that the classifica- tion just says use. Jim Pearson reported that the language from the rating system is "those wetlands that are very valuable for a particular rare species." Tim Rymer continued by noting that he concluded, because of the Myers study, that there was documented use of the wetlands by Bald Eagles and the wetlands qualified as Class I. He interpreted this project to be a high intensity use which requires a 300 foot buffer. Chairman Dennison asked what a low intensity use would be? Tim Rymer reported that he reviewed the definition section of the SEP A Guidelines and felt that the use of the site by high priority and moderate priority (State Standard) species (which he has observed personally) indicate that the area is an important one for wildlife. David Bricklin asked what priority species are? Tim Rymer responded that the State Department of Wildlife has a program for priority habitats and species which identify habitat types and species that are under pressure of possibly becoming threatened or endangered, before they actually get to that point. David Bricklin asked if a wildlife survey would be required as part of an EIS? Tim Rymer answered that such a study would be required. Commissioner W ojt asked if there are fish of sufficient size to be prey for the Osprey? Tim Rymer stated that he expects there are. He did not do a survey of the fish in the lake, but due to its connection to Hood Canal he would expect that trout and salmon species use this lake. In response to a question from David Bricklin regarding his testimony on buffers, Tim Rymer stated that it is his opinion that an increased buffer width would allow use by wildlife in the future. A smaller buffer width would allow more human disturbance which would result in a decreased amount of wildlife use. Mark Huth asked Tim Rymer if the regulation says that low intensity land uses are "land uses which are associated with low levels of human disturbance or low wetland habitat impacts including, but not limited to, passive recreation, open space, agricultural or forest management land uses" and high intensity land uses are "land uses which are associated with moderate or high levels of human disturbance or substantial wetland habitat impacts VCl 18 rA~ 00 :1184 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 10 including, but not limited to, medium and high density residential, multi-family residentia~ active recreation, commercial or industrial land uses?" Mr. Rymer indicated those are the regulations. Mark Huth then asked if Mr. Rymer feels that this project is a high intensity use? Tim Rymer stated that he felt that even though the proposal is for a certain size lot, the potential build out of further subdivision would make it a high intensity use. In addition the trail proposed is within the 100 foot buffer. David Bricklin asked if the buffer required on either use intensity would be greater than 100 feet? Mr. Rymer answered if this project is either high or low intensity use, more than a 100 foot buffer is required. The difference in buffer for high or low density use is between 200 and 300 feet for Class I. Commissioner Wojt asked if Mr. Rymer has any knowledge of how well this applicant might comply with the mitigation? Tim Rymer stated that he knows the proponent is involved in a court case on work that was done in the vicinity of an Osprey nest and a Heron rookery. Sam Boling asked Mr. Rymer if he feels that the road that goes a third of the way around the pond should be abandoned, since he doesn't feel a 100 foot buffer is adequate? Tim Rymer stated that when the road to the east of Fulton Lake was constructed it had a tremendous impact on the system. The road to the north is very well buffered and there was no timber removal in that area. That buffer is mitigating the disturbance of the road to a large degree. Sam Boling asked if it would be advantageous to have covenants placed on the property that no hunting of any kind would be allowed? Tim Rymer answered that may help to some degree depending on where the houses are located in the development and their proximity to the wetland. Dr. Carolyn Enzler was sworn in. She stated that she has been the Superintendent of the Brinnon School District for that past six years. During that time the enrollment has grown from 60 students to over 130. David Bricklin asked if an additional development of this type will create an impact on the schools? Dr. Enzler stated that the project will impact the school to the extent that it will generate more students because of proposed housing. David Bricklin said that when this project was first reviewed, Dr. Enzler had indicated that there would be a significant impact on the schools but had said it would be mitigated by a bond proposal that was on the ballot in November. Dr. Enzler explained that a facilities plan to enlarge the school was not supported by the bond proposed to the voters. There is no additional space and there is no plan to provide any additional space at this time. There is no mitigation in place to deal with this type of impact. Sam Boling asked Dr. Enzler if it is true that most of the children come from the lower income lots like the Lazy C and the Olympic Canal Tracts and not five acre tracts such as Madrona Ridge or Blue Heron Heights? Dr. Enzler answered that she can't say that the children come from low income housing. Sam Boling stated that there are 2,800 tax parcels in the Brinnon School area, and there are three tax parcels on the 80 acres he is trying to develop into 22 lots which would create 19 tax parcels. Mr. Boling noted that for every 130 tax parcels there is one child, which means that another 1/6 of a child would be added to the school enrollment from this development. Dr. Enzler stated that her testimony is that there is a severe problem in the Brinnon School District in terms of space for the existing students. The thought of more students is very frustrating. Mark Huth asked if the same concerns were raised when the School District commented on this project previously? Dr. Enzler explained that there was a long term facilities plan being proposed at that time. That plan was not successful and now the School District will have to revisit issues such as impact fees. David Bricklin asked if Dr. Enzler agreed with the formula Mr. Boling just used for determining the number of children that may come from a development of 22 lots? Dr. Enzler stated that she suspects there could be more than that, but it depends on the type of VOl 18 rA~f 00 1185 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 11 people that build houses in the subdivision. She reported the School District found that 7/10th of a student was generated from the Lazy C Development. Chairman Dennison swore in Steve Moddemeyer, representing the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. Mr. Moddemeyer stated that he is the Environmental Program Director for the Tribe and reports on cultural resources and environmental issues. He is representing the Tribal Council. The TriIJe feels there is the potential for significant impacts to archeologi- cal resources that are important not only to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, but also to the Skokomish Tribe and the people of the State of Washington. He noted that on June 22, 1992 Delbert Gilbow urged that a complete cultural resource inventory be done prior to issuance of any permit. The Skokomish Tribe and the Point No Point Treaty Council (representing four Tribes) have suggested that a cultural and archeological site survey be conducted. He asked that this survey be conducted. Archeological sites have been called the archives of treaty rights because they are physical evidence of a Tribes habitation of an area. The State mandates protection of known and unknown sites. Mr. Moddemeyer continued by noting that a staff person canoed between Fulton Lake and Hood Canal. People who are qualified are saying that this area needs to be looked at for its cultural and archeological importance. The Tribe concurs with this appeal, not only for the cultural and archeological issues, but for the broad range of issues raised. David Bricklin asked if there is a difference between archeological and cultural? The cultural significance is that this is a spiritual site for the Skokomish Tribe, Mr. Moddemeyer explained. Harry Holloway asked Mr. Moddemeyer what evidence he has to present to indicate there is a probability of archeological evidence on the site? The experts have indicated there is a potential use of the site? Mr. Moddemeyer answered that he used the word "probable" because there is a Skokomish Tribal legend about this lake. Mr. Holloway asked if there is any tangible evidence (other than the legend) to indicate "probable" use rather than "potential" use? Mr. Moddemeyer responded that the SEP A process is to inform the decision makers about potential impacts. He added that the evidence he has is the opinion of experts hired by the Tribe (Gary Wesson, Delbert Gilbow and Robert Whitlum). Commissioner Wojt asked if it is possible to canoe through the passage from the Lake to Hood Canal at low tide as well as high tide? Steve Moddemeyer said that he understands that it is possible during high tide. A canoe can be pulled up and transported into the site. Peter Bahles was sworn in by the Chairman. He stated he has taken a canoe from the open water of Hood Canal to Fulton Lake. The smallest width is 8 to 10 feet wide. He didn't do it at the highest tide, but at low tide it is a little too shallow. The stretch that is too shallow is only about 40 feet long which isn't a hard stretch to portage a canoe. Steve Hayden. board member of the Olympic Environmental Council, was then sworn in by the Chairman. He said that he is not a licensed geologist. His background, which has provided him with some knowledge of the field, is seven years as a professional ar- cheologist in the State of Arizona. He was an excavation archeologist and did a lot a cartography. The preponderance of the soils on this site are Hoodsport, gravelly, sandy loam. The depth of the soil to bedrock is from 20 to 36 inches over most of the area. A perched water table is over the glacial till and not very far below the surface. He explained that he reviewed the subarea maps that the County uses to identify potential problems with soils. On the map of slopes, most of Black Point is identified with slopes that are greater than 15%. The waste disposal suitability map characterizes Black Point as an area that varies or is generally poor for waste disposal suitability. Almost all of the Black Point area is characterized as having severe limitations for septic tanks and drain- fields, and the seasonal water table depth is listed as 0 to 3 feet. Mr. Hayden continued by noting that he feels it is extremely important, when subdivisions are proposed in areas with severe limitations, that buildout scenarios be considered, as well as the impact of the specific subdivision. The Public Works Departments has the respon- sibility of evaluating and developing mitigations for potential runoff, erosion and water Vüt 18 rM;¡: 00 1186 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 12 quality issues associated with the project. The approach taken by the Public Works Department is to evaluate only those impervious surfaces that are created by the sub- division. When this type of review is done mitigation that results is based on the least amount of impervious surface that will ever be on that site. This is a subdivision of 16 lots (five acres each), and he feels it can be assumed that there will be future subdivision of every lot. The only rational approach to analyzing the potential for storm water runoff, erosion and water quality degradation, is to analyze the impacts at build out capacity. He then submitted a letter from the Olympic Environmental Council (dated November 9, 1992) for the record. David Bricklin asked if Mr. Hayden felt that the mitigation adequately addresses the impacts for the buildout of the 22 lots of this project? Steve Hayden stated that when ADA Engineering did an analysis of the runoff from the access roads, they suggested that the runoff from the houses built on the lots would be taken care of by the standards being applied for each house. He does not agree with that assessment. Mr. Bricklin then asked what other contaminants are a concern to water quality beside septic effluent in a residen- tial development? Steve Hayden answered that many things can end up in the ditch from a residential development such as herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, and car oil. David Bricklin asked if there is any mitigation to address the water quality degradation from grease, oil, sediment and other debris after this project is completed? Steve Hayden answered that the only mitigation he has seen is the hay bales in the drainage ditches along the roads during construction. Sam Boling noted that the area of Fulton Lake Estates was approved for a 200 unit condominium and has very good soil. The roads have been constructed since before last year's 100 year floods and no erosion or sediment was moved after that event. Steve Hayden answered that he had reviewed the soil logs for Tract 6 with a staff member of the Health Department, who indicated that the soils were marginal, classic Hoodsport soils. The capacity of the soils to handle drainage and septic systems, varies from place to place on the whole site. Chairman Dennison asked Tom Morello if Mr. Hayden's characterization of the Public Works review of the project is correct? Tom Morello answered that it is. Mark Huth added that SEP A requires that the County review the project that is submitted. There is a question of when a cumulative impact analysis can take place. There is case law that says the County can't recreate the project for the proponent. Public Work's review procedure is correct under the law. Commissioner Brown added that if further subdivision of the lots is done, there will have to be another environmental review. Mark Huth reported that short plats can be exempt from the SEP A process. Jim Pearson noted that there are significant environmentally sensitive areas on this site due to soils, slopes, etc. If a lot with an environmentally sensitive area is short platted, an environmental review is required. Chairman Dennison asked at what point cumulative impacts can be addressed? Mark Huth responded that this is a question that doesn't have a definitive answer. There are 22 lots proposed which have to be considered in this environmental review. Further sub- divisions are speculative in nature. Problems can arise with SEP A when there is specula- tion about the nature and impacts of the project. Sam Boling interjected that he would add covenants to the property deeds that the lots around the lake can never be subdivided in the future. Stan Betham a resident of Black Point was sworn in by the Chairman. Mr. Betham said that the residents of this area feel that what is being done is very significant. He doesn't believe in de facto development that builds whole new towns on the basis of the short term profit motive. To let development projects proceed in a piecemeal fashion around the Brinnon area, Mr. Betham added, will lead to a different quality of life than what is expected. David Bricklin asked Mr. Betham if he feels that other approved development projects in this area have changed the landscape of the area to such an extent that the Fulton Lake project will cause significant impacts? Mr. Betham answered that he feels that is true. VOL 18 rAC- 00-18'1 ~ <I .." Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 9, 1992 Page: 13 There are a total of eight different projects in this area. David Bricklin then asked Mr. Betham to explain the existing pattern of land use in this area and if he feels this project would change that? Mr. Betham stated that the area is rather pristine, has been logged, and there is still some old growth in the area. David Bricklin asked if there is a common element between this project and Mr. Boling's Pleasant Harbor Beach project which is located directly to the north? Stan Betham answered that the water supply for this project is from the Pleasant Tides Homeowners Association water system which serves 13 lots. There would be a total of 31 lots served by this system if the Fulton Lake Estates project is added, which could potentially become 150 lots. Mr. Betham submitted two maps for the record (a Metsker map with proposed subdivisions highlighted on it and a U.S. Geological Survey map with developments highlighted). Sam Boling explained that Pleasant Harbor Beach Tracts (which is zoned for one acre tracts) is being developed into 35 lots on 125 acres to help maintain the integrity of the area as much as possible. Mark Huth asked Mr. Betham who identified the other proposed subdivisions on the U.S.G.s. map? Brian Arthurs responded that he outlined these subdivisions on the map, from the legal descriptions of the projects. Chairman Dennison asked the proponent and his representative to make their presentation. Harrv Holloway. Attorney for the applicant, asked that the Board consider continuing this hearing for another week or two since the appellants presentation took so long. Commissioner Brown moved to continue this hearing until Monday, November 23, 1992 at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS "j" t '( c; (I...., /, ~::r-~4f/ \ we. "~;. .'/_~"¡<"~'~~~__;/ - ~ ~ : . ". "'¡'. ..,.. ". ,","" ~, ;" ~ J-. ,¡. ".. --.... <, ATTEST:~"'¿!t$'o\\)-)'" ' . ~-----,_'-7':,:,:---<" Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board val. 18 rAf,' on :1188