HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111692
.'
.(~
ch~
y>
~Öþ:":
MINUTES
WEEK OF NOVEMBER 16. 1992
Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in
the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt.
Community Services Director David Goldsmith re: Creation of the Jefferson
County Health and Human Services Department: David Goldsmith reported that with the
retirement of Ella Sandvig, and the spin off of mental health counseling, the future
administration of the Human Services Department needs to be addressed. The consolidation
of the Health and Human Services Department is suggested to provide these services more
efficiently and effectively. A resolution has been drafted which appoints the Health
Department Administrator as the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services.
This resolution, if passed, would be effective January 1, 1993.
Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 109-92 creating the Jefferson
County Department of Health and Human Services. Commissioner Brown seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Appointment of Person to Fill a Vacant Position on the Shoreline Commis-
sion: After consideration of all the well qualified applicants, Commissioner Wojt moved to
appoint Judith Walls to an unexpired term on the Shoreline Commission (term will expire
March 25, 1994). Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a
vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund:
Commissioner Brown moved to approve the application for assistance from the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Relief Fund submitted for Stephen J. Gurbal in the amount of $200.00. Commissioner
Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: A man asked that Market and Maple Streets in
lrondale be checked out to see if they can be improved.
·Jt 18 r.\~; 00 :1309
-
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 2
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as presented.
Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 110-92 re: Notice of Public Hearing; 1992 Budget Appropria-
tionsÆxtensions; Various County Departments; Hearing set for Monday December 7, 1992
at 11:30 a.m.
2. HEARING NOTICE re: Changing the Name of a County Road; Braden Creek Road to
Fullerton Road and Hoh Village Road to Lower Hoh Road; Hearing set for December 7,
1992 at 11:00 a.m.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 111-92 re: Budget Transfers; Various County Departments
4. AGREEMENT re: Temporary Residence Used Exclusively for Family Hardship; 3880
Larson Lake Road, Port Ludlow; Richard L. and Mary K. Colton
5. Request for Out of State Travel; Peter G. Piccini, Sheriff's Department
6. RESOLUTION NO. 112-92 re: Establishing a Name for a Private Road; Port Ludlow;
Twinsview Court
7. RESOLUTION NO. 113-92 re: Establishing a Name for a Private Road; Port Ludlow;
Driftwood Court
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
PLANNING
James Holland re: Settin2 Public Hearin2 Date for Draft Clearin2 and Gradin2
Ordinance: Senior Planner James Holland reported that the Planning Commission sent a letter
to the Board after their Thursday evening meeting which says that they cannot review and
report on the draft Clearing and Grading Ordinance within the time period allocated.
Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that he feels without a report from the Planning
Commission, the Board should not move forward with setting a hearing on the document.
He noted that he feels the request of the Planning Commission should be respected and the
document should be referred back to them.
Sam Swanson, member of the Planning Commission, reported that they only had about four
hours to review this 56 page document. Gene Seton, Planning Commission member, added
that he feels the document is an attempt to control private property, and it should be totally
rewritten.
Commissioner Brown moved to refer this document back to the Planning Commission with
a request that they estimate a time frame for completion of their report on it. Commissioner
Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Bonnie Lichty, Skookum Jump Rope re: Presentation of Citizen Participation
and Community Development Plan for the Community Development Block Grant
Application: Bonnie Lichty presented the Board with copies of a Community Development
Plan to be submitted with the Community Development Block grant application. She noted
that she pulled this information from the Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council's
Needs Survey of July 1991 and the Jefferson 2000 survey. She reported that this plan needs
to be adopted by the Board.
Commissioner Brown asked if anyone has looked at County property for the location of this
building? Bonnie Lichty stated that the Port was approached and they were very supportive,
so Skookum didn't make any further contacts. There was also concern that the project remain
as near as possible to the current Skookum Jump Rope operations.
VGl
18 rAG~ 00:1310
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 3
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the Citizen ParticipationlHousing and Community
Development Plan and to authorize the Chairman to sign the application cover letter, the
Project Summary Form and the Community Data Summary form. Commissioner Wojt
seconded the motion. He asked if there has been discussion with the Port about project
administration and cost overruns? Bonnie Lichty reported that the Port is willing to do the
administration and absorb any cost overruns. A memorandum of understanding will be
developed for approval by the County and the Port. The Chairman called for a vote on the
motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: An Ordinance amendin2 Ordinance No. 1-84; Increasin2 the
Char2e for Processin2 Checks Returned To County Offices: Chairman Dennison opened
the public hearing for testimony on raising the fee for processing checks returned to County
Offices. Hearing no public comments, the Chairman closed the hearing.
Commissioner Brown moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 11-1116-92 raising the fee for
processing checks returned by banks to County offices from $10.00 to $15.00. Commissioner
Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes
of October 26, 1992 as corrected and the minutes of November 2, 1992 at written.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PLANNING AND BUILDING
HEARING re: Appeal of Hearin2 Examiner Decision on a Subdivision Variance
and Preliminary Plat; Bishop Gardens Lon2 Subdivision; Loren Bishop, Applicant:
Associate Planner Jerry Smith explained that this proposed long plat is located off of Prospect
Avenue, east of the Airport. This property was originally segregated into four five acre tracts
by a subdivision exemption prior to adoption of the County's Large Lot Subdivision
regulations. Prospect Avenue, as built, is located outside of the platted right-of-way. The
access to these lots also serves other adjacent five acre tracts. The proposal is to provide
access to the four northern lots off of a gravel road constructed on the existing easement.
The County Subdivision Ordinance (No. 1-75 as amended) for a long plat requires paved,
public roads, Jerry Smith reported. The applicant has asked for a variance to allow a private,
unpaved road. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the variance requests because
the variance criteria have not been satisfied. The Ordinance also requires 10% of the area of
a long plat be dedicated as open space. The applicant has proposed that the area south of,
and immediately adjacent to, easement between lots 2 and 7, and Lots 3 and 6 in the middle
of the plat. The Hearing Examiner stated that the open space area as proposed does not meet
the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. The ordinance requires half of the open space
area be useable for active recreation. Because of the location of the open space south of
Prospect and the narrowness of the easement corridor, the Hearing Examiner didn't feel that
the requirement for useable open space has been met. If the usable open space is south of
Prospect Avenue, the question of access from the lots and safety must be addressed.
Jerry Smith continued by noting that the amended Subdivision Ordinance has different
requirements for roads. A long plat can have public or private roads. The construction
standards in the amended ordinance differ from those of the Ordinance under which this
application was made. Chairman Dennison asked if the current Subdivision Ordinance would
require that a long plat have paved roads? Jerry Smith answered that the long plat may not
be required to pave the roads based on the amount of traffic generated. Prosecuting Attorney
Mark Huth reported that the new ordinance is more flexible than the old ordinance.
Chairman Dennison expressed concern that the lots of this subdivision could be re-subdivided
in the future according to the Comprehensive Plan density for the area, which would increase
Vûl 18 fAG€ 00 1.311
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 4
the need for substantially better roads. Commissioner Wojt asked if the roads are ballasted
and the proper width? Jerry Smith reported that they have not been improved. The only
requirement that the County had at the time the roads were constructed was a sixty foot access
easement. Commissioner W ojt asked what would have to be done to bring the roads to
County standards if they are not required to be paved? Jerry Smith reported that the travelling
surface of the road would have to be widened to 26 feet and ballast must be added.
The Chairman opened the public hearing on this appeal of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations.
Chuck MacLearnsberry. representing the developer, stated that they are willing to work with
the staff to make the open space acceptable. As far as the road variances, this subdivision
is essentially dividing four lots into eight lots. Prospect Avenue and the roads to the west
and north are currently constructed. Staff recommended that the existing roads to the west
and north be brought to County standards for width, ballast and crushed surface and the
applicant is willing to do that. The full construction of these roads including paving would
amount to about 1,500 lineal feet of road to serve four lots. Whether or not the road is
dedicated isn't as much of a concern as bringing the road up to the public road standard. If
the County requires that the road be dedicated, Mr. Bishop could ask the adjacent owners to
dedicate the required thirty feet. They are proposing, however, that the road be left private
and be brought to present County standards (gravel surface) within exiting easements.
Chairman Dennison asked if the present Subdivision Ordinance allows the County the latitude
to change the requirements for roads based on the amount of use? Commissioner Brown
noted that the Public Works Department was given the latitude by the Board to review all
subdivision applications and allow a variation from the previous subdivision ordinance
regulations depending on the amount of traffic projected to use the roads.
Chairman Dennison again stated that there is a potential for these lots to be further subdivided.
Commissioner Brown asked if the roads are built in the center of the easement? Chuck
MacLearnsberry stated that the roads are within the 60 foot easement, but they wander in it.
Chuck MacLearnsberry answered that the most expedient way to orient the road more toward
the centerline of the easement would be to widen to the appropriate side. To try to move the
road more toward the centerline of the easement would require road construction.
Chairman Dennison noted that he wouldn't have a problem granting the variance for the roads
if there is assurance that the lots wouldn't be further subdivided. Mark Ruth reported that
the project proponents have indicated that there are Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's) in place that restrict further subdivision of the lots. CC&R's are not enforceable
by the County. The subdivision property owners enforce CC&R's.
John Swallow stated that they are trying to build affordable homes on acreage. He noted
that it has been hard in some cases to find a suitable septic system site on these 2.5 acre
parcels. The water availability is adequate, but the soils for on-site septic systems are not
suitable for further subdivision of some of these sites.
Chairman Dennison asked what would be wrong with putting a restriction on the plat that
states that the lots cannot be subdivided further, since the applicant has indicated they would
have CC&R's to do that? Mark Huth answered that future owners would buy their property
subject to that condition, and the CC&R's would bind them. Commissioner Brown stated that
any work that the project proponent does on the road to bring it up to County road standards
(ballast and crushed rock) goes along way toward improving the road for a higher density.
Chairman Dennison stated that it appears that the project proponent is more than willing to
work on the open space requirements and the other problems. Mark Huth interjected that the
Board shouldn't pass on this request until the open space issue is resolved and a proposal is
presented. Commissioner Brown asked if open space is to be dedicated only for the people
who live in that plat? Mark Huth and Jerry Smith indicated that is correct. The discussion
turned to the dedicated right-of-way south of Prospect Avenue. Jerry Smith reported that the
proposal is to shift the right-of-way to where the road is actually constructed.
YGt 18 rA~~ 00 13:12
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 5
Loren Bishop stated that he would like to be able to use the right-of-way of Prospect Avenue
(which is located south of the actual location of the road) as open space. Easements can be
dedicated across the open space for each of the streets that run into that area from the south.
Chairman Dennison pointed out that the Hearings Examiner rejected the project proponents
open space plan because if easements are granted for each of the roads, the open space would
be chopped into five pieces. He didn't feel that would meet the intent of the ordinance. The
Ordinance says that 50% of the open space is to be usable for active recreation.
Loren Bishop explained that the proposal is to use the open space on the north side of
Prospect Avenue (a 60 foot wide corridor between the lots) as the portion for active
recreation. The Hearing Examiner didn't like the corridor. Mr. Bishop added that they are
more than willing to re-configure that portion of the open space to make it work.
Commissioner Wojt asked Loren Bishop if these parcels will be sold as just raw land or as
a residence and land? Loren Bishop indicated they would be sold as a residence and land.
Commissioner Wojt added that selling the lots that way would make it hard to further
subdivide the lot in the future.
The Board directed the Planning staff to work with the project proponent to develop a
proposal for the open space and wording to address restricting further subdivision of the lots.
Commissioner Brown moved to continue the hearing to December 7, 1992 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The discussion then continued regarding the configuration of the open space and whether a
long strip is adequate for active use of the space. Loren Bishop added that there have not
been any easements dedicated on the plat. Commissioner Brown noted that the easement
dedication can be taken care of during the right-of-way vacation hearing and property
exchange. Commissioner Brown pointed out that there can be many interpretations of "active
use." Jerry Smith reported that one of the mitigation measures under the SEPA threshold
determination is that the recreation open space area of the subdivision be reconfigured to
provide suitable area for children (preferably a playground) for active recreational use. This
mitigation was based on policies in the Tri Area Community Plan. The discussion then turned
the amount of property necessary for a playground. Loren Bishop stated that he helped with
the playground at the Irondale Park and felt that it could fit into a 60 foot wide space.
Commissioner Brown added that he doesn't feel that a 60 foot wide space would put a
restriction on making an active recreational space.
Commissioner Brown asked if the vacation of right-of-way and exchange of property has been
scheduled? John Swallow explained that the final platting and the vacation/exchange of right-
of-way were to be done simultaneously.
Commissioner Brown noted that if the Board feels that a 60 foot wide open space satisfies
the intent of the ordinance, and the roads are brought up to current County standards (without
hard surfaces), then there isn't a need to continue this hearing. Jerry Smith asked about the
proposed language to restrict further subdivision of the lots? Mark Huth advised that the
approval can be granted contingent on that language being developed.
Commissioner Brown moved to cancel the continuation of the hearing. Commissioner Wojt
seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison then read from the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation that the open space be dedicated and not be an easement. Mark Huth
explained that an easement means that the property owner still owns the property, but people
can use the property for the purpose of the easement. A dedication takes that amount of
property out of the adjacent lots, which decreases the lot sizes. Jerry Smith added that the
dedicated open space would be a separate tract in the subdivision. After discussion of the
technical meaning of dedication, Mark Huth explained that he doesn't feel, for purposes of
this plat, that it is a problem to have the open space as an easement. The Chairman called
for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
VOL
18 rAÇ;~ 00 :131.3'
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 6
Commissioner Brown moved to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the variance
requests and to approve them with the following conditions: 1) that the roads be brought to
County standards without hard surfacing, 2) that the open space easement, as it is, fulfills the
need and if the project proponent would like to change the configuration of the open space
they can as long as it still meets the requirement, and 3) that wording be placed on the face
of the plat that the lots will not be subdivided further. Commissioner Wojt seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth reported that written findings and
conclusions are necessary. The Board directed the Planning staff and the Prosecuting Attorney
to develop the findings and conclusions in support of their decision.
The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and reconvened
on Tuesday. All three Commissioners were present at the following hearing.
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
HEARING re: Comments on Draft EIS for the Inn at Port Ludlow and the
Port Ludlow Development Pr02ram; Pope Resources; at the Port Ludlow Fire Hall:
Chairman Dennison explained the process for the hearing and then introduced the Board
members and Planning Department Director Craig Ward, and Associate Planner Jim Pearson.
Susan Thomas, Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator, explained that in order for
comments to be answered in the final EIS documents, they must be submitted to the
Commissioners in writing. She then reported that during the course of drafting the EIS, a
Pope Resources request was granted to allow a division of the 10 year development plan and
the specific Inn at Port Ludlow project into two seperate Environmental Impact Statements.
The EIS on the development outlines the full 10 year plan and does not have site specific
information. The other EIS is on the Inn at Port Ludlow project with its associated multi-
family and single family dwellings and changes to the mill pond. The volume of technical
reports supports both EIS documents.
The main differences between the development EIS and the project EIS are:
· The conceptual (10 year development plan) document operates on a set of
assumptions which uses models to analyze what might happen if certain actions are
taken during the 10 year period.
The development consists of approximately 700 homes on 1,200 acres.
500+ would be single family units with 169 multi-family units. There is
45,000 square feet of commercial development proposed in the existing
commercial area which would not take place until about the year 2000.
The Inn at Port Ludlow is the first project scheduled in this phased
development. Other phases would include changes to the marina and the
golf course. There would be about 800 acres designated in perpituity as
open space. In the project alternative there would be the same number
of dwellings, the same amount of commercial space, but the development
structures would be clustered. This would leave about 347 acres in the
southwest end of the project site that wouldn't be developed during the
10 year period. That area could be subject to development after that
time, however. There would be 85 acres of designated open space in the
alternative proposal.
.
The project (Inn at Port Ludlow) document is much more specific. The
information given is on this specific project.
Susan Thomas concluded her presentation by explaining the areas of concern addressed by
each of the environmental impact statements.
The Chairman then opened the hearing for public comments.
VOl
18 r~l;~ 0013:14
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 7
Quentin Goodrich stated that he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chimacum
School District and the elected representative of the Port Ludlow area on that Board. He
reported that the school district will submit a final written comment within the comment
period. He then read the following statement: "A number of grossly inaccurate assumptions
have led the proponent to conclusions that the impact on the school district will be minimal
and therefore need for mitigating actions very limited. These include:
Number 1 - (Table 25) The District's permanent facilities with an estimated capacity of 1,270
were adequate to accomodate the District's student needs during the '91-'92 school year.
However, with an unprecedented enrollment increase this fall and a resulting October 1
enrollment of 1,325 students, we find ourselves 55 students over our permanent housing
capacity.
Number 2 - based upon our recent enrollment increase, our population trend data will be
revised to reflect and project enrollment based upon the 5 1/2% student enrollment increase
that the school district has experienced annually over the last four years. It appears that a
significant portion of the increase we are currently experiencing may be attributable to the
unmitigated impacts of the primary and secondary employments resulting from already
approved Ludlow subdivisions under development. Skip item number 3.
Number 4 - Facilities, equipment and on-going operations: The State schools revenue is
assumed to accrue to the Chimacum School District. This is not the case. State school
revenue is paid directly to the State where it is reallocated to all districts within the State.
Any increase in State revenue as a result of growth has no impact on the revenues of the
local district where the growth occurs, therefore the $3,339,796.00 in table 26 must be
eliminated as additional revenue accruing to the schools. A second assumption in this section
is that the District's maintenance and operations levy is an established rate per $1,000, where
an increase in assessed valuation will increase District revenue. Quite the contrary is true.
The M & 0 levy is a set dollar amount. Any increase in the assessed valuation merely
reduces the rate per $1,000 at which the levy is collected, therefore the $1,262,335.00 in table
26 must be eliminated from consideration as additional revenue accruing to the schools.
It should be noted at this point that our present levy was expected to generate an addition-
al $711.00 per student. It's used to offset the shortfall in the State's basic education funding.
Any increase in student population will merely dilute the dollars available to serve our present
population. A third assumption in this section is that the bond rate will continue to be
collected at $1.15 per thousand. Current bond collections are for defraying the cost of
facilities which have already been constructed. Once again, any increase in assessed value
will merely reduce the collection rate and will not provide any additional income for the
construction of new facilities. Once again, the $957,561.00 reflected in table 26 must be
eliminated from consideration as mitigating income to the District as a result of this
development.
Summarizing this section, contrary to the assumptions presented by the proponent, no
additional revenues will accrue to the Chimacum School District as a result of the increase
in property values from the Ludlow development program. In fact, each additional student,
as a result of this development, will cause a $711.00 shortfall in Maintenance and Operations
levy revenue and a shortage of 116 square feet of classroom space. Based upon the seven
areas, the other areas I won't take time to read, of inaccurate assumptions, briefly outlined
here, the Chimacum School District finds the draft EIS related to public schools, unacceptable.
The report both misstates and understates the probable adverse impact of the 700 unit
residential development on the Chimacum School District and offers no impact mitigation to
offset even the proponents demonstrated additional costs of $2,135,347.00 on Table 29. The
District recommends that Jefferson County require the developer to mitigate the impacts on
the public schools prior to project approva1."
Ron Haworth. representing Jefferson County Fire District #3, said that the Fire District is a
small community fire district, primarily volunteer in nature. It serves the community at this
time, in an adequate manner. There is some paid staff and a minimal number of volunteers.
The District has a great deal of difficulty gaining additional volunteers because of the type
VOL
18 fArl 00 1-3:15
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 8
of community in which they live. The proposed development will not enhance the number
of people who will be attracted to serve as volunteer firefighters. As a result, fire department
backbone will need to be constructed through mitigation of this particular development.
A comparison with other fire departments throughout the State was made in the EIS. They
used Pacific County #1, Whatcom County #13, Kitsap County #2, Thurston County #12, and
Kitsap County Fire District #10 for comparison. In each of these communities, there is a
community center, a business area within the community and a work force from which to
attract people to be active volunteer firefighters. That doesn't exist in the Port Ludlow area.
The comparison used is not adequate to meet the impact to the Fire District.
Mr. Haworth then reviewed the suggested mitigation.
· The sprinkler system in the Inn will have fast acting heads. That is not a mitigation
to the impact because it is a requirement of the Building Code under Section 38.
· The smoke detectors are also a requirement of the Uniform Building Code under
Section 12.10.
· The installation of a sprinkler monitoring system is required by that UBC, Section
38.
· The offer of extending a post cabinet to the roof of the building and interior within
the building is an option of the developer and something that is not actually
required. That would be of assistance.
· The auxiliary power is required for the purpose of activating the elevators, by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
· The fire hydrants are required by Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.301.
· The stairwell to the roof is required by the Uniform Building Code, in Section 33.06
· The driveway being sprinkled is required under the Uniform Building Code, Section
38.
There isn't anything being suggested as mitigating the impact to the Fire District that really
does. They make mention in the draft that the building would require the need of a fire truck
with an aerial ladder to get to the upper levels. Since it would require technical people to
operate that equipment, they suggest that the Fire District not buy this equipment. This would
not resolve the problem. If there are technical, highly qualified people required to operate the
equipment, then those people should be part of the mitigation for the project.
There is a discussion about using personnel on staff (of the Inn) to become firefighters. Fire
fighters in the State are required to go through specific training to be qualified. What they
would be doing is training their own people to serve within their own facility and not serve
the community.
To mitigate the need to provide emergency medical services by designating the Manager of
the Inn would mean that the Manager would have to be there 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year.
The mitigation list for the Inn could also be considered in the overall development DEIS.
The traffic impacts regarding the number of accidents that the Fire District will be dealing
with was not addressed. The numbers of incidents that will be generated by this type of
overall development is grossly underestimated.
Volunteer personnel are trained to the same level as career people. The big difference is
availability. If the people are not available, you don't have a service. Volunteer firefighters
in this area are extremely difficult to come by, and the volunteer staff cannot be expected to
be available.
They are using taxes that will be collected to mitigate impact. The taxes that are collected
are not intended to mitigate the impact of a development. They are to be used to provide
services to the community. If the impact of this facility and the build out of this
development is not recognized and something done the services enjoyed today in this
community will be significantly reduced and there will be incidents that will go without Fire
Department response. Mr. Haworth asked the Board to consider these comments and that
: Vûl
18 rM;~ 00 .13:16
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 9
they be included in the final EIS document. They will submit written comments which
includes information on the financial impact, before the deadline.
Rod Kaseguma. special consultant to Fire District #3, stated that the District is concerned that
the EIS for the overall development of Port Ludlow is being viewed in isolation. They feel
that the EIS must be viewed in conjunction with the Growth Management Act requirements
that are now imposed upon the County. The other developments occurring around the Port
Ludlow area, such as in subdivisions south of the area should also be considered. The
Growth Management Act requires that the County, at this point in time, consider where the
urban growth areas will be in the County. The Act requires that development of the
Comprehensive Plan be in accordance with County Planning policies and the County must put
together a new Comprehensive Plan by next July. They are investigating whether this EIS
and this project is appropriately fitting into the grand scheme of things that must be in place
by next July. They are also concerned that the areas proposed for development south of the
Port Ludlow area are not being considered in the EIS process.
Grant Sharpe. retired professor of wild land recreation at the University of Washington (and
University of Michigan). Mr. Sharpe stated that he finds the Port Ludlow plan lacking in
discussion on the subject of public space allocated for outdoor recreation. He said that he is
bewildered as to how this plan could get this far without an alarm being sounded by someone
in the County recognizing that there is no State park, no County park or unincorporated area
dedicated for park space. He suggested that the new County Commissioners give Jefferson
County the leadership necessary to establish a County Park Department, complete with a paid
Park Director. Park space is allocated on the basis of population density. The Port Ludlow
area is a fast growing community that depends on the County to look after its recreation
needs. The only land available in the Port Ludlow area is in the ownership of Pope
Resources. The park land needed is space for picnicking, hiking and walking, viewing
platforms or water and mountains, playgrounds, horseshoe pits and other forms of recreation
found in retirement communities. Mr. Sharpe added that he does not include recreation
buildings or commercial golf courses in this category. He proposed two or more areas in the
overall development plan, be dropped from residential use and be left as dedicated space for
a variety of recreation opportunities.
Herman Schweizer. resident of Port Ludlow, speaking in place of Al Weber. He read a letter
considered by the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council. "Critical to the successful
conclusion of the EIS process is the monitoring of mitigation measures identified in the draft
EIS. Provision for this is contained in the State Environmental Protection Act known as
SEP A. The first step is to precisely identify each measure in the DEIS that requires
mitigation. We need to keep in mind that the final EIS becomes a guideline for the
developer extending over ten years. Accordingly omissions, errors or vagueness permitted at
this point can have a far reaching detrimental effect upon Port Ludlow, the residents of
Jefferson County, and the environment. For each measure requiring monitoring the following
becomes necessary;
· Why is the measure being recommended, for example, to protect the water quality of the
bay;
· What action must be completed? Describe steps necessary, for example, build retention
ponds to control water runoff;
· Who is responsible? for example, the applicant shall, and so on;
· Where is the action to take place? Specify specific sites in the bay where sampling is to
be done;
· When must each action be taken? For example, on or before a certain date of each month.
The EIS must avoid vague terms such as should, encourage, study further, could, etc. These
actions do not meet the legal definition of mitigation. There also needs to be provision for
issuance of Stop Work Orders if any developer does not adhere to mitigation provisions
spelled out in the EIS. Monitoring must be impartial and be the exclusive responsibility of
the County. This function should not be delegated. It needs to be carried out by a County
employee who has no other duties, or by someone on a personal services contract with the
County. Because of the importance of this position we recommend that the incumbent report
VOL
18 r~ 00 1-3:17
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 10
directly to the County Commissioners. Financing of this position should be by the developers.
For this person, an initial predetermined fee should be collected and placed in a separate
account for each developer. Appropriate charges should then be made as they are incurred
by the monitor. This account would be replenished as needed by the developers. Obviously
the County is not funded to cover the cost of this on-going monitoring. Since each developer
stands to benefit from his developments, it is only logical they incur these costs as provided
for in WAC 197.11.660 and 197.11.708.
As a further guideline for consideration, we are attaching a draft of a position description
titled "Compliance Monitor" which we feel is absolutely essential. In working through the
EIS process, all of us, including County government and the developer have had to learn a
lot. To help in the learning process we've contacted another County and they gave
generously of their time and furnished us a complete set of their manuals and procedures to
environmental impact statements. The ideas contained above are reflective of their operating
procedures. Your serious consideration to our request, mainly the proper monitoring of the
EIS, is very much appreciated. When considering the consequences of not having a
monitoring system, it's possible effect on our fragile environment, and considering the
destruction that has already taken place, it is inconceivable that there not be stringent
monitoring systems."
Ann Ouantock. President, Protect Ludlow Bay Committee, stated that she wants the
Commissioners to realize that this is a property rights issue. The property rights of many
small local landowners, lined up against the property rights of a large absentee owner. She
asked that the Commissioners consider the local property owners who are seriously effected
by the project that this large, absentee landowner is promoting. She added that she will
submit written comments that cover many issues and then reviewed two major issues:
Sewage Treatment Plant: The sewage treatment plant and its impact on water quality in
the bay is dismissed casually in these Environmental Impacts statements. It is a critical
piece of the cumulative impact assessment. In 1986, in an EIS prepared for the sewage
treatment plant, it was determined that there would be 640,000 gallons per day that this
plant could handle to service 1,868 hookups. The DOE and the County accepted the
certainty of overcapacity at full build out in July and August when 700,000 gallons per
day would be running through the treatment plant. The latest estimate by the developer
is that this plant could handle 2,100 hookups. When Pope Resources Vice-president,
David Cunningham, was asked about this at a meeting, he said that more hookups could
be accommodated by the plant because people are conserving water now. She asked if
the effort of people to conserve water is based on this year's drought or is it based on a
permanent change in people's behavior patterns? Is the developer running a campaign to
maintain decreased water use? No. Are all the new homes being built with water
conserving showerhead's, faucets, and toilets? No. The primary error is in calculating
sewer hookups on the basis of average use, not peak usage. Port Ludlow is a peak use
community. In the winter the rainbirds have flown to Arizona, the resort is deserted, the
bay is empty of boats. In the summertime, the rainbirds have come home with lots of
guests. The resort is popping, the marina is full of visiting boats. Add all of the summer
activity to a factor of the prevailing north wind which holds everything that floats to the
surface of the Bay in the Bay, and you are assuring that we have pollution in the
summertime. The problem is exacerbated by the number of plant malfunctions that occur
during the summer months, when the pressure on the treatment plant is at the peak.
She noted that she has a number of specific questions that should be answered before
development at Port Ludlow is continued:
How many hookups are actually proposed?
How many hookups does the hotel require? The developer has figured it for the
number of rooms in the hotel (35).
Do hotel rooms really equate to a family's use of water?
Does a family wash it's towels and sheets everyday?
Is the restaurant use the same as a family use?
Does the 2,100 hookups include the more than 700 lots in the north Bay
development that have been sold with a hookup guarantee but are not yet built on?
VOL
18 rA~ 00 :131.8
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 11
She asked that the County avoid the errors of the past when the sewage treatment plant was
over capacity before the developer had completed the plan made for that plant.
Monitoring: Ann Quantock stated that she agrees with Mr. Schweizer that some kind of
developer fees should be impose to pay for a County employee to keep track of what the
developer is doing.
The developer has a miserable track record in complying with monitoring requirements. The
latest example is the water quality monitoring plan that was approved by the County. It
included a requirement that every fall in the first heavy rain, sampling would be done. That
was not done in 1991 or 1992. The developer apparently felt that he had the right to
unilaterally decide not to comply with the monitoring requirement. She asked that the County
make sure that any requirements imposed on the developer are complied with.
Frank Siler. stated that he feels the EIS is a fine document. He disagrees with some of the
testimony that has been given and he will submit his comments in writing.
Robert Herbst. resident of Port Ludlow, stated that he is going to address transportation and
has a prepared outline that he will submit. There are two major concerns in the area of
transportation:
1) A safe workable route between Port Ludlow and the Hood Canal Bridge.
The basic reference for this issue is Table 19, page 3-91 of the Development
Program DEIS. Level of service is an important consideration for transportation.
The Appendix refers to levels A through F. Level of service A (best - not aware
of other cars on the road), Band C (beginning to be effected by other cars on the
road) are probably reasonable. Level D is high density traffic, which has stable
flow. Level E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level (all speeds
are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value). Mr. Herbst stated that this
document gives the feeling that if the level of service gets to level F, the cure is
to bring it back up to Level E, or D. On the Olympic Peninsula, levels D, E, and
F are not acceptable.
2) Congestion within the development particularly from Oak Bay Road to Teal Lake Road.
There are three options to get to the Hood Canal Bridge (from Port Ludlow): 1)
Paradise Bay Road, 2) Teal Lake Road, and 3) Beaver Valley Road. Paradise Bay
Road will not work. This road is at a level F right now and the proximity of the
bridge makes it almost impossible to raise that level of service. Teal Lake Road
is partially unpaved, very windy, and steep. It would be very difficult to make an
acceptable service level over the 10 years period. The Beaver Valley Road is the
best option. It has very open, long views at the intersection. It is the logical way
to bring cars in and out of the subdivision. The traffic counts for the intersection
of Teal Lake Road and State Route 104 was conducted in June of 1981. All of the
other traffic counts that are the basis for the information in the DEIS were
conducted in April of this year. If those counts had been made in July or August
they would have been significantly different and would have indicated a more severe
problem than is stated in the documents.
Mr. Herbst concluded by noting that they feel that the space of 1.6 miles on Paradise Bay
Road from Oak Bay down to the intersection of Teal Lake Road is going to be a real
problem. There are 12 roads and/or driveways coming into that section of road. There will
be in ten years time, 10,800 trips going in and out of the shopping center. The Recreation
Center interchange is dangerous right now. The County needs to give serious thought to
solving this problem. At the very least the County should only approve alternative two for
the Inn, which would reduce the traffic somewhat. They feel that a better solution is to
approve the Inn only and eliminate the planned residential and commercial proposals for the
area surrounding the Inn.
Larrv Lawson. stated that he is addressing the north aquifer. In Supplement E (on
groundwater), Figure 6 is a graph reflecting the state of health of the aquifer. It shows the
draw down, the static level and the pumping level and the difference above or below average
VOl
18 rA(j~ 00 131.9
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 12
annual rainfall. It appears there is a consistent decline until a point where the average annual
rainfall goes up 25 inches. At that point the pumping level of the aquifer goes back up to
60 gallons per minute and there is a stabilization of the static level of the aquifer. It appears
as if the aquifer is in constant decline.
He then commented that on taxes, Pope is glvmg a figure on the tax base that is pretty
generous, but they are not deducting the amount of taxes that they pay now. That will
decrease the current tax base. It also appears that every time the population goes up 13 to
15 percent, individual taxes go up 30 to 42 percent. In the last five years, Mr. Lawson noted
that his taxes have gone up from 34 to 53 percent. No matter how much larger the tax base
is, it appears that the taxpayers are helping subsidize this development.
Chuck McConnell, speaking for the Board of Directors Bayview Village Association, a Pope
development in the South Bay. Mr. McConnell made the following statement regarding the
earth section of the DEIS submitted for the Port Ludlow Development program. "As a
development that involved the moving of more than 136,000 cubic yards of soil to
accommodate only 55 lots, we can be used by the County as an example of the developers
ability to handle the responsibilities of earth moving without damaging the environment.
Bayview Village has suffered four significant landslides in the past two winters. The
developers own studies point out why these slides occurred and what should have been done
to prevent future slides. The developer has not, however, taken all the recommended actions.
We fear there will be additional landslides. The developer refuses to provide our Board with
information about the condition of our slopes. They will not cooperate with the Board in an
investigation of the area that the Board believes may have high risk of future failure. And,
they refuse to negotiate with our Board about guaranteeing to repair the slopes should future
slides occur. The continued failure of slopes in Bayview Village poses a threat to the
environment, as well as to our property. A preliminary report of our consulting soils
engineering firm indicates that one slope with a high risk of failure lies directly above a
stream that flows directly into the Bay. Two high risk areas that contain approximately
10,000 cubic yards of un-compacted soil lay above our storm water settling pond. While we
favor continued development at Port Ludlow, we also recommend the incorporation of two
mitigating measures. As mitigation measure in the EIS we request the County to require the
developer to correct their past mistakes before allowing the developer to build more such
sites. Secondly we suggest that the developer pay for the monitoring of and the issuance of
a public report relating to future earth moving activities, especially on slopes, by an
independent soils engineering firm that would be selected by the County for this purpose."
Mr. McConnell stated the their comments would be present in full by a letter from their
Attorney, Malcom S. Harris.
John Reseck, resident of Port Ludlow and Marine Biologist. Mr. Reseck stated that he was
the Chief Investigator for the State of California who designed, wrote and monitored an EIS
that Signal Oil was required to prepare for the State. He stated that the majority of the
people in the Port Ludlow area and the people who will move into the area, will do so
because of the proximity of the community to the waterfront. There is almost nothing said
in the DEIS about the water and the Bay quality (less than 100 lines in the total document).
The documents specifically state "neither marine invertebrates or fish were identified to
taxonomic group or species." It is inconceivable that an EIS document would be presented
with no qualitative or quantitative data on the species involved in the studies. If everything
in the Bay was killed there would be no way of showing that, because there is no previous
data that speaks to anything that lives there. He asked the Board if this is just an oversight
or if it is "selective neglect?" He suggested that some endemic indicator organism be selected
from the infauna and monitored at least on a annual basis. This monitoring should be both
quantitative and qualitative. It would be a very minimum of monitoring, but it would act as
a baseline to tell what is going on in the comm unity. The EIS also proposes ways to control
the silt problem during construction. The discharge of this pollution into receiving waters
would not significantly impact water quality or fisheries resources, if water quality control
features are properly designed, installed and maintained. He noted he agrees with that, but
VOL
18 rAt' 00 1320
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 13
needs to know that the proper control features are in fact installed and maintained. The
process needs to be under constant and daily monitoring when it's going on.
In conclusion Mr. Reseck noted that he is concerned that no monitoring of any substance has
been proposed in the marine environment. Only superficial testing of water quality is being
done. The build up of organic wastes from an increase in sewer output is not addressed at
all in the document. I feel certain that this project will be given the County's consent as well
as future projects. The County's job is not to stop development, but to control it so that it
progresses in an orderly manner with as little negative impact as possible.
Rae Belkin. read the following statement. "The proponent, Pope Resources, states that one of
the objectives for the Inn project site is to provide the community with a signature building.
A prominent image for the community. When most people bought property here they did so
for reasons other than having a building as their prominent image. The better image would
be the natural beauty that surrounds the area which is slowly being bulldozed, leveled and
cleared away. To realize rural housing and village densities, is a dichotomy, a division into
two contradictory groups. In this case we have rural versus density. The Inn project will
have significant impacts by obstructing views, by removing vegetation, by losing open space,
by the alteration of the natural character of the area, and by the intensity of its development.
To say that the opportunity to restore portions of the site to native vegetation would be lost,
is absurd. The area would only need to be restored because of the bull dozing and grading
which would take place at the site. To say that because an urban designation exists, the
developer must then design and build a dense housing development to fulfill the definition,
is absurd. To say, to not build the Inn and its surrounding structures would cause a lost
opportunity to improve the wildlife habitat and water quality, is absurd. The remaining acres
covered by the programmatic part of the DEIS contains many built-in land use questions.
Many elements of Port Ludlow's natural environment are fragile resources which are sensitive
to the impacts of urban development. These resources are labeled as environmentally sensitive
areas. Certain areas which might be considered to fall in an environmentally sensitive area
are scheduled to be built, even though the Port Ludlow development program says the
building sites would be located to preserve vegetation, prevent intrusion into environmentally
sensitive areas, and maximize views. The idea of maximizing views unfortunately usually
means clear cutting or vegetation removal. And in this case, it might include the creative dis-
placement of over 590,000 cubic yards of soil.
Here is another dichotomy, we have preserving and preventing versus removing and doing.
These environmentally sensitive areas have been mapped by Jefferson County and are either
touched by or are overlayed by colored definitions corresponding to the following map titles:
Aquifer Recharge, 100 Year Flood Hazard Area, Ponding and Flooding, Compressibility, Slope
and Slope Stability. The combination of steep slopes, erosion hazard areas, impervious
surfaces and compressibility leads one to see the need for careful monitoring of future site
approvals and a close alliance between the architects, engineers, contractors and Jefferson
County Building Inspectors or EIS monitors. To broaden the picture regarding these
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Section 6 of the Jefferson County Implementing Ordinance,
State Environmental Policy Act or SEP A, states that these natural areas may have severe
limitation to development or the development can severely impact the natural area. Since the
proponent wants to develop the property in concert with natural site characteristics and in
accordance with the land use goals, policies, and standards of Jefferson County, then perhaps
alternatives to developing the entire 1,200 acres, other than what has been presented in the
DEIS as alternatives one and two, should be proposed. A second look at the County land use
maps seems in order so no mistakes are made and the rest of greater Port Ludlow and the
County doesn't have to foot the bill, and increase taxes and propose levies, to deal with
impacts caused by the scope of this development." Rae Belkin concluded by noting that
maps will be submitted that will show the impact of the development on the ESA's.
Jim Presley. resident of Port Ludlow, stated that he will submit detailed comments in writing.
He added that there is data available that indicates the sewer treatment plant is more than
capable of processing the output of the entire community after build out, including complete
build out in the north Bay. There are also rules and regulations that impose certain
VOl
18 fAr~~ 00 :1321
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 14
requirements on the developer that prevent them in advance, from proceeding with the
development beyond the capacity of the treatment plant.
Robert B. Ammerman. resident of Port Ludlow and retired Lieutenant of the Seattle Police
Department. Mr. Ammerman stated that police services should be included in the DEIS per
WAC 197.11.444 subsection 2.12.ii. Washington State uses a uniform crime reporting system.
Crime in Washineton State. (1992 Annual Report) pages 2 to 4, shows the average of 63
offenses for 1,000 population. As population increases there is an increased demand for more
police services. Transients and temporary laborers increase the police services 2.2 times the
services required by permanent residents. Community support services will bring more
businesses into the area. This means more people plus an added increase of Part II crimes.
He then noted the following police service comparison with other marine areas:
Gig Harbor 3,310 population 9 officers
Long Beach 1,230"" 6 officers
Port Townsend 7,230"" 10 officers
Ocean Shores 2,400"" 8 officers
LaConnor 720"" 4 officers
City of Bainbridge 4,800" " 7 officers
Jefferson County 14,370" "18 officers (not including P.T.)
(one officer per 794 population which is about average).
Mr. Ammerman noted that his concerns are:
Traffic problems with a huge influx of temporary labor and new residents in the area.
With the developer targeting people over the age 55, there is concern for older pedestrians
in the area.
Extra Police - Where will the money come from for the extra police that will be needed?
Julie Jaman. Olympic Environmental Council, explained that the OEC joined in the scoping
process for this EIS. They proposed that the County approve an independent coordinator to
be paid for by Pope Resources. Susan Thomas has been that Coordinator and they are very
impressed with the work she has done. They believe the process has been effective as is
evident by the citizen participation. They would like to see the County continue with this
type of independent coordinator process for future forest conversions and subdivision develop-
ments in the County.
Jim Watson. stated that his comments are limited to the impacts on Fire District #3. The
DEIS is inadequate because it evades the real issue, which is - can protection be provided by
volunteers for fire fighting and emergency medical support? Are funds adequate to provide
the specialized equipment needed for the types of buildings planned? The review of the two
DEIS documents and the comparison of the Pope Resources fiscal data by the Chairman of
the 1990-91 Blue Ribbon Panel resulted in the following preliminary conclusions:
1) The tax revenues generated by the projected assessed valuation, assuming a total of
700 units over the development period, are probably sufficient to support the
additional normal fire fighting capabilities required. However, sufficient funds to
support the projected capital outlays, given realistic price estimates, are doubtful.
2) The multi-story, 36 unit Inn and the surrounding three story multi-family units
require some type of platform fire truck capable of directing fire retardants at the
upper levels and rescuing occupants. Projected revenues are insufficient to cover
the capital investment for the truck and the building to house it.
3) Additional full time personnel are required to service the platform truck, as well as
to provide sufficient personnel to cover normal fire fighting and emergency medical
needs. The population age group at Port Ludlow does not provide an adequate
volunteer force.
4) There are existing multi-story buildings in Port Ludlow which reasonably demand
a platform fire truck. The existing situation, brought about by prior Pope Resources
development, and the Inn at Port Ludlow project, are justification to consider a
developer fee to pay for the extraordinary capital requirements.
David Cunnineham. Pope Resources, stated that two community workshops have been held
(October 27 and November 11, 1992) to try to make people comfortable with the EIS process
lV(1.
18 rA('~ on :1322
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 15
and to introduce the proposals that are shown in the EIS documents, talk about the alterna-
tives, their impacts, and mitigation. They are here primarily to listen, because this is the
public's opportunity to speak on these documents. He noted they would submit some detailed
comments on the documents by the November 26, 1992 deadline.
He then read the following statement. "First with the respect to the scope of the documents -
many weeks and considerable public debate preceded your (the County) decision last spring
to set the menu of research topics. And given the SEP A requirements that your Board insure
that the EIS is concise and that it only address those issues related to probable, significant,
adverse impacts, (key words) it seems to us that the scope of both documents as prepared by
our consultant and reviewed by the County, are quite adequate. And this is particularly true
for the programmatic draft EIS's on the ten year development plan, where the level of
environmental analysis, I think, exceeds that required by SEP A. SEP A has some very
specific, non project proposal requirements.
Secondly, the notion of phased review should be remembered. Your Board appropriately
adopted phased review and consequently the broad impacts of our overall development plan
that you are seeing now in the programmatic EIS are going to be followed over the years by
site specific environmental analysis for each project within the planning area. It's important
to remember that non-project, programmatic EIS's is not meant to contain the same level of
detail as project related environmental documents. I'd like also to say that we believe that
for the most part the analysis done in the EIS is a conservative one. Within the EIS
documents there are several key assumptions that have been made which consequently portray
the impacts in our minds, as a worse case scenario. For instance, a population figure of two
persons per dwelling unit, has been used for the future homesite, when the likely occupancy
number will be lower. An analysis of the last three years of home sales by Pope Resources
at Port Ludlow indicates actual occupancy to be 1.83 people per household. This directly
effects several projected impacts such as water usage and traffic. The second conservative
assumption has to do with the same demographic analysis. Of those same 143 home sales
in the last three years, no more than three school age children occupy those residences.
Consequently the EIS overstates by a factor of three the number of students that will be
generated by the 10 year residential development population. Finally automobile trips were
projected using national household averages. But actual data taken from precise studies in the
north Bay area of Port Ludlow, show the folks in Port Ludlow drive less than elsewhere,
thereby overstating traffic impacts by as much as 17 percent. With respect to mitigation
measures, there are 86 possible mitigation measures, 33 for the project and 53 for the
program, cited in the documents, consistent with County policies and regulations, and with
such State statutes as the Growth Management Act. None of the mitigation measures requires
public subsidy for Pope Resources development projects. On the contrary, it's clear now that
the Port Ludlow development program and the Port Ludlow community, will continue to pay
their own way and in fact subsidize several programs and facilities administered by public
agencies.
I'd make two comments on the documents themselves, one on the research and the analytic
quality of it. The combined DEIS's have been prepared by 11 of the best consultants in the
northwest at a cost of nearly $300,000.00. The credentials and the combined experience of
those consultants are unmatched in any project I have yet seen. Scores of specialists now
have devoted over 4,000 person hours to impact analysis and document production. And
finally, let me say there has been superb staff scrutiny over the preparation of these
documents. Extraordinary efforts by your Planning Department staff and by EIS Coordinator,
Susan Thomas, have eclipsed anyone's expectations concerning oversight of the EIS content
and integrity. Their continued diligence has assured that the draft EIS's meet the technical
requirements of SEP A, the objectives of the Declaration of Significance, and the public's right
to understand the potential effects of Pope Resources development efforts at Port Ludlow.
In concluding, we look forward to the efficient compilation of all of these public comments,
to the issuance of the final EIS, and to the processing of several individual project
applications which are pending before Jefferson County, which have thus far been seriously
delayed by the EIS process. Thank you."
VOl
18 rM)~ 00 :1323
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 16
Robert A. Krutenat. speaking for the Shine Community Action Committee concerning the 10
year development plan on the subject of groundwater. This issue also impacts the Inn at Port
Ludlow. He presented maps and charts on an overhead projector which included:
· a topographical map of the area called Blueberry Hill (called the south aquifer in
the DEIS) which includes Shine, Paradise Bay, Tala Shores, the south shore of Port
Ludlow, and over to the sea level channel which cuts through the Teal Lake drain-
age and Shine Creek.
.
Graph of data that appears in several of the reports cited in the DEIS. The
conclusions in Section 1 of the DEIS on the' development which concern rainfall
are sketchy. The yearly rainfall for this area ranges from as low as 15 inches to
30 inches. The available recharge (in 1981) ranged from 50 percent of rainfall to
as low as 30 percent of rainfall. Hydrology textbooks indicate that urbanization of
an area will reduce the water available for recharge by up to 30 percent. The line
across the bottom of the graph represents the legal available draw down of the
aquifer of 52 wells located in Sections 33, 34 and 35. Section three of the DEIS
uses rainfall data taken from the NOAA rain gauge at Chimacum 4S (located four
miles south of Chimacum). The textbooks clearly say that it is not good practice
to make determinations of rainfall based on a single rain gauge.
.
A computer generation of the area shown on the topographical map. Diamonds
represent large wells that are owned by: the PUD, Pope Resources, or the Jefferson
County Water District that serves Paradise Bay. The characterization of the aquifer
in Figure 10 is totally inaccurate and appears to be arbitrary. All of the wells in
this area are not drawn on this chart. Mr. Krutenat stated that he has well logs
for over 200 wells. The draft EIS contends that there are no significant wells in
the south aquifer which draw from the major aquifer they propose to pump. The
DEIS indicates that the additional few private wells in the area are in the perched
aquifer. There are less than 15 wells which can be identified as drawing from a
perched aquifer. The proposed build out with the usage figures prepared by Pope
in the draft EIS are totally inadequate to serve the 200 private wells in the Shine,
Paradise Bay, Tala Shores area that are drawing out of this aquifer. It is apparent
that the shortfall of water will impact the sewer utility and the other usages of water
in the area.
It is important that an adequate and accurate characterization of the resource be made. Mr.
Krutenat is asking that an independent engineering firm be utilized to properly characterize
the aquifer with local rainfall data and correct usage figures (RCW allocates 5,000 gallons
per day per single family household without need for a water right application). With this
in mind, the 200 wells are already using up to 75% of the sustainable yield of this aquifer.
The textbooks clearly indicate that it is foolhardy to pump to the sustainable yield because the
slightest miscalculation or over pumping destroys the aquifer and takes it several years for it
to recover. There is no effective control over how much water a single household or a group
of households will use when they are hooked up. Therefore we need to consider the legal
rights, not current practices, based on the current population.
Bill Reiss stated that he will submit comments in writing.
G. H. Stocker, representing Soundview Village Development (north of Shine) stated that they
are not anticipating a future water problem, they have one now. Mr. Stocker stated that he
is the water system manager for the development. In late April the well started to pump
air. The pump was changed and they still continued to pump air. At the present time there
are 13 occupied residences and an average of around 30 people living in those residences at
this time. The water supply was a problem the rest of May, June and through July.
Everyone in the community was asked to conserve water. An electronic automatic water
sensor system was installed and that has helped preserve the pump and the use of the water
in the aquifer. The water usage from the 19th of August was 288.9 gallons per day per
household. Mr. Stocker concluded by noting that he has data on the average rainfall per
month and per year since 1982. He urged that before any more building permits are allowed
on that aquifer that the water supply to the area be assured.
VOl 18 rAG~ 00 1324'
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 17
B.J. Johnson. speaking for the Shine Plat Homeowners Association, explained that she lives
on the west end of Shine Road right behind the ERA Office. She lives within earshot of
Highway 104 and the Teal Lake Intersection. She is concerned about the scope of the EIS
and hopes that it includes impacts on the surrounding areas. They are concerned about the
quantity of water. There are 15 homes on the 25 lots of this subdivision. People who used
to be summertime residents only are now renting their homes, so there are more people using
water. They are concerned for the quality of water also. She added she is concerned about
taxes and traffic and she wants the changes to be controlled so they can be assured that they
can live in their home another 30 years with water quality and that they can access Highway
104.
Clinton Porter. native of Port Ludlow, stated he is concerned about schools. He feels there
should be an annual review of the project to assure that the buildings and financial needs of
the School District are met. There is no mention of the possible change in demographics
due to the improvements in transportation between here and the metropolitan areas, which
could double or triple the projection of 6/100 of a student per household. Also the mitigation
should spell out exactly how the proponent will assist in site acquisition and design. If a
bond issue is needed, it takes a two years, before the school can be occupied. This should
be addressed.
Wendy Wrinkle. of the Shine Community Action Committee, stated that the current wells in
the Shine area have prior well rights and appropriations sufficient for the needs of the houses
year around (not just summer use) and they are concerned that those rights remain available
since they are prior rights to any of the wells that are being used for Pope's development.
He then read the following statement: "The Shine Community Action Committee is a
community organization that was formed in August of 1992 in response to changing well
profiles beyond normal drought projections. Examples are detrimental draw down, low flow,
and salt water intrusion, all of these occurring in the last two years in our area. These well
changes coincide in time with increased well use on well number 13 next to Teal Lake for
south bay buildout. Further appropriation on new wells, PUD well #1 and Bywater well #2,
as well as well #14 next to Teal Lake, pose further threats to severe draw down and salt
water intrusion. Considering existing wells with symptoms relating to over pumping a water
source in close proximity to salt water, it seems that continued pumping of wells endangering
these domestic wells with previous rights, should be examined. Shine Community Action
Committee's purpose is to protect existing water rights and domestic well use as provided by
the Department of Ecology. The DEIS document on page 3-20, Table 6, uses yearly figures
of 160 gallons per day, per household and peak day use of 480 gallons per day per
household. They suggest the Department of Health work on some sort of reduction because
of their conservative use. Department of Health requires 800 gallons per day for public water
systems. Pope has no control over any property or homes sales to more than 2 per household
or use of water exceeding 480 gallons peak, per day. Department of Health requirements
insure that availability for public systems of 800 gallons per day. Domestic wells are
afforded 5,000 gallons per day or less. Lets add up Pope's current need at 800 gallons per
day and 200 domestic wells at 5,000 gallons per day and see what is available from the
aquifer after that for any new development."
Jim Branniman. property owner at Port Ludlow speaking on behalf of himself and three other
property owners who will be submitting their combined written comments on the Earth section
of both the EIS documents. All three are graduate engineers with experience related to this
field. Their goal is to assure that the mitigation measures proposed protect the environment
and the property interests of current and future residents of Port Ludlow in earth related
matters. Mr. Branniman reported that they found that the technical work of the consultant on
the earth portion of both EIS's was performed in a professional manner. The draft EIS states
that the past performance by the developer in matters of soil erosion and slope stability has
been poor. Their written comments will address the following:
Mitigation proposed for soil erosion appears to be adequate, but lacks the detail for proper
review and monitoring actions. Their written comments will suggest specific measures to
insure review of erosion control plans, monitoring and inspection during construction and
VOL
18 fAçr 00 :1325
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 18
the provision of adequate funds for the County Public Works Department to carry out their
responsibilities for review with expert advise and oversight with trained field personnel.
He continued by noting that geo-technical matters and slope stability are well addressed
in the project EIS, but this subject is almost ignored in the programmatic EIS. Since the
bulk of the proposed development is in unstable and environmentally sensitive areas, their
written comments will contain suggestions for geo-technical investigations of building sites,
review, and reports, and foundation designs and field inspections for compliance during
construction. Funding for these efforts must be included as a condition for approval.
They will suggest that the only proper enforceable remedy for non-compliance in any of
these matters, is suspension of project work until compliance is achieved.
Bradlev Nelson, a Port Ludlow resident representing a team of volunteers who reviewed the
utilities section of the DEIS. The utilities consist of water supply and sewer service. The
adequacy of the water supply and the sewage disposal capacity are factors that limit the size
the community can reach. Pope Resources seems to have established the maximum capacities
that are economically practical, and has set out to develop as many properties as possible
within those maximum limits. The higher those capacities the larger the number of properties
that can be developed. The problem with the DEIS is whether Pope's calculations of water
supply and sewage treatment plant capacity are realistic. One purpose of an EIS is to
examine the evidence that is offered by a developer and decide whether it is convincing.
They believe that there is sufficient reason to question the water supply adequacy as it's
proposed and to require answers to specific questions before the EIS is made final.
As for the sewage treatment capacity, they found that the conclusion reached under the topic
utilities on page 2-11 of the DEIS is not supported by the document that is referenced in the
same sentence, and is the only evidence offered in the DEIS. They will substantiate these
opinions with formal written comments. They feel it is only fair to alert the County and
Pope Resources to their concerns as early as possible. It is not their position that Pope's
claimed capacities are wrong. They would welcome convincing evidence that Pope is right.
As to water, if Pope is wrong about water capacity there are several possible results.
Development may have to be stopped short of the 700 new residential units. Neighboring
properties wells may be damaged or ruined and water use in the community may have to be
curtailed, or Pope may have to find other sources of water, such as from deep wells, or water
piped in from more distant supplies. This could be expensive and if necessary the cost
should be borne by Pope, since it would result from their own mis-judgement and planning
for their own new developments. They feel that the arguments presented by the Shine
Community Action Committee should be explored and that the conclusions by Radditzson and
Noble in Appendix E of the DEIS should be confirmed or modified before a final EIS is
issued.
There are similar consequences if Pope is wrong about sewage treatment capacity. For one
thing the Bay water quality would be impaired if the effluent volume were allowed to exceed
permit limits. Additional connections might be abruptly banned. This would not only stop
further new development but would deprive owners of previously sold, un-built lots, of their
guaranteed rights to build. Pope might be able to expand the capacity of the existing
treatment plant. This could be expensive and Pope has said that it does not intend to expand
further, but if it does the costs should clearly be borne by Pope for the same reasons, as for
water. Mr. Nelson quoted the statement made on page 2-11 of the DEIS from the Final EIS
for the Port Ludlow Wastewater Treatment System expansion dated in September 1986. The
proposed service load of this expanded plant was to be 1,868 connections, residential and all
other types combined. The expected load was calculated using data for five years broken
down into six two month periods per year, for seven different types of use. Separate average
and peak use rates were determined for each type of use which were then multiplied by the
number of units of each type in the ultimate full development, to arrive at the total monthly
wastewater flows in gallons per day for each of the six time periods. Table 4-8 of this EIS
showes that 590,000 gallons per day would have to be treated in an average year during July
and August while 760,000 gallons per day would have to be handled in July and August
vot.
18 fM,' 00 ~t326
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 19
using the maxim um rates that had occurred in anyone year of the five year base period. The
final EIS approved the expansion with a design capacity of 380,000 gallons per day under
average conditions, and 620,000 gallons for seasonal peaks, and said that service could be
provided to 1,868 connections. This averages out to 332 gallons per day provided at peak
for each connection.
When the NPDES permit was issued at plant completion, it set 640,000 gallons as the
operational capacity limit. Pope argues that it is not limited to 1,868 connections, but to
640,000 gallons of flow and that their records show that connections do not require an
average of 332 gallons per day, but a smaller number. Dividing 640,000 by the smaller
number, they come up with a capacity for over 2,300 units which is a couple of hundred
units beyond the number that they feel will be needed under their long range proposal. But,
none of this is in the draft EIS where it should have been. After being questioned at a recent
workshop, Pope has provided a letter from a consultant which professes to explain this
finding. This letter assigns a flat 200 gallons per day, peak usage, for all residential units
except the rental condominiums. There's no explanation where this rate came from except
"State standards and historical data." The contrast between this arbitrary, un-detailed approach
and the thorough documentation and methodology in the 1986 EIS, is startling. 323 gallons
per day per connection drops to 212, adjusted for infiltration, and the 1,868 connections rises
to 2,368. Until Pope Resources provides acceptable evidence that the treatment plant can
serve the size community asked for, they feel Pope should be held to the conclusions of the
1986 EIS referred to in the DEIS. Formal written comments will be submitted.
Arnold Koch. Greater Port Ludlow Community Council and an environmental chemist with
23 years experience. He is addressing the water quality portion of the Port Ludlow
Development program. The development areas 34 and 35 of alternate 2 total 429 acres
bordering Ludlow Creek on both the north and south sides. It is proposed that 160 units be
constructed there. In a recent public meeting, David Cunningham stated that these sites are
to have septic systems on them. The soils and topography of these two development areas,
are such that the land slopes into Ludlow Creek and into the aquifer of well number 4. The
concern is that if there is septic field failure or saturation in area 35, it could cause the loss
of well #4 for potable water production. Septic field failure or saturation in either 34 or 35
bordering along Ludlow Creek, would adversely effect the water quality of Ludlow Creek and
its estuaries. Why not place all of the units in these proposed development areas on the
circuit of the Ludlow sewage treatment plant and possibly avert future environmental prob-
lems?
The second issue concerns soil loss due to erosion. In the EIS documents it's pointed out
that 69 cubic yards of earth in the form of sediments will be deposited in Ludlow Creek and
into Ludlow Bay and that the dilution factor of the Creek and Bay is such that it shouldn't
induce an environmental impact. A worse case scenario of this 69 cubic yards of earth over
the proposed seven to ten year buildout period, would amount to 690 cubic yards of earth or
1,490 tons of sediment being deposited into the Bays and estuaries of Port Ludlow.
Sediments carried by fresh water streams into salt water fall from suspension and are
deposited on the bottom. It's not a matter of dilution, it's a case of dispersion followed by
precipitation. Is Jefferson County going to monitor the program and determine what the
sedimentation rates are during the construction period? Is the developer going to be allowed
to hire his own outside consultants to conduct a monitoring program? Remember these
figures are only estimates. What action is going to take place if the solids pose a risk to
shellfish production or the good health of the marine environment? Loss of the shellfish
production in the Bay would take decades to recover. Someone must be held accountable for
this measurement of the sediments and a chain of action set up to do the monitoring.
Another issue is the proposed marina expansion. He quoted from the DEIS "State DOE
standards for fecal coliform could be temporarily exceeded during high use weekends as is
presently the case. ... Additional loading of nutrients into the Bay from wastewater could
result in increased magnitudes and durations of alga blooms localized to poorly flushed areas
of the marina." He noted that coliform levels in shellfish during the summer months have
already been shown to exceed DOE standards in Port Ludlow Bay. Why add to the problem
that is already well defined by adding an additional 40 visitor slips to the marina? We are
VOl 18 PAr:: on ~327
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 20
adding a source of nutrients to the Bay, and it's assumed that they are talking about nitrates
and phosphates that promote the growth of algae. He noted that he takes exception to the
statement that the nutrients are going to stay in the confines of the marina. Since they are
soluble they are going to add to the total nutrient load of the Bay and become an additional
source of nutrients for the alga bloom in the Bay. Mitigating measures (3-29 and 3-31) on
no discharge of sewage into the Bay from boaters, which are already in effect, are obviously
not working. There is no chain of action or responsibility in case of failure.
The final concern is the sewage treatment plant. The DEIS document points out that
extensive water quality monitoring has taken place by Harding, Lawson and Associates,
including monitoring of the effluent from the sewage treatment plant. This indicates that the
treated effluent is not adversely effecting anything. The concern is that in the Harding and
Lawson Associates document: Water Quality Investigation of Port Ludlow Bay dated 1990
Non-Point Source Study. indicates that the dissolved oxygen levels in Port Ludlow Bay dip
below seven milligrams per liter, which is the Class A standard. This is due to an up-
welling of low oxygen water which occurs seasonally in the vicinity of Admiralty Inlet. In
the DEIS on page 3-22 they tell us we can expect to see a lowering of the dissolved oxygen
levels due to sediment loading during storms and this could impact our fisheries. Oxygen
from water in the Bay is used by organisms in the decay process of organic matter, and the
oxidation of organic compounds. A major portion of the effluent from the sewage treatment
plant are oxidizable substances, like ammonia and organic material. Here again we will
increase the loading of the Bay with oxidizable material as our population increases. This
oxygen demand could drop to a point where we would have severe environmental impact to
the fisheries in Port Ludlow Bay. What are we going to do about this? We have to set up
chain of action and a chain of authority, in order to control this type of pollution.
Marsha Harris. Superintendent of Chimacum School District, stated that she is here to respond
from the public school standpoint on the statement that the proposal would generate sufficient
revenue to fully offset costs. She agreed with Quentin Goodrich's testimony that any
additional students in the District would create a shortfall of over $700 per student in M and
o levy income and a shortfall of 116 square feet per student in facilities.
Additionally, Ms. Harris continued, the proponent predicts that 61 students will result from
the proposed development of 700 units. This includes 45 students within the residences
themselves and an additional 16 students from employees of the development. The resident
student number is based upon 664 existing units. Does the 664 only include single family
residences? It appears that the student generation factor should be recalculated using a ratio
reflective of the number of single family residences.
No mention is made of the student impact resulting from the secondary employment market.
These new residences will be marketed to active retirees. This population is a significant
consumer of services. The secondary employment market has not been addressed and may
well have a greater impact on the School District enrollment, than the initial property
purchases.
Ms. Harris noted that no consideration has been included to address the impact of construction
workers and their families on the District population. Housing provision has been addressed
by a mobile home park, but the additional students generated by this temporary housing have
not been included in the calculations. The need for additional school busses needs to be
addressed as a part of this statement. State funding provides for the replacement of existing
vehicles over a 15 to 20 year period, but does not fund the need for additional busses. It is
anticipated that the new development will create the need for at least two new school buses
at an estimated cost of $89,000 each.
It is also assumed that the majority of the new residences will be purchased by active retirees,
however, there is no indication that restrictive covenants, eliminating the under 18 residents,
or limiting the period of time which children can live within the homes, are part of the
proposed development. Therefore the School District believes that the impact must address
the potential for student enrollment increases as a result of: a) grandparents raising their
children's children, which demographics show is occurring at an increasing rate, b) the resale
'y'ot. 18 rM,~ fjf1:t32B
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 21
population versus the initial target buyer, and c) those buyers who lease their properties to
others during the major portion of the year. The District predicts that these three factors will
increase the impact on student enrollment growth.
The proponent has also assumed that the District's portable classrooms are adequate to house
an additional 311 students. The State does not recognize portable buildings as adequate
educational facilities. Most of the District's portable buildings currently exceed the useful life
of such temporary facilities (10 years). While the use of these structures will continue to
alleviate overcrowding, and as facility office areas, they can not be included in the
calculations as permanent adequate instructional areas.
Marsha Harris concluded by noting that even though the scoping activities are complete, the
schools were not addressed in the EIS on the Inn at Port Ludlow, and no mitigating measures
were suggested. They believe that the impact on the public schools is missing from the draft
document and should be included under SEP A regulations. Additional residential units (72)
and a 36 room Inn, commercial space, a marina (including the potential for residential boats),
will significantly impact the Chimacum School District. Construction workers, residents,
development employees and secondary employees, will increase the student enrollment.
Although this project contains fewer residences than the other development being considered
here, the resultant impacts are similar and the cumulative impacts on the schools is greater
than either of the projects considered separately. The District's earlier comments are also ap-
propriate to this project and need to be mitigated prior to approval of the Inn development.
The District requests that the County require the proponent to address the impact on the
public schools, prior to project approval.
Eileen Simpson. (father was Al Weber) Attorney from Oregon stated the following: "What
I'm talking about tonight are principles of general concern to anyone looking at a document
with legal significance and effect. As an Attorney, when I read a document, I look at
whether it's written in what I, in a very non-technical fashion, call wiggle words or whether
it's written in words or language that can be enforced. I've also worked in or around
government agencies for the last 15 years and so I have a practical question whenever I'm
looking at this kind of document, about who is going to do the work that is called for to
enforce it. I know that if you have a document that is written either in language that cannot
be enforced or you have what appears to be an enforceable document, but you have no one
with the time, the training or the authority to administer it, then you, in fact, do not have a
plan.
The purpose that you're engaging in tonight is to create requirements, define limits, and set
rules within which development will take place. If you do not use language that generates
a legal duty, then you are, in fact, simply engaging in a ritual activity where you go through
this process prior to simply creating a situation which will allow development to take place
at will. Any document which uses words like should, suggest, encourage, may, recommend,
or any phrase that contains the word study, is a document which is written in language that
does not create a legal duty on the part of anyone to act. It reduces this process when that
kind of language is in the final form, to what is, I suggest to you, essentially a ritual activity
where no one actually has to do anything at the end of this process. Regardless of whether
the mitigation that you are discussing is adequate or not, if the mitigation activities are not
described in words that generate a legal duty, words that mandate an action to be taken,
words like shall, will, it is required that, then if you don't use that language, you haven't
created a legal duty and I suggest to you that it's important that when you get through this
process it be very clear what the proponent is required to do. If it's important enough to
describe the mitigation in the Environmental Impact Statement, I suggest to you it's important
enough to mandate that action be taken, that you use language that contains a legal mandate
and that you have the means to enforce that action by having someone on your staff who has
the time, has the training, and has the expertise and the authority to enforce the action.
Finally, I'm simply going to make one final statement, and that is, who is to bear the risk
of loss, if Pope is wrong about the assumptions that it has made in proposing its'
development? I suggest to you that in Pope's version of events, it's the taxpayers, the
homeowners, and the children who will bear the risk of loss. This is not consistent with any
1-329
18 r^~' on
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 22
other area of economic activity in the modern era. If Pope were producing cars, or planes,
or microwave ovens, the risk of loss from those products would be borne by the manufacturer
or the producer of those products as part of the cost of goods sold and as part of the
production process. I suggest to you that if profit is divorced from the risk of loss, that the
marketplace ceases to regulate economic activity in an appropriate manner. And, the only
appropriate way to regulate this activity in the marketplace that is consistent with whether you
have a liberal view of economics, or a conservative view of economics, is to have the risk
of loss borne by the person who expects or hopes to realize a profit from their activity.
When they bear the risk of loss they are much more likely to engage in sound development,
sound studies and they will take the actions that are necessary to protect this community, the
environment and the people who live here."
Stanley Kadesh stated that he has written environmental impact studies for the Los Angeles
Unified School District. Statements made by attorneys, scientists, engineers, college professors
and other professionals who have testified tonight, far out shine any comments he could make
on similar texts. He will submit his comments in writing.
Peter Kazakoff stated that he would submit his comments in writing.
Robert Marsh, Water Manager for Paradise Bay (Jefferson County Water District #1),
explained that they serve Paradise Bayview and Paradise View Estates. The Department of
Health has approved their system for 431 hookups. Right now they have 184 hookups,
leaving 247 hookups, to draw from the same aquifer being discussed. There is another water
system approved by the Department of Health for 231 hookups. This is a lot of water to be
pumped out of the south aquifer, wherever that is. A south valley, north and south aquifer
has been identified by the consultant. He asked that the State Department of Ecology back
up this information. He noted that a Department of Ecology study in 1981 says that there
are not three aquifers in this area. With the additional hookups (average one installation per
week) there will be more traffic and a lot more water consumption.
David Douglas, stated that an administrative problem has come to his attention. In the Board
of Commissioners meeting minutes of October 19, 1992 it was indicated that the DEIS would
be released on October 26th. The document was in fact delivered on the 26th and distributed
that afternoon. WAC 197.11.455 (6) identifies a period of 30 days after issue of the DEIS
for commenting. In this case from October 26 to the 30th is four days, plus 26 days in
November makes the comment period ending date which conflicts with a holiday. The notice
of availability states the comment deadline as November 25, 1992 (29 days), and the cover
page of the Port Ludlow Development Program DEIS says November 24th (28 days). He
asked that there be a reassessment of the documents that are currently released and that the
community and all the governmental agencies be informed which day is the actual close of
the commenting period.
David Douglas continued by noting that Fire District #3 and the GPLCC have each requested
a 15 day comment period extension in accordance with WAC 197.11.455 (7). Because of the
magnitude of the documentation to be reviewed, and because of omissions of several sections
which are mandatory in the DEIS per WAC 197.11.440 such as impacts on public services,
inadequate technical data, and major problems with methodology and subsequent assumptions
that were made therefrom. It would appear necessary for consideration of the significant new
circumstances and information as defined under WAC 197.11.408 (5), and expansion of the
scoping per WAC 197.11.410 for incorporating omissions in the appropriate sections of the
DEIS. The Community Council recognizes that the program DEIS will cover a period of ten
years and mitigating conditions to minimize the impact of development are of grave
importance right now. Under WAC 197.11.660 (1) (c & d) mitigation measures shall be
reasonable and capable of being accomplished and responsibility for implementing these
mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the
identified adverse impacts. Therefore it appears additional time will be needed to develop
reasonable mitigation measures and for that reason GPLCC continues to seek an extension of
time for commenting.
18 fM;r on 1330
·
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 16, 1992
Page: 23
Bob Krutenant stated that what has been seen here is a tremendous wealth of local talent,
(scientists, marine biologists, engineers). There is a wealth of local talent that the County
could use for consultation in some of the technical matters.
Herman Schweizer, thanked everyone that took the time to analyze the situation on behalf of
the Greater Port Ludlow Community Council. He added that he feels that their comments are
well taken and is sure that the County Commissioners and the Planning Department will find
that the information given will be very useful in coming up with a final EIS that everyone
can live with.
Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing and urged people to submit written comments.
He explained that the County will take the information given into consideration in determining
the final EIS and in formulating the mitigation on the projects. He thanked everyone for
their patience and thoughtful comments.
In response to a question about the comment period ending on a holiday, the Chairman
reported that the Board will confer with the Prosecuting Attorney at their regular Monday
meeting to make a determination about the comment period ending date and the requests for
extending the comment period.
MEETING ADJOURNED·
SEAL:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
'<':",<~'\~'~
ct iYùnÆ ,J llJtÃÆ£r'
Lorna L. Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
18 rMr on j3~1