Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112392 ch~ y> ~Ò~ MINUTES WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commis- sioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. Prosecutin2 Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of Comment Period Endin2 Date and Requests for Extension of Comment Period; the Inn at Port Ludlow and the Port Ludlow Development Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statements: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that the date of issuance of the DEIS is the date it is mailed to the State Department of Ecology and is available to the public. Persons and agencies have 30 days from that date to comment on it. In order to extend that comment period the Board must receive a request for extension within the comment period. The comment period can be extended up to 15 days. Planning and Building Department Director, Craig Ward, reported that the documents were sent to DOE and available to the public on October 26, 1992. He added that a written request for extension of the comment period has been received. The Planning Department supports an extension of the comment period to give the public more time to conduct their analysis and prepare their comments. He added that there is a problem because the last day that comments can be received is Thanksgiving Day, when the Courthouse and the Post Office are closed. Commissioner Brown asked what date the comment period would end with a 15 day extension? Craig Ward reported that it would end on December 11, 1992. David Cunningham, Pope Resources said that the closing date of the comment period is November 24, 1992 because the day the EIS was available is counted as part of the comment period. He noted that the Fire District has requested a 15 day extension, but there is no one present to speak on their behalf. David Cunningham stated that he didn't see any reason in the Fire District letter to extend the comment period. The notice that was published said that the comment period ended on November 25th, but the document itself indicated the correct date of November 24. Craig Ward explained that it is a question of both the postmark to the Department of Ecology and when the document is available for the public. The Planning Department made it clear to the public that they could pick up extra copies of the document on the morning of the 27th. He added that he started counting the 30 days on the 27th of October. Mark Huth reported that SEP A says that the date of issue "is the date that the EIS is publicly available and sent to the Department of Ecology and other agencies with jurisdiction." If it wasn't publicly available until October 27, 1992, then that is the date of issue. ~ -0 .1 Ö r~,f o ~! 41.0 David Cunningham reminded the Board that the day they agreed that the draft EIS's were ready for public comment, agreed that October 26, 1992 would be the date that it would be hand delivered to the Courthouse, be made publicly available and be mailed to the Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 2 DOE and they did just that. He stated that regardless of the date, the extension can be granted for up to 15 days (not automatically 15 days). Mter further discussion of the comment period and the requests for an extension, Commissioner Brown moved to grant a comment period extension until December 9, 1992 at the close of business. He reported that this will take care of most of a 15 day extension, no matter what day start was calculated from. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth stated for those present that no comments will be accepted after that date. Review of Plannin2, Health and Public Works Proposed Fee Increases: Health Department Administrator David Specter reviewed the proposed fees for the Health Department. He reported that the Board of Health reviewed these fees in October after which changes were made as requested by the Board and this is the final proposed fee schedule. Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward then review the proposed fee schedule for the Planning and Building Department. Building Inspector Mike Ajax explained the changes to the Building department fees. He explained that basing the fee on the ICBO Building Standards publication reflects changes in the market rate. Craig Ward suggested that it could be indexed to one specific issue of this publication on an annual basis. Commissioner Brown said he doesn't feel this method meets the needs of the County. The discussion continued regarding the current fees for the Planning and Building Department and the proposed fees. Commissioner Brown asked that the plan check percentage be reduced from the proposed 65% to 30%. Chairman Dennison stated that he would like to see a comparison of these proposed fees with what the City and other jurisdictions charge. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The suggestion was made that a "public inspection file" be provided for the information provided to the Board for their meeting agenda. Mari Phillips asked Commissioner Wojt to report on the meeting held in the West End. Commissioner Wojt reported that 30 to 40 residents attended the November 18, 1992 workshop on the proposed amendments to the SEPA held in the West End. The residents commented that they do not want anything to happen and that the West End is considerab- ly different from the east end of the County. The Prosecuting Attorney has advised that all regulations must apply equally to the east and west ends of the County. This didn't seem to alleviate the concerns of the west end residents. Mari Phillips asked if a tape of the meeting will be available? Commissioner Wojt reported that the workshop was not taped because he was the only Commissioner present. The west end residents advised that they would put their specific comments on the proposed ordinance in writing and forward them to the Board. Commissioner Wojt added that he brought back specific written questions from Mr. Huelsdonk which will be made part of the public record. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes of November 9, 1992 with the corrections as noted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS Discussion of Proposed Fee Schedule Ordinance: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that these fees for the Public Works Department were last established in 1985 by Ordinance 6-85. He then reviewed the proposed fee schedule. . VOl 18 rAGE o 1411 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 3 Discussion of the Stormwater Advisory Board Recommendations; Public Education Efforts: Gary Rowe explained that part of the goals of the Storm water Advisory Board and the Stormwater Strategy Plan are to develop an education outreach plan. He noted that the report of the Storm water Advisory Board on Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code has recommendations for these public education programs. He asked the Board for support and endorsement to proceed with the recommendations regarding public education. He noted that he was previously given authority to hire a half time employee to help carry out these recommendations. Perry Spring, Chairman of the Stormwater Advisory Committee explained that it is important to have one person coordinate these educational activities. Gary Rowe explained that the first project will be to conduct workshops in the community with the assistance of the State Department of Ecology or the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. The Board concurred that the educational programs be implemented as recommended. Presentation of 1993 Preliminary Bud2et: Budget Manager Gary Rowe presented the preliminary 1993 budget to the Board. He explained that the current expense departments total $7,776,969 and the other funds total $14,755,584. The growth in the 1993 current expense budget is 3.3%. Revenues for 1993 are expected to fall short of the budget by $300,000 to $350,000. Existing revenues for 1993 are not anticipated to grow except for some allowable increases in property tax, a small increase in sales tax and some increases in timber income. In order to balance the budget, a diversion of road taxes for traffic control services in the Sheriff's Department has been made to Current Expense. The County will still be eligible for Rural Arterial Program funds. The preliminary budget is ready for release to the public, and the final budget hearings are scheduled for the week of December 7 through 11, 1992. Chet Dal21eish and Community Service Director David Goldsmith re: Brinnon Beach Estates: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that he has reviewed the binding site plan for Brinnon Beach Estates. Chet Dalgleish wishes to convert this from a recreational vehicle binding site plan to a residential subdivision. Originally there was an unrecorded plat called Olympic Inn Properties on this property in Brinnon. Property was sold on contract and when the contract was paid off the property was segregated, which was the practice at that time. In 1969 when the State Platting Act came into effect it required that all plats go through an approval process to insure a building site. There were four tax parcels segregated in this plat at that time, and the remainder of the property was considered acreage. Through time the acreage property was considered for development, but due to the nature of the soils on the property, a residential development wasn't possible. A recreational vehicle park binding site plan was submitted to the County and approved. The binding site plan leaves the property in acreage and allocates sites for recreational vehicles. To create the RV park they had to develop a road that met County standards for access to the property, and septic and water systems were developed for the R V users. The Binding Site Plan was amended (in 1991) to allow portions of the RV lots to be added to a lot to make it large enough for a building site. Mr. Dalgleish would now like to create more residential sites. He has gone through a process with the Health Depart- ment for review of the soils and the water supply, but is confused on how to proceed. When the Binding Site Plan was amended in 1991 one of the conditions was that there would be no further amendment of it for the purpose of creating residential lots and that any further subdivision of the property would require the submission of a subdivision application. In reviewing RCW 58.17 which governs the Binding Site Plan process as well as the residential subdivision process, David Goldsmith reported, that it is clear that a binding site plan is to be used to create a series of conditions by which property can be utilized. The conditions do not allow the segregation of the property except in the case of industrial and commercial uses. The two issues to settle on this request are how can the subdivision of these lots be accomplished over time and what standards would the subdivision of the VOl 18 fAç.~ 0 .l4~2 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 4 property be subject to? A change in the subdivision ordinance has occurred recently, but Mr. Dalgleish started looking into this before that change. The standards for binding site plans have also changed, and must meet the same standards as a subdivision. Chet Dalgleish explained that he has information from the County PUD, the State Department of Social and Health Services and the County Health Department that there is adequate water for 10 residential sites. If more than 10 sites are created he would have to install a 5,000 gallon water storage tank. The way the lots are combined is to assure sufficient room for on-site septic systems. David Goldsmith asked if there is approval for more than 10 lots for septic systems? Chet Dalgleish explained that he hasn't actually counted out how many total sites there will be. Environmental Health Director Larry Fay explained that the number of lots for septic systems has not been determined yet because the process is in question. Chet Dalgleish added that there has been review of six and possibly seven new lots which the Health Department has indicated are adequate for septic systems. There are four to possibly six R V sites left from the original binding site plan. He added that he is combining lots, but is not changing any lot lines. There is a sixty foot road with less than a 12% grade on the site and the lots all run to the center of the road. David Goldsmith added that Tom Morello of the Public Works Department made a site inspection last week and found that the road is adequate to meet the standards. Chet Dalgleish reported that he has placed crushed rock on about one third of the road. He would like to wait until the rainy season to finish the rest of the road. David Goldsmith explained that this is a process question of how to proceed to be consistent with the regulations. There are RV Park lots which can be combined into some residential lots with some recreational sites left over. Chet Dalgleish reported that the RV site owners are not using it for that purpose. In the four years since the mound system was installed for the recreational vehicle park, it has been used four times. He added that he has signed statements from the owners of the RV lots that they do not object to this change. David Goldsmith reiterated that the question is one of process. The binding site plan does not have individual lot lines that segregate the RV sites. The parcels that were created by the binding site plan are only for the uses described in that plan. Mr. Dalgleish would like to combine RV sites into residential lots (building sites) as the particulars are worked out for each lot, which means that a preliminary application can't be made which will show the location of the lots because that won't be known until the building sites are identified. Chet Dalgleish stated that he can write up a legal description of each lot. Mark Huth reported that the purpose of the Binding Site Plan is for lease when no permanent structures are to be placed on the land. This was to be used for recreational vehicles and that is why it was placed in a Binding Site Plan. Chet Dalgleish reported that these recreational vehicle lots were sold outright. Mark Huth answered that this proposal cannot be continued as a Binding Site Plan because the purpose is being changed to residential use. It will have to go through the subdivision process. Even to alter the Binding Site Plan under the existing ordinance requires almost the same process as subdivision approval. Chairman Dennison asked about the slope of the road? Chet Dalgleish reported that the slope of the road is 12% or less. Chuck Henry, Attorney for Chet Dalgleish, stated that he felt this meeting was to petition the Board to rescind their ruling that further combina- tion of lots would require a platting process. Any alteration of the binding site plan which would require relocating the road would run into the previously sold RV spaces. Mr. Dalgleish does not own the previously sold RV spaces, so he can not plat them. Under Section 3.404 of the Subdivision Ordinance there is an exemption which allows adjusting boundary lines between platted or unplatted lots without the creation or any additional lots. He feels this request is exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance and can be considered an alteration of boundary lines. He has recommended that Mr. Dalgleish tie together existing parcels of the binding site plan through restrictive covenants on the plat. This would VOl 18 rA~ o l413 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 5 permit him to proceed with the alteration of the binding site plan as an exemption to the Subdivision Ordinance (refer to RCW 58.17.10). The proposed combination of parcels with restrictive covenants would meet all of the performance standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mark Huth advised that the conditions of the original Binding Site Plan will still apply to these lots if a boundary line adjustment is done meaning that the only use of the parcels would be as RV sites. The discussion continued regarding this proposed change in use of the property. David Goldsmith noted that he feels the best way to proceed is to develop a phased subdivision, so that when the lots are combined and approved they can be approved as part of the subdivision. Mark Huth agreed that this is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this matter. Chuck Henry stated that if the Binding Site plan is used, Mr. Dalgleish can't include the RV properties that have been sold without resulting in a mixed use in the plat. Mark Huth said there is not a problem with a mixed use in a subdivision. Commissioner Brown asked how long it would take for the long plat process? Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this could be reviewed administratively and wouldn't require a public hearing. The Planning Department has to review and make a determina- tion on a plat application within 90 days according to the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Brown asked if the RV lots would still be subject to the Binding Site Plan? Mark Huth reported that the owners of the existing R V lots could sign on to the plat or they could be left out of the plat. Chet Dalgleish asked what would happen if the owners of the R V lots decide later to combine them to make a residential lot? David Goldsmith suggested that the R V lots be included in the plat with conditions which are the same as the restrictions of the Binding Site Plan. These conditions would be effective as long as the lots stay in that type of ownership. If future owners wanted to combine lots into a residential site they could then do a lot line adjustment. Mr. Dalgleish will work with David Goldsmith and the Planning Department to finish the long plat process. Kathy Kni2ht. Olympic Area A2enCY on A2in2 re: OASIS Board Recom- mendations: Kathy Knight of the Olympic Area Agency on Aging presented the names of Harold Gruver and Robert L. Baker who have expressed interest in serving on the OASIS Board. Commissioner Brown moved to forward the name of Harold Gruver for appointment to this Board. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING Discussion of Final SEP A Threshold Determination and Adoption re: Amendments to Aquaculture Provisions and other related sections; Shoreline Mana- 2ement Master Pro2ram: Association Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Board has held a hearing and workshops on these proposed amendments. Jim Pearson then noted that the Board has the following information: Memo from James W. Pearson dated November 16, 1992 Memo from James W. Pearson dated November 17, 1992 Environmental Checklist and Additional Information Memo from Jim Pearson (No date) re: Comments on proposed amendements to the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program VGl 18 rÞkt 0 14~4 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 6 Memo from Jim Pearson dated April 1, 1991 Jim Pearson reviewed the unresolved issues: that need to be discussed: Enhancement activities: The State Department of Fisheries submitted testimony at the Board's public hearing that the Shoreline Management Master program should not put an undo hardship on enhancement activities. Jim Pearson has reviewed the passive aquaculture section and found that the way it was written, enhancement projects would probably be considered "conditional uses." He then suggested new wording for this section which would include enhancement projects as passive aquaculture. Chairman Dennison asked if this change would be considered substantive? Jim Pearson reported that this change is based on testimony received by the Board at their hearing. He then reviewed the two options to place these passive, enhancement projects in the clas- sification matrix as follows: Urban - Suburban - Conservancy - Natural - Aquatic - Option A Secondary Use Secondary Use Primary Use Conditional Use Primary Use Option B Primary Use Primary Use Primary Use Conditional Use Primary Use The Planning staff recommends that Option B be adopted. Mechanical Harvesting of hard shell clams and hydraulic harvest of Geoducks, The Shoreline Commission feels these type of projects need to be addressed by the Shoreline Program. These activities are clearly dredging operations. The State Department of Ecology views this harvesting as aquaculture and says it should be regulated as such. The Planning Department staff recommends that the performance standards be moved from Section 5.70 Dredging back to the aquaculture section and that the wording clearly include hydraulic harvesting of Geoducks. If substantial substrate modification (through dredging, trenching, digging, or adverse sedimentation) is proposed the project would be reviewed as a conditional use under Section 5.70 Dredging. Commissioner Wojt asked why the structures havent' been removed for the fish pen operations in Port Townsend Bay that have been stopped as indicated on page 23? Commissioner Brown indicated that they have one year to remove the structures. Jim Pearson continued by reporting that the Board conducted SEPA review of the proposed amendments and issued a preliminary determination of non-significance on January 22, 1991. The comments received were reviewed in the Board's workshops on the proposed amendments. In addition three letters were received in direct response to the SEP A reVIew: Robert F. Hull (dated February 15, 1991) R.B. McComb (Dated February 14, 1991) David E. Woodruff (dated February 11 and 19, 1991) Commissioner Wojt asked about the issuance of an EIS for specific proposals? Jim Pearson reported that even if the Board issues a final DNS on the proposed amendments, an EIS can still be issued on a specific proposal in the future. He added that since the County began the revisions, two important documents have been issued: The recom- mended interim guidelines for Salmon net pen culture and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit. Commissioner Brown reiterated that the environmental impacts being considered are only those created by this document. Jim Pearson indicted that is correct. val 18 PAtf Of 41'- ,1., .~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 7 Visual Assessment Methodology: Jim Pearson then noted that visual assessment methodol- ogy does not address the structure that is in view. The methodology doesn't make a distinction between objects within the view. He noted that there are several performance standards that address these structures (page 18, #15; page 19, #17 and Page 24, #6). Commissioner Brown asked if the County would be adopting the Visual Assessment Workbook developed by the State? Jim Pearson reported that the workbook was reviewed and changed by the Shoreline Commission and then reviewed by the Board, as part of these amendments. Chairman Dennison asked if the Board would be comfortable in finalizing the SEP A determination today? Commissioner Brown indicated that he would like more time to review all of the information presented. Commissioner Brown moved to defer action on these items until 2:00 p.m. on December 7, 1992. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion (in the temporary absence of Commissioner Wojt). The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Crai2 Ward re: Report on City of Port Townsend Water Treatment Pipeline Proposal: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward submitte'd a copy of a letter he wrote to the City regarding their proposal for the Tri Area water treatment pipeline. The majority of the proposal is outside the City limits. The County could request to be the lead agency for SEPA on this project. The Board concurred that the City retain lead agency on this project. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Sieniflcance; Lar2e Lot Subdivision, Fulton Lake Estates (Continued from November 9, 1992): Chairman Dennison reported that this is a continuation of the hearing from the November 9, 1992 meeting. At the last meeting the appellant's had finished presenting their testimony. Harry Holloway, Attorney for Sam Boling deferred to Jim Pearson, Associate Planner for the Planning and Building Department. The Chairman swore in Jim Pearson who explained the staff analysis and responded to the testimony given at the last meeting: Soils: Steve Hayden gave testimony comparing this development with Cape George. Mr. Pearson explained that Cape George is a development of 400 lots that are between 12,000 and 15,000 square feet. He asked the Board to consider whether that testimony is relevant as far as the soils, the soil erosion potential nd water quality potential between the two developments. He also pointed out tha any re-plats in a subdivision are subject to SEP A if they are in environmentally sensi ive areas. Wetlands: Under wetlands the question arose whether th s is a Category I or II wetland. The Planning Department determination is that this is a ategory II wetland. Category I wetland is the very highest quality wetland. Jerry Go line gave testimony that this is a Class I wetland of local significance. The model ordi ance developed by the Department of Ecology does provide for wetlands of 10 1 significance, however those are determined based on criteria that need to be adopted by local government through an appropriate review procedure. That has not been do e in Jefferson County. There are no Class I wetlands of local significance existing in efferson County because that work has not been done. The other contention is that the wetland around Fulton ke could be Class I because of the wildlife use. The Washington Wetland Grading ystem in developing criteria for Category I wetlands states in regard to wildlife use that hey are "very valuable for~ particular rare species." Typically a Category I wetland that would be very valuable· for a particular rare species is a nesting area. There is no agle nesting on in this area. The nearest Eagle nest is a mile and a half away from t is site. This wetland is connected to Hood Canal, but it does not front on Hood Canal. It does not meet the criteria for a Category I wetland. "Jot 18 rA£Y€ o J4-16' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 8 Wildlife: Regarding wildlife, Jim Pearson reported that staff in their review, has looked at the information they have about the intensity and regularity of use by Eagles and the level of disturbance that already exists in the area, which includes the Black Point County road and logging done on the main portion of this property about 15 years ago. He then presented color, infrared blowups of U.S. Army Corps of Engineer photographs of the Fulton Lake area taken in 1987. There is a buffer around Fulton Lake, but generally the property was clear cut. Most of the property is in young reproduction right now. Some of the buffer around Fulton Lake has also been logged. The question is what is the intensity and regularity of wildlife use in this area. Archeological and Cultural Issues: Another question was raised regarding the ar- cheological and cultural use of the area by native americans. Jim Pearson presented a copy of some pages from the Coast Salish and Western Washington Indians IV which gives information under place names (Quatsop Point and Qaqaqole'wat on pages 40, 41, 42 and 43). He noted that no other information has been offered regarding the probable use or presence of archeological resources on the site by Native Americans. There are a number of places on Hood Canal that have place names that were maybe used or just given names because of a prominent feature. The Planning staff has the difficult job of trying to decide if an archeological assessment is necessary. They have tried to gather the evidence and make a determination based on it. Schools: With regard to the School District impacts, Jim Pearson reported that Dr. Carolyn Enzler provided testimony that the School District, at this point, does not have adequate space for the children in attendance. The question is what are the further impacts on the School District from the proposal? Using a figure of .3 children per household (which was used in the Pope Resources EIS) would mean about 7 students from this project. Dr. Enzler calculated 15 students. The nature of the impact needs to be determined, and if it is determined to be significant the mitigation must be deter- mined. Jim Pearson reported that he talked with Dr. Enzler today and she indicated that the District is considering the purchase of portable classrooms or remodeling to make better use of the space they have. Chairman Dennison asked what these figures have to do with this project? Jim Pearson explained that they have been trying to determine if this project will have a significant impact on the schools. He noted that had not been Dr. Enzler's judgment up until the time the School Bond failed. Commissioner Wojt asked if Steve Hayden's testimony was about the fact that houses are hanging over the cliff at Cape George and the impact of the number of buildings on the lots? Jim Pearson reported that Steve Hayden gave testimony regarding soils, the adequacy of soils, the impact on soil erosion, storm water runoff and issues that related to develop- ment and soils. Chairman Dennison asked if a cumulative impact analysis could be done based on further subdivision of these five acre pieces? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that the Board must review this proposal as presented. Harry Holloway asked if Chairman Dennison was referring to the subdivision of just the two open space lots or the other lots in the subdivision? Chairman Dennison stated that the Comprehensive Plan allows one unit per acre in this area and he was referring to the potential build out from that type of subdivision. Harry Holloway reminded the Board that Mr. Boling indicated during the last meeting that he is willing to place a covenant on the lots which say that they can not be subdivided further. Mark Huth added that if someone proposed in the future to further subdivide an existing lot, a cumulative impacts analysis could be done then. Eagle Use of the Site: Jim Pearson continued regarding the possibility for an Eagle Management Plan being required by the State Department of Wildlife on this site. He noted that up until last week he understood that an Eagle Management Plan would only be requested if there was nesting territory or roosting on the site. Linda Hoffman of the State Department of Wildlife informed him that the Department of Wildlife has broader authority than that. One of the concerns raised is how to ensure protection for the resources that have been identified on the site in the future. The staff has proposed vat 18 rAÇ,f 0 1:,417 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 9 plat conditions and covenants on the property. Protection may be available through an Eagle Management Plan. Such a plan would identify areas that are not to be develop- ed, trees that are to be left, and be an on-going agreement between the landowner and the State Department of Wildlife. Commissioner Wojt asked that when the property is divided and sold to different owners, if the new owners are subject to the Management Plan? Jim Pearson reported that he believes the new owners would be subject to it. Commissioner Brown asked if the Department of Wildlife gave reference in the RCW or WAC for this authority? Linda Hoffman is going to send a copy of the WAC that indicates the DOW authority, Jim Pearson answered. Commissioner Wojt asked if Fulton Lake is a tidal lake and what percentage of the water changes in the Lake? It appears to be a pothole that doesn't go dry, but it is tidally influenced. Chairman Dennison asked if Myer Biodynamics and the State Department of Wildlife suggested that this is a Category I wetland? Jim Pearson reported that is correct. It is an estuarine wetland. Under the model wetland ordinance and the State's wetland grading system, estuarine wetland that is greater than five acres in size are considered Category I wetland. He reported that open water, and unvegetated portions of the site are not considered wetland. Other considerations include whether the site is very valuable to a particular rare species meaning according to biologists with the State Department of Ecology, a nest site for a rare, endangered or threatened species. Wetlands that have irreplaceable functions and values is also referred to. On this site that would be the estuarine areas and if they are less than five acres in size they must have a minimum of disturbance and an undisturbed 100 foot buffer around 75% of the wetland. The presence of the Black Point Road which wraps around half of Fulton Lake represents more than a minimum of disturbance. The discussion turned to the forest practices on this site. Jim Pearson reported that the first forest practice permit was done 12 to 15 years ago. Sam Boling applied for a Class III Forest Practice Permit in 1989 or 1990. When it became clear that Mr. Boling planned to subdivide the property, he withdrew the Class III application and submitted a Class IV permit application. Commissioner Wojt asked if there was testimony given that the wetland at the bottom of the photograph (the south) was not included in the calculation of the size of the wetland, and if it was considered the wetland would be greater than five acres in size? Jim Pearson reported that the ponding impact of the roadbed has increased the size of the wetland and Fulton Lake. Commissioner Wojt asked if the wetland to the east (the outlet) was considered as part of the wetland? Jim Pearson reported that he did include that area in his wetland calculation. Chairman Dennison asked the size of Fulton Lake? Jim Pearson reported it is about five acres in size. Harry Holloway stated that Mr. Boling supports the staff recommendations and they have nothing further to present. Sam Boling was sworn in and stated that in the South County Coordinating Council's (SCCC) appeal they wanted the wildlife and wetlands addressed because of significant wildlife use of the lake (which is true) and the 100 foot buffer is inadequate to avoid significant impacts to the wildlife. Mr. Boling disagrees because in a large lot subdivision nothing can be done within 100 feet of the lake. The way the property exists now, without a commercial harvesting permit, every stick of timber could be taken off the property right down to the lake and then seed with the grass. Mr. Boling stated that he doesn't want to see that. The second question that the SCCC asks is about surface water runoff. They say that surface water runoff and erosion throughout the development process will have probable significant adverse impacts. Instead of probable it should be possible, Mr. Boling noted. vat 18 rAGf 0 .t·118 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 10 Anything is possible. The roads have been on this site for over two years, they have been grass seeded to make sure that no contaminants will get into the lake. Last year was one of the worst storm years in 100 years. There was a little bit of erosion which has been taken care of with more grass seed and ditches to keep the water in its proper course, on the hillside. Their third question is cultural resources. The SCCC says that the Planning staff has ignored evidence submitted by the Skokomish Indian Tribe that Fulton Lake holds significant cultural importance for that Tribe. Mr. Boling stated that he has talked with several of his friends in the Skokomish Tribe who didn't know what he was talking about. The only thing he has seen regarding the cultural significance of the site is a story about some logger getting electrocuted a long time ago by Indian spirits. The fourth item, Sam Boling continued is archeological resources. He noted that he believes some indian may have walked over the site or that something else probably happened on the site, but that is very weak evidence. The fifth item the SCCC addresses is the land use and open space. Right now this 80 acre tract is zoned for one acre tracts. He stated he wanted to make a 16 unit subdivision but because of regulations, it is 22 lots. With the recorded survey of the wetlands and the recorded survey of the 100 buffer around the wetlands, there is going to be 10 acres of open space that no one can ever use. The more people you have walking on the open space the worse it is for the environments, which is the reason Mr. Boling didn't designate it as open space for the whole development to use. Right now there are five tracts touching the lake and they can only have a six foot path down to the Lake. The sixth item questioned by the SCCC is cumulative impacts. Sam Boling reported that an application in to subdivide the open space (Lots 2 and 4) into four lots of approximate- ly one and a half acres each has been submitted. There will be 22 lots on 80 acres with 100 foot buffer around the lake and the wetlands (approximately 10 acres) and it will be a nice place to live and for the environment to grow. David Bricklin, Attorney for the appellants, stated that he will limit further testimony regarding cultural and archeological resources. Mter being sworn in Steve Moddemeyer, Environmental Program Director for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, stated that there is an illusion that cultural resources are either alcohol inspired or dreamed up. He noted that the tribal culture is alive and well, is real, is legitimate and is on-going. He added that he talked with Gary Wesson, an Ar- cheologist, who is developing a database of cultural findings in the Puget Sound area. He reported that there are two other sites like this one (a small lake with an outlet to salt water) where archeological resources have been identified. Mark Huth asked if these two other sites were in Jefferson County? Steve Moddemeyer stated that the sites were in Jefferson, Kitsap or Island county. Commissioner Wojt asked what effect the 100 foot buffer would have on the possibility that these sites would be disturbed? Steve Moddemeyer reported that Delbert Gilbow has submitted testimony that indicates that 38% or 42% of the sites are in upland areas. He added that it's hard to say what effect the buffer would have. Sam Boling asked of the 38% of the sites that were in upland areas, how many were predominantly near a fresh water source? Steve Moddemeyer answered that Gary Wesson indicated there were two sites and there doesn't have to be potable water available for a site to exist. David Bricklin submitted a picture of the intrusion into the 100 foot buffer zone. Mark Huth asked where on the site this picture was taken? Sam Boling identified that it is the north portion of the south lobe. He added that they cut some alder trees in the area, left some big cedar trees and planted 36 fir trees in the disturbed area. This was done before the 100 foot buffer was required. vat 18 rA~~ o 1 <liS Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 11 Mr. Bricklin then submitted a letter from the Pleasant Tides Water System Cooperative which discusses the arrangement they have with Mr. Boling for joint use of the water system, the fact that Mr. Boling will need to drill some additional wells, and that Mr. Boling had not complied with various requirements in his contract with the water system. Sam Boling stated that he has come to agreement with Pleasant Tides about using his half of the water out of this system. In closing Mr. Bricklin reviewed the appeal and the staff's comments on the items presented: Mr. Pearson questioned Steve Hayden's reference to the Cape George development. Mr. Hayden's testimony was concerning the types of impacts that can occur and that they are not limited to the impacts from the construction of roads alone, but rather they are also water quality impacts from the build out. The staff indicated that their present policy is to only look at the water quality impacts of the roads themselves and not the build out. Looking at the build out of this site is not speculating or creating a project that isn't being proposed. In considering the impacts of this approval (the subdivision) will be a precedent for future actions. Obviously subdividing lots is going to pave the way for the actual building on those lots. The next issue discussed was wetlands. Mr. Gorsline testified about rating this wetland because of wildlife use and the local significance. The State Department of Ecology rating system contains a checklist (on page 6), which says "documented habitat recognized by federal or State agencies for threatened or endangered animals" for category I wetlands. The State Department of Wildlife has documented Eagle use on the site. There is nothing in the document that says it has to be nesting or roosting sites. Significant habitat is defined in the Glossary (page 53) as use to provide part of the animal's life cycle needs. Since the ,County may not have a wetland ordinance and may not have yet identified wetlands of local significance, SEPA allows this issue to be reviewed and a determination can be made if the wetland has local significance. The other issue raised on wetlands is the adequacy of the mitigation requiring a 100 foot buffer. Whether this is considered a Category I or II wetland, Mr. Bricklin stated they feel that a 100 foot buffer is not adequate to insure against significant adverse impacts. There is a trail proposed through the buffer which will further diminish the value a 100 foot buffer would provide. Wildlife Issues: The Eagle habitat is significant even if it's not nesting habitat. An Eagle Management Plan is possibly a way to mitigate the impacts, but there isn't one to look at, so it's speculation at this point whether there will be one and if so, what it would provide, and whether it would significantly reduce the impacts. The wildlife issues were not limited to Eagles. There was testimony about impacts to Heron, Osprey, Pileated Woodpeckers, and various types of water fowl. There was no response to any of that testimony. Schools: Mr. Bricklin stated that there may have been a slight mis-recollection of Dr. Enzler's testimony (written and oral). Prior to the school bond, she stated significant impacts would be mitigated by the bond and the ability to build the needed buildings. With the defeat of the bond, there are still significant impacts, but there is not any mitigation to deal with them. Mr. Brìcklin then pointed out that the staff rebuttal did not address issues raised last time such as: A significant change in land use, loss of open space, failure to consider the impact on water quality from build out (as opposed to just the roads), the Department of Ecology letter regarding water quality impacts, and assurance that mitigation measures will be implemented in a timely manner by the applicant. In response to Mr. Boling's testimony, Mr. Bricklin noted that saying that the 100 foot buffer will be adequate doesn't make it so. Mr. Boling didn't provide any basis for that conclusion. On water quality impacts, Mr. Hayden's testimony pointed out that these types of impacts are probable, particularly where you have a staff policy of looking at the Vût 18 ~A(;Ç o 1420 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 12 impact only from the roads, not the full build out. This doesn't address the issue of the loss of open space and the change in land use. Commissioner Wojt asked how the testimony that there are more projects than this one in the area, would fit into this consideration? David Bricklin responded that he feels that testimony adds weight to the necessity of doing an environmental impact statement. There is authority for the Board to consider that there are other projects being proposed in this area. Section 330 says look at the precedent setting value of approving this project. Already approved projects can be taken into account because they are part of the existing environment. Commissioner Wojt asked if the other projects are approved? Planning Director Craig Ward reported that the redesignation of the commercial area at the intersection of SRI0l and Black Point Road has been appoved. The Robinson Short Plat and two other sub- divisions (Canal View II, Division I and II) have not completed the SEP A process yet. Mark Huth reported that this is a "de novo" review of a threshold determination which means that the Board must make a new threshold determination. He added that the Board will want to review all of the testimony presented as well as the environmental documents submitted to assure that there is a basis for either requiring an environmental impact statement, or issuing different or further mitigation. He asked that the Board inquire if the Public Works Department only reviews the drainage from roads to be constructed in their analysis of a project. He noted that the mitigation suggested would require a notice on the face of the plat that any further application (including building permits) will be subject to submitting an erosion control and sedimentation plan. If the Board feels they need more environmental information, they can request the applicant provide it. Harry Holloway remarked that his review of the documentation with the staff recomm- endations indicate to him that considerable thought has gone into those recommendations. The material that they relied on has been provided to the Board. He asked that the Board keep in mind that this is not a Cape George type project. This is an 80 acre project which has 20 acres dedicated to open space or a buffer area. In this area the density is one home per acre, and if the proponent can subdivide the two open space lots, he will end up with a maximum of 22 lots. This is a density of one home per every 3.7 acres. Mr. Boling has told you that he is willing to restrict further subdivision of the lots. As far as the wetlands being Class I or II, Jim Pearson went to great length to explain the reasons for the Class II designation. Mr. Bricklin has indicated this wetland is considered "cream of the crop". The wetland is less than 5 acres in size and there has been no evidence presented to indicate that it is used by the type of species that this category requires. The area was logged about 15 years ago and is substantially bordered by a County Road. Mr. Holloway feels that it is hard to argue with the determination of the staff that this is not a "cream of the crop" wetland as required for Class I designation. There has been more than a minimal amount of human disturbance in the area. With regard to the archeological value of the site, the staff reports that Tribal authorities have not provided any specific information to indicate that this site is an archeological resource or has any potential to be one. The language used is that it's possible. Even the appellant's witnesses have done nothing more than argue that it's possible. There's no doubt that Native Americans used every bit of the coastline of Hood Canal for some purpose, so in that regard anything is possible. When the Tribal authorities were requested to give specific information, they haven't. The only thing of any weight presented was presented by staff, which was the study on the structure of the culture which really adds nothing to indicate that this site has potential for any real archeological value for the tribes. In the matter of the school, the flip side of the argument is that there will not be any impact on the schools until such time as the property is developed, homes are built and children are there. It is not as though there is an immediate impact, but there may be one. It is not known what the situation will be for the schools in the future. You can't ask the vat 18 rM;r o 1121 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 13 project proponent to make up for the fact that the people in the community didn't pass a levy. Mr. Pearson reported that in subsequent discussions with the Superintendent of the Brinnon Schools it was indicated that they are going to use portable classrooms or re- arrange their space. What is argued as a significant impact isn't, if the Brinnon schools already have a course of action in mind that they are going to follow. With regard to wildlife and the path in the proposed 100 foot buffer, this was suggested by the Planning Department staff, and it is not something that has to be done as far as Mr. Boling's concerned. When you consider wildlife you have to also consider the history of this property, and the fact that there are roads on the property and that areas of it have been logged. Wildlife adjust to human population. Mr. Boling has submitted proposed covenants, that he is willing to make part of the plat, to insure that the buffer and the wetlands area are protected in the future. Staff has also recommended that a notice be placed on the face of the plat to notify purchasers that if they are going to develop their acreage that there will be further restrictions based on the situation at the time they make the application. The covenants are enforceable if either the County or the people who benefit from the covenants want to seek their enforcement. As far as considering that there are additional projects in the vicinity, Mr. Holloway asked the Board to consider Mark Huth's statements. It is relevant to review how the various projects will work together for things like roads and transportation, etc., but they are individual projects that must be reviewed on their own merits. To go the other way would ultimately lead to no resolution of any project's worthiness. There has been nothing presented to indicate that this project won't fit with the others in the area. Sam Boling stated that David Bricklin has given testimony on a site he hasn't even seen. The County staff has spent many days walking the site to make their determinations. He feels that the staff has a better idea of what is going on than a lawyer out of Seattle. Mr. Bricklin has indicated that he (Mr. Boling) doesn't have a sterling reputation, but today you can't cut down a tree without making someone angry. He reported that he has been working with the State Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife and done mitigating action when he mistakenly cut to close to the shoreline. As far as the Pleasant Tides people not being happy with him regarding their water system, he doesn't feel you can make 80 retired people happy when you use half the water from a system they have had for twenty years. There's not going to be a bunch of people all of a sudden moving houses into this project. In six or seven years when they do start moving in the tax base will be such that the school will gain far more than they are worrying about right now. Hearing no further testimony or comments, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt asked how adjustments are made to mitigation? Mark Huth answered that the Board must make a SEP A determination based on findings of fact. He noted that because this is an appeal, the Board does not have to negotiate mitigation. If the appel- lants and the proponent want to negotiate mitigation, they can do that directly and then suggest mitigation to the Board. Since this is a quasi-judicial matter, it is not proper for the Board to have contact with Mr. Boling outside of the knowledge and opportunity for the appellants to participate. Commissioner Wojt moved to postpone deliberation on this matter until December 14, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a un- animous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to delete Item #7 from the consent agenda and adopt and approve the rest of the items as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VOl 18 fAr;!; n t,,122 , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 23, 1992 Page: 14 1. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance Setting the Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule; Setting the Hearing for Monday December 14, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance Setting the Health Department Fee Sched- ule; Setting the Hearing for Monday December 14, 1992 at 11:00 a.m. 3. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance Setting the Public Works Department Fee Schedule; Setting the Hearing for Monday December 14, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. 4. HEARING NOTICE re: 1993 Final Budget Hearings; Setting Schedule for Hearings the Week of December 7 to 11, 1992 5. CONTRACT re: Furnishing 140 Lock Blocks for a Temporary Transfer Building at County Landfill; Ultra Block, Inc. 6. CALL FOR BIDS re: One (1) New or Used Aerial Manlift; Bid Opening Set for 10:40 a.m. on Monday December 7, 1992 7. ITEM DELETED HEARING NOTICE re: An Ordinance Establishing Fees for the Solid Waste Division; Setting Hearing for Monday December 7, 1992 at 11:15 a.m. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 114-92 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; South of Brinnon; Love Road 9. CONTRACT re: Furnishing 752 Square Yards of Geo Gride UX1500 and 470 Square Yards of Geo Gride UX1400; Contech, Inc. of Olympia 10. Letter to Washington State Auditor's Office re: Audit of Financial Statements of Jefferson County for the Period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991 11. Signing of Final Plat Amendment; Plat LP05-9Q-A Teal Lake Village; Reconfiguration of Lots 1-9, Lots 37-39 and Tracts A, F & G (Platted Open Space) Hearing Examiner Approved and County Departments have signed off on plat map. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 115-92 re: Adopting the Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 . 13. Appointment of County Citizen Representative; Tourism Coordinating Council; Jim Olson, Quilcene Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Funds: Leo J. Hein and John Roske: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the applications for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund for Leo J. Hein in the amount of $500.00 and John Roske in the amount of $500.00. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: clcY21ÎC{ Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS u~ Val i 8 r^~~ 0 l,t23