Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM122192 c.h~ 'V" ~Ò.c' MINUTES WEEK OF DECEMBER 21, 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. The, Board interviewed an applicant for a position on the Parks Advisory Board. Prosecutin2 Attornev Mark Huth re: Interlocal A2reement for Lease of Property at the County Landfill Site for a Biosolids Compostin2 Facility: City of Port Townsend: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the City Attorney has provided a draft lease agreement for an area at the County's landfill to build a bio-solids compost- ing facility. The City will accept the County's yard waste and septage and process it as consideration for the lease. Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that there is no fee for the rental of the site, but the mutual benefit of the septage processing. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels that the fee to be charged for processing septage should be developed mutually by the City and County. Gary Rowe reported that there is a formula in the interlocal agreement to determine the processing fees. Mark Huth explained that the rest of the agreement includes standard lease language. A preemptive right of first refusal is included, but Mark Huth said he doesn't believe that the statutes allow this. He recommended that this be changed to a right of first refusal. He will ask the City Attorney to remove this language and when that is done will place the agreement on the Commissioners consent agenda for approval. Community Services Director. David Goldsmith re: Adoption of the County- wide Plannin2 Policy (Joint Resolution with the City of Port Townsend): Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the County-wide Planning Policy has been developed over the last year and a half by the Growth Management Steering Committee with input from the public. The Steering Committee (City and County) has made a recommendation to approve this policy. The policy preserves the widest range of local options, it establishes the relationships for regional services, and melds the activities of the Special Purpose Taxing Districts with the regional committees working on specific issues such as transportation. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 128-92 the Countywide Planning Policy as recommended by the Growth Management Steering Committee. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The services of Commissioners B.G. Brown and Larry Dennison to the County were acknowledged. W(" 18 r.w 0 1. ~o·.·'" ~h~· -> Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of November 16, and 23, as corrected and December 7, 1992 as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Com- missioner Brown moved to approve and adopt the consent agenda as submitted. Com- missioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Approval of Request for Transfer of Funds to the Coyle Community Center Project; $7,400 from Construction and Renovation Fund 2. CONTRACT re: Purchase of One (1) 1993 15 foot Steel Dump Body; Van Raden Industries, Inc. 3. Approve Recommendation for Bid Award and CONTRACT re: Purchase of One (1) 1992 Versalift Manlift; Pacific Utility Equipment Company of Seattle 4. Approve Recommendation for Bid Award re: Indigent Defense for the Superior and District Courts for 1993; Clallam Jefferson Public Defender; Bid total of $134,000.00 5. Approve Recommendation for Bid Award re: Indigent Defense Conflict Cases for the Superior and District Courts for 1993; Harold J. Caldwell; Bid of $200.00 per case 6. AGREEMENT re: Administration of the Recreational Shellfish Program in Jefferson County by the Jefferson County Health Department; Washington State Department of Health 7. Public Hearing Notice for the Hearing Examiner; Intent to Vacate A Portion of Old Hadlock Road; Hearing set for Tuesday January 5, 1993 at 11:00 a.m. 8. Approved request for Payment; $2,000 to Help Fund Staff Position; Hood Canal Coor- dinating Council Application for Assistance from the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Fund: Com- missioner Brown moved to approve the application for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund submitted for Joseph Kurtzo in the amount of $134.88. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS ANIMAL SERVICES HEARING re: Proposed Animal Services Fee Ordinance: Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing on the proposed animal services fee ordinance. Community Services Director David Goldsmith explained that this ordinance, if approved, will equalize the County's fees for animal services with the fees charged by the City. Hearing no comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 14-1221-92 as presented with an effective date of March 1, 1993. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Steve Morell Request for Policy Waiver: (See also Minutes of December 14, 1992) Commissioner Brown moved to waive the policy that an adjacent property owner list be provided by a Title Company for the short plat proposed by Steve Morell on the condition that if any adjacent property owner is not notified the plat review process will be done again. Bud2et Mana2er Gary Rowe re: Adoption of the 1993 Annual Bud2et includin2 the Current Expense. Public Works. Special Funds. County Road Construc- tion Pro2ram and settin2 the County Property Tax LeVY: Budget Director Gary Rowe reported that he doesn't have all of the figures in final form for the adoption of the budget at this time. He explained that the funding for'the cartographer position in the Assessor's Office had been transferred to the.IDMS budget. Mter meeting with the Assessment Operations Manager in the Assessor's· Office, he recommends that this position be left in the Assessor's budget. He then proposed that the fund for the operation of the One Stop 18 tJli O.t 706, .. "';:; Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 3 Permit Center be left status quo until March when the Center is projected to be opera- tional. Neither of these items have a monetary impact on the budget, they are just a matter of the funding being in different budgets. Commissioner Brown asked about the funding for the one stop permit center? Gary Rowe explained that the funds identified in each of the budgets for transfer to this fund will remain there until the Center is ready for operation. The Board concurred that these budget changes be made as suggested by the Budget Manager. Gary Rowe reported that he will advise the involved departments of these two changes. The discussion then turned to salaries. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth stated that he feels that the Budget Manager's proposal to raise salaries for all Elected Officials and non- union personnel by a certain percent was acceptable. Treasurer IIa Mikkelsen then discussed the salaries proposed for her Office Supervisor and the Elected Officials. Chairman Dennison stated that the salaries for the other elected officials have moved ahead of the Commissioners salaries for the past few years and will still be ahead of the District #3 Commissioners salary. The Board members concurred that the salary of the Office Supervisor in the Treasurer's Office be reviewed before final budget adoption. PLANNING AND BUILDING Plannin2 Commission Findin2s. Conclusions. and Recommendations: Petition for Zone Chan2e under the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: 2.5 Acres of Property Located Adjacent to Rhody Drive near Irondale Road: Zoned General Use to General Commercial: Michael and Susie Graves: (See also Minutes December 14, 1992) Senior Planner James Holland reported that this item was tabled last week pending discussion with the Prosecuting Attorney. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Ruth reported that this application was made under the Interim Zoning Ordinance which allows a property owner to petition for a zone change if they feel their property was improperly designated. It is the petition- ers burden to clearly demonstrate that a zoning designation other than the one in the Interim Zoning Ordinance would be consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Com- prehensive Plan. The Planning Commission held a hearing on this petition and recom- mends that the petition to change from general use to commercial use for this property be denied. The property is located immediately across from the intersection of Four Corners and Airport Cutoff Road and Rhody Drive. The Planning Department staff report, Mark Huth continued, sets out the problems with designating this property commercial: · Page 4, Number 4: The Tri Area Community Development Plan (which is part of the County Comprehensive Plan) Policy #17 explicitly states that "Intersection commercial areas should center around and not expand beyond 660 feet of an intersection of two arterial roads." This property is more than 660 feet from the nearest intersection. This policy also says that exceptions to the policy are: "the intersections of the Four Corners and Airport Cutoff Roads and Flagler and Oak Bay Roads which should not be considered secondary commercial areas." Changing the designation of this property would be directly contrary to the written policy in the Tri Area Community Develop- ment Plan. · Comprehensive Plan Overall Policy #3 prohibits commercial developments from locat- ing in a linear, strip like manner along roadways except for the Highway Business District. This property is not part of that District. Changing the designation of this property would be the beginnings of strip development outside the Highway Business District. · Policy 22 of the Tri Area Communi.ty Development Plan states that accesses onto County Road 12 (which is now a State highway), should be limited in number and extent. This would require a commercial access from the State Department of Transpo- rtation even if the County were to approve this zone change. YI, 18~A{;! o 17(/'1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 4 Mark Huth concluded that these points support the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of this zone change petition. He feels there is no basis in law for the Commis- sioners to grant a zone change at this time. He further explained that because the entire Comprehensive Plan must be updated within the next two years and because this petition is under the Interim Zoning Ordinance which sunsets in July, any action today won't necessarily be permanent. The petitioner is free to bring this back before whatever body deliberates on the update of the Comprehensive Plan and other Growth Management actions that the County must consider in the next two years. Commissioner Brown moved that based on the findings of fact presented, and the Planning Commission's recommendation, that this petition be denied. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Michael Graves stated that when he purchased the property he did so because it was commercial. Chairman Dennison asked if there are any commercial activities on this site? Mr. Graves reported that there used to be a commercial business on the property and he currently uses it for his business which is M.G. Backhoe Service. He added that he has two accesses to this property (one at each end of the property) which were granted by the County. Commissioner Brown asked if they are commercial accesses? Michael Graves reported that the approaches don't indicate what type they are. Commissioner Brown noted that this property was designated for general use and that would indicated the type of accesses granted. Mter further discussion of the type of accesses granted, the property owned by the Port of Port Townsend and the designation of other properties in the area, Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Brown explained that based on the facts presented, the recommendation from the Planning Commission, Planning staff and the Prosecuting Attorney, he feels the Board has not basis to overturn the Planning Commis- sion recommendation. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Determination re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Si2- nificance: Laree Lot Subdivision. Fulton Lake Estates (Hearin2 concluded November 23. 1992): Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that he received a letter from David Bricklin, Bricklin and Gendler, Attorney for the appellants, which states that the hearing has been closed and no new information should be taken by the Board. Mr. Bricklin has objections to: · The Memo provided to the Board by Associate Planner Jim Pearson (following the hearing) dated December 15, 1992. This memo was presented as a procedu- ral guideline and Mark Huth asked the Board to consider it in that light. The memo provides a useful framework for how to proceed in the process from this point. Mr. Bricklin further states in his letter that the issue before the Board is to consider if an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for the project, or that with certain mitigation conditions attached there will be no probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts and consequently an EIS is not necessary. This is the nature of the determination process, Mark Huth added. Mr. Bricklin also refers to a set of mitigating conditions that were discussed with a representative of the Developer and the South County Coordinating Council. They view the entire package as effective mitigation, but feel that choosing only parts of it would not get the job done. With regard to what Mr. Gendler calls post-hearing comments (Jim Pearson's memo), Mark Huth advised that he feels there is no problem because of the posture the Memo was presented in. Mr. Gendler also refers to Mr. Holloway's letter and objects to the applicant changing the original proposal by presenting new maps. Mark Huth reported that Mr. Boling can offer new mitigation to address what is perceived or actually may be significant adverse environmental impacts at this point. Whether the suggestions are offered by Mr. Holloway, Mr. Pearson or Mr. Bricklin, what proper mitigation might be is the Board's decision. Mr. Boling's proposed mitigative measures are properly before the Board. · · · · .. 18r~ 1.'70B o Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 5 Mark Huth further explained that a change in the proposal itself would not be proper given the that this project review is at the appeal stage. Chairman Dennison asked Mark Huth to clarify if he agrees with Mr. Bricklin who says that new maps or new information regarding the subdivision proposal are clearly impermissible? Mark Huth responded that if Mr. Boling was to bring in new maps re-configuring the lots, that would be a different proposal. If the new maps indicate that a larger buffer zone is being proposed, then the Board can consider that. It is up to the Board to decide what the buffer zone will be. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels that even though the hearing is closed, the Board still has the opportunity to allow the project proponent to offer mitigation for issues that were inadequately address in the mitigated determination of non-significance. Mark Huth stated that is correct. He reported that there was an attempt at a settlement between the project proponent and the appellants and a package of mitigation was considered. Commissioner Brown noted that was done outside of the Board's consideration and they have not seen that information. Chairman Dennison then reported that the Planning Department received a letter from Mr. Holloway. Mr. Holloway then presented a map of the project and referred to his letter which outlines the following additional suggested mitigation: 1) Mr. Boling agrees that there would be no further subdivision. This has been stated before. 2) Mr. Boling also agrees to increase the buffer protecting the wetland on: On Lots 4 and 6 from 50 feet to 300 feet. On Lot 7 (area fronting on the outlet channel) to 150 feet On Lot 9 expand from 100 to 200 feet. (The drawing is in error and there should be an additional 100 feet shown up to the point where Lot 9 meets Lot 10). 3) Mr. Boling has agreed to pay the sum of $500 to the Brinnon School District for each new lot sold (at closing). 4) The project proponent will give notice to potential purchasers of the requirement that a storm water management plan be submitted and approved before the issuance of any building permit. 5) With regard to re-vegetation, Mr. Boling will plant 1,000 two year old fir trees in the buffer zone. 6) Before receiving final plat approval, Mr. Boling agrees to execute a water agreement with the Pleasant Tides Water Association. Additionally, Harry Holloway added, Mr. Boling would agree: · To do a Bald Eagle Management Plan as it applies to Lots 5, 7, 8 and 9 as long as the plan still permits a building site on each lot, as a condition to the issuance of a building permit for each lot (not as part of plat approval). · He has previously agreed to re-vegetate and stabilize roadway and driveway cuts per County requirements. Mr. Boling has not agreed to any further archeological survey because he feels the enhanced buffer area around the site should protect archeological evidence in that area. · He has already offered covenants and conditions for the use of the property. · He agrees to enhance the covenants to also include a "No Hunting" provision in the plat to provide additional wildlife habitat protection. Chairman Dennison asked the basis for the proposed buffer widths and amount of money to the school district? Harry Holloway answered that the $500 per lot was offered be- cause there was nothing specifically proposed by the School District. Sam Boling added that he discussed this with the School Superintendent. Harry Holloway said that the School Superintendent felt this was reasonable from what she has heard was done for other school districts. Chairman Dennison asked if Number 4 is a standard mitigation? Jim Pearson reported that the staff recommended a mitigating condition that· required all building permit applications to be accompanied by a Storm water M~nagement Plan for all lots adjoining Fulton Lake and its associated wetlands. This proposed· mitigation would extend that requirement to all lots in the plat. Chairman Dennison as~ed again if this isn't a requirement on all plats? Jim Pearson clarified that'this project is being reviewed under the Interim Large Lot ~~8 ~AGt 0 1..1709 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 6 Subdivision Ordinance and there was no such requirement in that ordinance. The proposed condition would mean that a Stormwater Management Plan would be required for any activity that requires a building permit (home, garage, etc.) Mark Huth explained that this was not a requirement in the mitigated determination of non-significance previously issued. Mter discussion with Stan Betham regarding the process, Chairman Dennison explained that the Board must make a decision regarding the need for more information or if the information presented is adequate. Chairman Dennison stated that his main concern is that a list of items have been presented that various parties feel are inadequately addressed and the newly proposed mitigation provides no basis to know if these mitigative measures were formulated in a manner to solve those problems. He asked again if the mitigation are based on some knowledge that once they are in place that they will significantly change the likelihood of an impact? Commissioner Brown explained that Chairman Dennison is asking for the correlation between the concerns raised at the public hearing and the mitigation suggested to address those concerns. Harry Holloway pointed out that the mitigative measures were not just pulled out of the sky, they are identified by Mr. Boling based upon the information provided during the entire hearing process. Mr. Holloway then explained why the particular mitigative measures are being offered: 1) No further subdivision of the lots - Mr. Boling has stated on two occasions in open hearing that he would voluntarily agree that there would be no further subdivision of any lots in Fulton Lake Estates, except Lots 2 and 4. The reason for this mitigation is to put a cap on the size of the subdivision so that any questions on impacts can be based on a finite number of lots. Commissioner Wojt asked what assurance can be made that the lots won't be subdivided further? Harry Holloway explained that this would be a covenant on the plat. There can be no modification of the plat without approval of the remaining property owners. The offer to regulate the further sub- division of the lots will have an impact on every concern raised because there will be less development in the future, Harry Holloway added. 2) Expanding the buffers - Harry Holloway reported that this was done to address the con- cerns raised by the staff and the State Department of Wildlife. Mr. Boling is agreeing to expand those buffers beyond what was in his original proposal to address the concerns raised regarding the protection of wildlife and wetland areas. This also deals with the concerns raised regarding archeological resources and their protection because if there is archeological evidence on this site, it is expected to be near the water areas. Expansion of the buffer and restricting development in those areas will protect these resources. 3) Brinnon School District impact - Chairman Dennison stated that there is no correspon- dence from Dr. Enzler whether this suggestion is adequate or not. Harry Holloway reported that the School District did not offer a suggested mitigation. The testimony, Chairman Dennison noted, indicated that the impact needed to be studied. 4) Notice to Purchasers regarding storm water management plans - This takes what was previously suggested by the Planning staff and expands it to require a Stormwater Management plan when any type of building permit is applied for. Chairman Den- nison stated that he needs more information on how this proposed mitigation would address the concern that individual storm water systems would be adequate to handle the runoff from all of the buildings. Harry Holloway explained that this mitigation is to address storm water management on a 22 lot subdivision of 80 acres (this includes lots 2 and 4 being subdivided to their maximum density). That is 1/4 the recommended density in the Brinnon area. 5) Re-vegetation - The applicant is offering to plant, at a minimum, 1,000 two year old fir trees in the buffer zone. Chairman Dennison asked if the buffer is cleared? Mter discussion of the trees on the site, Mark Huth reported that the Board should review the testimony presented at the public hearing. Chairman Dennison added that there has been no planting schedule offered. Mark Huth suggested that the Board specify that a plan be submitted and approved as part of the mitigation. 'IG.. -.18 rAb! o 14Ijl' 0.: ". ~. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 7 6) Water - Harry Holloway pointed out that the applicant has offered to submit an executed water agreement with the Pleasant Tides Water Association to provide the necessary water to the Fulton Lake development. Bald Eagle Study - Harry Holloway reported that because of the testimony presented regarding the Bald Eagle use of this area, Mr. Boling has proposed additional mitiga- tion to provide a Bald Eagle Management Plan for Lots 5, 7, 8 and 9, as long as there is a building site on each lot. He has also offered to make the Bald Eagle Manage- ment Plan a condition of the building permit on these lots. Expanded buffer on Lot 10 - Harry Holloway explained that the buffer for Lot 9 was stated incorrectly in his letter. He added that this additional buffer is also being offered to increase the riparian zone where it is expected that archeological resources might be found. Chairman Dennison assured those present, in response to a comment made from the audience, that all of the objections are part of the record and that more testimony can not be allowed. Chairman Dennison noted that Dr. Whitlum in his letter dated July 14 stated that these areas have the potential to contain archeological resources and this may be a site of cultural significance. The suggestion was made by the Archeological Committee of the Skokomish Tribe that an archeological site survey be conducted to identify where, if any, significant archeological resources or remains might be on the site. Chairman Dennison asked what has been proposed to specifically addresses those concerns? Harry Holloway stated that these mitigation were offered based upon the sum total of the testimony received from both staff and the appellants and with consideration of the probability of these resources on this site. Based on the lack of any specific information and the lack of direct evidence, the applicant made his own objective determination to protect the buffer and to enhance that protection by increasing the buffer size. Sam Boling added that the Eagle Management Plan will only allow specific envelope for building and about 9/10 of the lot will never be disturbed. Commissioner Brown asked if the testimony of archeological significance of the site identified a particular area or is the whole site being discussed? Chairman Dennison referred to Delbert Gilbow's testimony. The Board then reviewed and discussed several items submitted as testimony regarding this issue. Mark Huth suggested that the Board consider what the impacts are first and then how they can or cannot be addressed through mitigation. This will ultimately lead to a decision about what sort of determination that should be made. The Planning staff memo of December 15 provides a framework for the impacts that need to be addressed. Chairman Dennison then reviewed the staff recommendation for consideration of the following im pacts: Erosion and the impact that would have to soils, water and wetlands; The impacts to priority species of wildlife; Resources and ecology of the shoreline; Potential significant impact to the Brinnon School District's ability to provide adequate school facilities; Potential impacts to Native American archeological and cultural resources; Potential impact relating to open space and cumulative land use. Chairman Dennison indicated that it appears to him that: The first mitigation which says that. there will be no further subdivision of lots (except lots 2 and 4), limiting the potential build out to 22 lots may address the issue of cumulative impact just in sheer numbers. Whether that is adequate mitigation is not known. va. 18rAtf o :: '111 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 8 With regard to the second mitigation on expanded buffers, Chairman Dennison asked why there are different buffer widths for these lots? Sam Boling reported that between lot 6 and lot 4 there is a deep depression just north of Fulton Lake, which he feels will protect the wetland in that area. On lot 5 there is also a buffer zone created by the County Road and the steepness of the land. There are big trees in the 240 feet of buffer on Lot 9 which will provide additional protection to wildlife. He will plant trees in areas where there aren't any trees now. Proposed mitigation (number 3) is to pay the Brinnon School District the sum of $500 for each lot sold. Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't have any basis to know if that is adequate. Commissioner Brown noted that the County doesn't have any way to assess this type of impact and evaluate proposed mitigation to address it. Jim Pearson reported that the School District has not given testimony on what impact is significant and what it would take to avoid those impacts. Commissioner Wojt asked if the School District has to have a five year plan to collect impact funds? Mark Huth reported that the County does not have an impact fee ordinance. Commissioner Brown added that this suggested mitigation would be a voluntary donation from the proponent to the Brinnon School District. The County doesn't have a mechanism to make the proponent pay for these impacts. If the proponent proposes to make a donation to the School District he may do so. Mark Huth noted that without a basis there is no way to know if $500 per lot addresses the impact. Commissioner Brown stated that if more information is needed then the proponent should be told what it is. Notice to potential purchasers of requirement for a stormwater management plan before issuance of any building permit - Chairman Dennison said that he is not sure how that addresses the need for a comprehensive stormwater management plan. Planting 1,000, two year old, fir trees in the buffer zone - Chairman Dennison said that he has no way of knowing how many trees go where or what effect that will have. Mark Huth reported that Mr. Bricklin is objecting through Mr. Betham to the fact that Mr. Holloway and Mr. Boling are presenting information without the ability of the appellant to present information in rebuttal or their own information. Chairman Dennison stated that he isn't sure that opening this process back up to public testimony will help the Board in their determination on this project. Stan Betham stated that Mr. Bricklin's concern is that the appellant have equal standing with the proponent and his attorney. Commissioner Brown noted that the appellants don't have anything to offer as far as mitigation. The Board has to make a determination whether the proponents proposal satisfies the needs. The Board has all of the testimony presented by the appellants. The discussion then turned to the appellants view of the process. Mark Huth stated that there was a settlement proposal that contained a number of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures presented by the proponent appear to be pulled out of that settlement proposal. Mr. Bricklin's concern is that without the entire package of mitigation proposed in the settlement, the South County Coordinating Council feels that the impacts can not be adequately mitigated. Chairman Dennison explained that even if the two parties had come up with an agreement, the Board still has to make a determination whether or not the mitigation is adequate. The Board must also determine if the information presented from any and all sources is adequate. The mitigation (number 6) to address the Water District concerns -Chairman Dennison stated that he isn't sure what role this plays as far as an environmental concern. Mark Huth reported that the subdivision cannot be approved without adequate water. If the issue is one of water quality, drilling nine wells as opposed to one well would be the consideration. The final issue is whether the proposed mitigative measures address the archeological and cultural resources. The testimony, Chairman DenniĊĦon continued, suggested a high potential for archeological and culture significance in the Quatsop Point vicinity. To make sure that development does not encroach on those resources, a cultural resource .. 18~Afi o .1. 7J.2 COmmissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 9 assessment should be done prior to issuance of a development permit. The survey should include sub-surface testing so that sites identified can be avoided. It appears to him, Chairman Dennison said, that the proponent is saying that the buffers will make it less likely that these resources will be disturbed. Commissioner Brown asked if it is reasonable to believe that the archeological and culture sites are located inside or outside the proposed buffer areas? The buffer areas are in the proximity of the lake and there was testimony that the significant areas would be close to the lake. Commis- sioner Wojt added that part of the testimony was that Native Americans also used upland areas. He pointed out that another suggestion was that an archeologist be on site when excavating is done. Mark Huth reported that this was done in Port Ludlow when the same issue was raised. Cømmissioner Brown stated that most of the mitigation proposed by the proponent and staff goes along way toward dealing with the impacts, except for the issue of archeological and cultural impacts. The school hasn't presented any information to substantiate that there will be a significant impact created by this development and they haven't suggested mitigation to address that impact. He is not sure that they would be able to provide that information since they are a small school district. The County has no mechanism to charge impact fees to address the school's concern. Còmmissioner Wojt asked if Commissioner Brown feels that the storm water management pbm for each building permit would mitigate any impact? Commissioner Brown noted that the storm water plan for this development would have to be in conjunction with the plans for the County roads in that area. Most individual drainage plans are to contain the størmwater runoff on property they are developed for. Cømmissioner Wojt asked if planting 1,000 trees of one species will address the wildlife impacts? Commissioner Brown answered that the Board can require a planting plan which w()uld indicate what would be planted and where it would be planted to protect wildlife, w~tlands, etc. After considerable discussion of the issues raised, the SEP A process, if there is enough information for the Board to make a determination, and what kind of assurance there is that the mitigation will do as intended, Commissioner Wojt asked about the scoping process for an EIS. Mark Huth reported that the Board does not have to have a public hearing to develop the scope of an EIS, but they can. A public hearing would be part of an expanded scoping process. Another way to handle this would be for the County to. issue a scoping notice to all interested agencies and parties and accept comments on whether the scope identified is adequate. Commissioner Wojt asked if the issue of the width of the trail has been resolved? Mark Huth explained that the issue on the trail was whether allowing this access in the buffer ar¢a would deter or enhance the effect of the buffer. Commissioner Wojt said that he is concerned if mitigation is written, how it can be developed in a reasonable length of time so! that the proponent can get on with his activities and the appellants can be satisfied with the results. Mark Huth reported that there is a 10 day limit for this Board to make a determination on this project. S~m Boling stated that he would like to add a mitigation to say that before any building permit is issued, on the lots around the lake, an archeologist must be present on the site when excavation is done. The discussion continued regarding the process for drafting mitigation. Commissioner Brown pointed out that if the Board is considering the issuance of a Determination of Sig- nificance which required a scoped EIS, he feels the Board has to weigh the kind of information that would be produced, what information is available now, and the informa- tion the proponent could furnish if a mitigated determination of non-significance is issued. Cl)airman Dennison noted that in the proponents' wetland evaluation study by Myers Bipdynamics (dated May 1) it says on page 8 that protective buffers of variable width presently border the southeast, north and part of the west side of Fulton Lake. Protective buffers help reduce the exposure of wetlands to the impacts of site development and t 18;~ o .~. 7:1..1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 10 proposed land uses. Two approaches are necessary to evaluate impacts to wetland areas. First is to evaluate specific, known, direct impact of the project to the functions and values attributed to a wetland. The second approach requires assessing the general, cumulative, indirect impacts to the functions and values of a wetland over time. Each of these assessments is based on a pre-development evaluation of the wetland areas." Chairman Dennison feels that mitigation should be based on that kind of information. One of the biggest problems is that there is disagreement regarding whether or not this is a Class I wetland. The proponent's own consultant and the Department of Wildlife say that it is Class I wetland, while the staff says it isn't. Commissioner Brown asked if the difference in the wetland class requires a difference in the amount of buffer? Chairman Dennison reported that in the Washington State Depart- ment of Ecology draft standards for buffer zones, Category I wetlands require a 200 to 300 foot buffer. A 200 foot buffer is required in places where the proposed land use would be low intensity. Commissioner Brown stated that this project could be considered low intensity, with 20 lots on 80 acres with a lake on the site. Mter more discussion of the impacts to be addressed and the best way to do that, Commissioner Brown suggested that a vegetation plan be required to address wildlife protection, and soil erosion in the buffer areas. Mark Huth reported that there is a list of mitigation suggested as part of settlement agreement which the Board could review. Commissioner Brown questioned if these proposed mitigative measures could be submitted since the public hearing is closed? Mark Huth explained that this list of mitigation is not agreeable to either party, but it is a list that the Board can review. Chairman Dennison stated that this is an information gathering process and it doesn't matter who presented the information. Commissioner Wojt stated that he doesn't know what an EIS would do in terms of solving the problems. Chairman Dennison added that an EIS won't solve problems it will simply provide information upon which to develop mitigation. The question is whether there is enough information at this point. Commissioner Wojt explained that he feels there is enough information, but he doesn't know if the mitigation deals adequately with the issues raised? Mark Huth again suggested that the Board review the list of mitigation. Harry Holloway stated that he doesn't object to the Board reviewing the list of mitigation, but would object to the Board considering the full agreement. Commissioner Wojt explained that he questions whether enough information can be provided to address the concerns even if an EIS is required. Commissioner Brown said that it depends on whether it is felt that better information will be provided by an EIS or by asking the proponent to provide the information. Chairman Dennison noted that in an EIS the County is part of the process to determine who provides the information. The discussion continued regarding the best way to mitigate the concerns. Mark Huth presented the Board with a copy of the mitigative measures from the settlement agreement. He further explained that if the project proponent doesn't agree with a particular measure, the County would have no way to enforce that measure (Le. number three - the County could not require that a buffer vegetation plan be prepared by a specific consultant (Resources Northwest) or that an escrow amount be held by a specific or- ganization (the Jefferson County Land Trust). Each suggested mitigation was then reviewed: 1. "Sign and abide by a Bald Eagle Management Plan agreed to and signed by the State Department of Wildlife." Mark Huth stated that this had been agreed to. Harry Hol- loway reported that the applicant agreed to this for lots 5, 7, 8, and 9, at the time of building permit issuance, not at plat approval. . Stan Betham interrupted by noting that the appellant has not been asked if they object to the review of these mitigative measures. This list of mitig~tion was put together by Mr. Boling's representative and a representative of the SCCC. The appellants understand that the County can not take a position on the enforcement provisions, but this list of mitiga- tion represents a compromise. Chairman Dennison explained that even if the proponent Wl .18 ~A&~' 0 ·'·'~.f4 .-... ¥ '4 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 11 and appellants had come to an agreement on these mitigative measures, the Board of Commissioners is not bound to agree to them. Mark Huth clarified that portions of the first mitigation were agreed to, but whether or not that mitigation is accepted is up to the Board. 2. ''Re-vegetate and stabilize roadway and driveway cuts per County requirements." This mitigation, Mark Huth reported, has been suggested by the proponent. 3. ''Re-vegetate the buffer area around Fulton Lake per plan prepared by Resources Northwest. Buffer areas will be surveyed and staked prior to final plat approval. Plantings done under provisions 1, 2, and 3 will be monitored for viability as per plan developed by Resources Northwest. An escrow amount of $2,000 will be established to cover cost of necessary replanting through the monitoring period. This escrow account will be managed by the Jefferson County Land Trust and the remainder at the end of the monitoring period will be returned to the Applicant." Mark Huth advised that the County can't recommend a particular consultant or agency do the plan. The County can suggest a plan be done, but the proponent would get a consultant to do it to the County's satisfaction. If this mitigation were to be considered it would have to be reworded. (Le. "The proponent shall re-vegetate a buffer area around Fulton Lake as per the requirements of the Planning Department and/or the Department of Wildlife.") 4. "Pay the Brinnon School District the sum of $500 per lot sold, at closing of escrow. " The problem with this is that the County can't require this type of payment. If this type of mitigation is considered it could be written as follows: "The proiect provonent will enter into a voluntary agreement acceptable to the Brinnon School District to pay a monetary sum." Stan Betham reported that he discussed this with the School Superin- tendent and $500 per lot is acceptable to her. 5. "Conduct an archeological survey of the site in accordance with terms and conditions agreed to by the Point No Point Treaty Council." Mark Huth explained that since the Point No Point Treaty Council is an agency with jurisdiction, the County could issue this mitigation as written. The proponent has suggested that he would be willing to do what the County has required in the Port Ludlow area to address this type of concern, which is to have a certified archeologist on site whenever excavation is done. 6. "Create and abide by a Conservancy Easement which includes all the buffer area and all of Fulton Lake which will be given to the Jefferson County Land Trust. The Land Trust shall have the authority to establish all reasonable conditions necessary to protect the integrity of the Conservancy Easement, including monitoring requirement." The County can't require that a Conservancy Easement be entered into, Mark Huth advised. If the proponent is willing to enter into such an agreement that would address many environmental concerns. Who would hold such an easement cannot be dictated by the County, but the County has the right to approve the party to hold the easement. 7. ''Allow no further subdivision of lots 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Further subdivision rights on these parcels will be dedicated to the Jefferson County Land Trust before final plat approval for Fulton Lake Estates." Allowing no further subdivision of these lots is exactly what the proponent has suggested today, Mark Huth added. The County cannot require the dedication of development rights or indicate who they should be dedicated to. 8. "The new lot line dividing Lot 9 and 10 shall be adjusted to allow for a minimum 250 foot buffer from Fulton Lake and its freshwater lobe." Mark Huth reported that he can't say whether or not the buffer suggested today by Mr. Boling addresses the concern completely or not, but that can be investigated. 9. ''All lots including those subdivided 2 and 4, will require separate and binding Bald Eagle Management Plans." Mark Huth explained that one Bald Eagle Management plan is probably all that the State Department of Wildlife will do for the whole site. If the Department of Wildlife approves one Bald Eagle Management Plan for the entire area, he feels this concern would be addressed. 10. "Future subdivision of Lot 2 is limited to no more than four (4) lots and access to such lots shall be from the south. Future subdivision of Lot 4 is limited to three (3) buildable lots. Further subdivision rights on these parcels of lots created by sub- division of Lots 2 and· 4 will be dedicated to the Jefferson County Land Trust before final plat approval for Fulton Lake Estates." Mark Huth explained that if lots 2 and 4 are to be further subdivided, the County requires further environmental review upon ~ 18\,~ o .~.7~5 I ' . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 12 subdivision application, especially if they are long plat applications. He added that he isn't sure that the County can limit the subdivision of these lots to specific numbers. 11. "Each lot will have a building envelop identified and shown on the accompanying map. The exact location and dimensions of the building envelope will be shown on the maps accompanying the Bald Eagle Management Plan." Mark Huth stated that he doesn't know, since the sites are already cleared, if this would be a problem. Only in the case of Binding Site Plans has the County ever required that the building envelop be noted on the face of the plat. He doesn't know if the County has the authority through SEP A to make such a requirement. 12. ''Notice must be given to potential purchasers of the requirement for a Stormwater Management Plan, the enforcement of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, including the requirement for individual Bald Eagle Management Plans for each lot, and the Conservancy and Development easements. Such notices will appear on the face of the plat. Such notice will be recorded with all title documents regarding lots in this plat as well as those in the future long plats on Lots 2 and 4." A disclosure of require- ments for Stormwater Management plans must be made to every purchaser so having such a note on the face of the plat would assist the applicant as well as the potential purchasers, Mark Huth explained. 13. "No path or other human access will be provided to Fulton Lake or its wetland areas." Whether the path detracts or adds to the environmental value of the buffer is the issue. 14. ''All monies estimated to be needed to complete the mitigation measure described in this agreement times 1.5 shall be placed into an escrow account managed by the Jefferson County Land Trust. . . ." The County has never required anything like this and Mark Huth explained that he is not sure that the County has the authority for this require- ment. Generally the County's enforcement consists of not issuing permits (building, shoreline, etc.) applied for and enforcement of the subdivision ordinance. Since this is a SEP A determination on a subdivision, non-compliance with mitigation, would be non- compliance with the subdivision ordinance and statute. 15. "The subdivision proposal shall be amended before further processing by Jefferson County to incorporate the mitigation measures specified in the foregoing paragraphs number 1 to 14." Mark Huth noted that this is an abundance of caution in legal terms. It is restating the mitigation measures within the body of the proposal itself. He added that once the mitigation is issued they have to be complied with. This is more of a procedural suggestion, than a mitigation of an environmental impact. The discussion turned to these mitigation, if they would be adequate, and the parts of the mitigation that the County cannot require of an applicant. Chairman Dennison noted that he personally is not willing to accept the mitigation proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Brown asked what further mitigative measures are necessary to make sure the project will not have significant environmental impacts? Chairman Dennison noted that he is saying if all there is to consider is what the proponent has suggested, then he feels an EIS is needed. Mter more discussion of the archeological issue and wildlife buffer and the need for a re-vegetation plan, Commissioner Brown added that he would like to give the applicant the opportunity to provide the requested information before requiring an environmental impact statement. Chairman Dennison added that he would like to see mitigative measures worded like number 11. Jim Pearson reported that the Bald Eagle plan could be specified to cover every lot. Commissioner Brown added that the Board needs to figure out if having a Bald Eagle Plan done at the time a building permit is applied for is appropriate as suggested by the proponent. Mark Huth suggested that the Board write a mitigation that says a Bald Eagle Plan will be done by the Department of Wildlife because they are the experts in this area. Commissioner Wojt asked how a mitigative measure which requires a Eagle Management Plan for the site can be done in a short time? Mark Huth reported that the Board can issue mitigation that are contingent on future study. He clarified and explained that even though an Eagle Management Plan may not be completed by final plat approval, the approval can be issued based on it being completed. Commissioner Brown added that any condition not completed by. final plat approval must have surety provided (bond or escrow account) to assure that it will be completed. Commissioner Wojt said that the ~ 18 ~Ab£ o '" ?1b , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 21, 1992 Page: 13 mitigation requiring that an Eagle Management Plan be done would address that concern. He asked if the issue of the Class of buffer could be mitigated by the amount of buffer allowed on the lots around the lake? Commissioner Brown asked what differences in mitigation there would be for a Class I or II wetland? Jim Pearson reported that the DOE model wetland ordinance suggests that in a Class I wetland with a low intensity land use, a 200 foot buffer is required. A Class II wetland, with a low intensity land use, would require a 100 foot buffer. The buffer offered by the proponent were then reviewed. Discussion continued on the adequacy of the buffers proposed, what would be needed in buffers to make the Class of the wetland a mote question, how the suggested buffers would impact the proposed lots, whether the wetland class is the same for the whole site, and how much buffer if needed to mitigate the impacts to wetlands, and wildlife. Jim Pearson pointed out that the Board needs to decide what the impacts are, and if it is possible to mitigate those impacts. If the Board determines that the impacts can be mitigated, then the task is to write the mitigation. He suggested that if the Board's determination is to mitigate the impacts, that they can direct staff to prepare draft mitiga- tive measures for their review. Mark Huth added that the Board needs to have this done by next Monday or the matter will have to be determined by the new Board. Mter more discussion of the best way to proceed, Commissioner Wojt directed staff to draft more definitive mitigative measures and moved to set next Monday at 3:00 p.m. as the time for the Board to review the draft and make a determination. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown stated that some direction has been given during this meeting on mitigation and he asked staff to develop mitigative measures that will reflect what has been discussed today. Chairman Dennison asked the Board members to provide staff with clear direction on how to draft these mitigative measures. Jim Pearson explained that he can draft options for the Board to chose from. Commis- sioner Wojt added that the testimony with regard to wildlife, vegetation and soil erosion need to be addressed in the mitigation in a way that will allow the proponent to do what is required, so that he can get on with his project, and so that what is done can be measured and monitored. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS "-. SEAL: ATTEST: .,tOl 18 rAb~ o 1. 71."1