Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080591 {, MINUTES WEEK OF AUGUST 5, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. From 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. the Commissioners met In a briefing session. Discussion of Process for Redistricting County Commissioner Districts: The process that was used for redistricting after the last census was reviewed. The-/3R.C.W. requires that a new plan be developed In eight months of receipt 9~:ttfè\census Information. The plan must be done and adopted by January .ØT 1992. The Board directed that the Community Services Director, the // Director pf Public Works, the Prosecuting Attorney and the Auditor review the I / information and formulate a plan for how to proceed. / / /f / Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth re: Discussion of letter from Bricklin & Gendler, Attorneys Reauesting a Time Extension for Submission of a Statement and to Re-schedule Appeal Hearing (set for August 6. 1991 at 2:30 p.m.) (Captain Vancouver Estates): Mark Huth reported that a law suit has been flied regarding the Board holdIng this appeal hearing and until a determina- tion Is made by the Judge, this hearing Is on hold. Chuck Henry, Attorney for Tom Beavers, reported that the Board has a letter from Erwin Jones, another Attorney representing Mr. Beavers, asking that they re-conslder their reconsideration and cancel the appeal hearing. Mr. Jones and Mr. Henry both feel that the Board can not hear an appeal of their own decision and that the only place for the appeal to be heard Is the Superior Court. Mr. Henry asked that the Board accelerate the process and consider Mr. Jones request to withdraw their decision to hear the appeal which will cancel the Court hearing. Mark Huth advised that this Is the same argument that has been made .to the Court and since that process has been started the Board should walt for the Court to clarify the matter. The Board concurred to take the Prosecuting Attorney's advice and walt until the Court makes a decision. Mark Huth further reported that Mr. Gendler called on Friday and reported that he will be present for the hearing on Tuesday and the Information LVOl 1 7 r~,~f 00 2ÆJ6 , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 2 requested has been submitted. Their request for re-settlng the hearing and an extension of time for submitting Information Is withdrawn. Later In the Dav: Mark Huth reported that the judge took this case under advisement and will render a decision at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of July 1, 1991 were ap- proved as read by motion of Commissioner Brown, seconded Commissioner Wojt. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: After discussion and review of several of the items on the consent agenda, Commissioner Brown moved to delete Item 12 (Contract for Jefferson 2000) and to adopt and approve the rest of the Items. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Approval of Comparable Bid Purchase; Three (3) Tailgate Sanders and Spinner Assemblies with Stabilizer Kits 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Re-settlng the Public Hearing set for August 5, 1991; Changing the Name of a Certain County Road on the Official County Road Log; From McMinn Road to Puma Bluff Road; Hearing to be re- scheduled to August 19, 1991 at 10:45 a.m. 3. CALL FOR BIDS; One (1) Autocad 485/33 Computer Workstation; Set Bid Opening for August 19, 1991 at 11 :00 a.m. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 78-91 re: Granting Non-Exclusive Franchise on County Road Rights-of-Way; Septic Effluent System on Blue Jay Lane, Plat of Brldge- haven, Division 3; AI Schoenfeld 5. RESOLUTION NO. 79-91 re: Vacation of a Portion of Unopened Moore Street In Irondale No.3; Arthur and Colleen Pullen 6. CONTRACT re: Pavement Marking 1991 MTØ971; As awarded on July 1, 1991; Stripe Rite, Inc. Auburn 7. Reappointment of William Michel to another two (2) year term on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee; New term to expire June 15, 1993 8. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING; Moderate Risk Waste Management Grant for the Implementation of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan; Division of Tasks and Funding; Health Department and Public Works Depart- ment 9. CONTRACT re: Professional Services; Family Planning Services for 1991; Clallam-Jefferson Counties Family Planning Services 10.CONTRACT re: Professional Services; Health Department Childbirth Education Services; Carole Gautschl 11.CONTRACT re: Port Hadlock Public Works Shop Metal Roof Project; As awarded on July 1, 1991; Price Alre of Port Angeles 12.ltem Deleted - CONTRACT re: Professional Services Jefferson 2000; Bredouw 13.CONTRACT re: Personal Services; Hearing Examiner; Campbell H.D. Kintz 14.Reappointment of Pat Gould to the Trl Area Community Center Advisory Board; Two (2) Year Term to expire June 11, 1993 15.RESOlUTION NO. 80-91 re: Hearing Notice; Budget Appropriations/Extensions; Various County Departments; Set for August 26, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. 16.RESOlUTION NO. 81-91 re: Budget Transfers; Various County Departments 17.AGREEMENT, Group Endorsement I; To Original Agreement Signed January 1990 for Employee Benefits; Kltsap Physicians Service 18.HEARING NOTICE re: County Road Vacation Petition; A Portion of Clover Street, A Portion of Jensen Street and Certain Alleys and Lot Lines; Plat of Captain Tibbals Supplementol Addition; Set for August 19, 1991 at 10:30 a.m. 19.Hearlng Notice; Setting Planning Commission Hearing for Wednesday August 210 1991 at 7:00 p.m. In the Superior Court Courtroom; Proposed Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance . ' L~Ol 1 7 fAct 00 . -..., ." íP'J '--, ':ì 6 r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 3 20.Slgnlng Findings and Conclusions as Adopted July 22, 1991 when Variance Request Granted; To Vary from the Road Construction Requirements; Dolores Neal, Applicant 21 . Request for Payment of Third Quarter Allocation $5,000; Jefferson County Conservation District BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS Discussion of Jefferson County's Participation in Special ACQuisition Program; Household Hazardous Waste Facility for County: State Department of Ecology: Solid Waste Specialist Jeff Frettlngham reported that the State Department of Ecology has a special program for the County to acquire an 8 foot by 20 foot container that can be used as a hazardous waste collection facility. Gary Rowe reported that this facility fits In the County's Hazardous waste Plan as a holding facility. Commissioner Brown moved to approve and have the Chairman sign the County's request to participate In this special acquisition program. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Claim for Damages #C-04-91: Personal Property Damaae: Susan S. Kriegel: The damages were to a car that was parked In front of the Court- house while Ms. Kriegel was serving as a Superior Court Juror, Public Works Director, Gary Rowe reported. The Prosecuting Attorney reviewed the request and recommends denial because the County Is not responsible for damages to personal property. Commissioner Brown moved to deny the claim as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried þy a unanimous vote. Claim for Damages #C-Q2-91: Theft of Personal Property: Kellie Ragan: This claim, Gary Rowe explained, Is for personal property that was stolen from the Qullcene Community Center. The property stolen was being used In a County recreation program at the Center. The Prosecuting Attorney reviewed the claim and recommends that It be rejected because the County has no polley to provide this type of coverage for employees personal property being used. Recreation Director Warren Steurer has reported that this employee was asked to bring her tape deck and tapes for use In this program. Chairman Dennison asked Gary Rowe to develop a policy for the future on this type of use of personal property by a County employee. Commissioner Brown stated that since the employee was asked to bring their property for use In the program, he feels that some sort of compensation should be made. Commissioner Brown moved that this claim be approved on the condition that a value for the property that was lost be determined by the Risk Pool Claims Adjuster. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. lVOl 17 rA~ 00 ......,,~~ U·.¡JO Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 4 Review of Comments on the DNS Issued and Action on Application to Open County Road Right-of-WaY: Northerly 5 feet of East Kinkaid Street for the Extension of a Water Main on Unimproved Portion of a County Platted Road: Plat of Irondale: Hensel & Mogseth. Applicants: Gary Rowe reported that the DNS Issued on this application to open County Road right-of-way on the northerly five (5) feet of East Kinkaid Street was sent to all Interested agencies. He then reviewed the only comment received on this project which was from the Public Works Department: The area of the proposed water line has a grade of OOk to 1 % and Is mostly sandy material. The length of the proposed extension will be no more than 400 feet, and less than 100 cubic yards of material will be handled. Commissioner Wojt asked If this water line Is a dead end line? Gary Rowe reported that most of the lines In that area are looped around for service flow. David Hensel answered that this waterline will connect two dead end lines. Commissioner Brown moved to uphold the DNS Issued and approve the application to open county road right-of-way as recommended by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Sally McDole re: ReQuest for a New Computer: Sally McDole and Administrative Assistant, Pam Rondeau came before the Board to discuss the Department's need for an additional computer. Pam Rondeau reported that they are requesting a 386 model computer because the programs they are running from WSU require It. They currently have an IBM PC with two disk drives, which will not run some of the programs they have been given by WSU. Sally McDole explained that the office has five staff members using one computer. <" ( Chairman Dennison asked Gary Rowe If the County has any existing hardware that could be used to serve this need? Gary Rowe reported that there Is no hardward available. Commissioner Brown asked the estimated cost of this system? Pam Rondeau reported that this system Is estimated to cost $2,100.00. Commissioner Brown suggested that this request be turned over the ER&R. Gary Rowe asked If this computer Is going to be rented or purchased out- right? Sally McDole answered that there Is no money In her budget for an additional computer. The discussion turned to the advantage of the com- puter being purchased through ER&R because service Is provided and the department can participate In the County's computer network. Gary Rowe will put the Information together on the costs of the computer and report back. PLANNING AND BUILDING State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: Proposal to Increase Stream Flows In leland Creek bY Removing Vegetation and Beaver Dams: leland Creek Downstream from lake leland: Jefferson County Conservation District: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that John Boulton and AI Jakeway of the Jefferson County Conservation District were present to answer questions. This project Is Intended to reduce flooding on Highway 101 between Lake Leland and the B6ulton farm by moving the water through this area faster than It currently moves. The theory Is that If these streams are cleaned of debris the water will be able to drain during :V(1! ¿G9 17 r.~rr O~ ~-~,~ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 5 storm events. The area where this work will be done Is wetland. The area downstream from Lake Leland Is a low value wetland containing predo- minately canary grass and does not serve well as fish and wildlife habitat. The area upstream of Lake Leland Is a valuable wetland that will be protect- ed. Jim Pearson then reviewed the Environmental Checklist for the Board. The Conservation District has been working with the State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife on this project. The area Is extremely flat with hydric solis. Dredging of the channel to remove canary grass and woody debris will be done. Vegetation (trees and shrubs) will be planted to protect the stream bank, control the growth of canary grass, and promote the fishery habitat. Commissioner Wojt asked If there Is any Indication of what type of herbicide will be used on this project? AI Latham answered that Rodeo and Roundup will be used. These are the only herbicides that are approved for use In and around streams. Chairman Dennison asked If this Is an anadramous stream? John Boulton reported that It used to be. Commissioner Wojt asked what will be done with the beavers If their dams are removed? Jim Pearson reported that the beavers will be trapped and moved to another site. Commissioner Wojt then asked about the concern of lowering the level of Lake Leland and If that would Increase the canary grass In the lake? Jim Pearson reported that the canary grass will Increase In the lake If the level of the lake Is lowered too much. AI Latham stated that there Is canary grass In the upper wetland area now. The value of a wetland Is partially the buffering effect In flood events. This wetland currently acts more like a lake than a wetland. Jim Pearson added that everyone that has been Involved In this project Is aware that there Is a serious problem of traffic safety on Highway 101 In this area. The State Department of Transportation would like to see something done that won't cost a great deal and that won't harm the upper wetland. Glen Huntlngford noted that one of the problems has been getting the commitment from the DOT and assuring them that the project will be done, will have an Impact on the problem along the Highway and that main- tenance will continue. John Boulton added that there Is a number of septic systems around the Lake that are In trouble because the level has Increased. These will be Improved by allowing the water to flow through the system. Jim Pearson stated that he recommends that a DNS be Issued on this project. The Department of Fisheries will have to Issue a hydraulic approval for the project and that will address the necessary mitigation for the project. Com- missioner Brown moved to Issue a Determination of Non Significance and lead agency status on this project. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Review of Compliance with Vegetation Management Formula (VMF) of Shoreline Permit IISDP88-0016: Pope Resources: Jim Pearson reported that a vegetation management formula was part of the conditions of approval of Shoreline Permit #88-0016. In the fall of 1990 site Inspections by Planning Staff found that vegetation had been removed In violation of that formula. No building permits have been Issued In this area as a result of this violation and no final Inspections have been done for building permits which were previous- ly Issued. This matter must first be resolved to the satisfaction of the County. Jim Pearson continued that there are two areas where violations have oc- curred: L ; Vat 17 fAGf 00 .::,!r1.1f'tJ l..;', ,U -~' ;:~- _. ·1& ;~.~W'TI Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 6 Area A Is along the northwest shoreline of the site (outside of Inner Harbor) facing on Ludlow Creek across from the log dump. There Is a steep slope down to the water In this area. Area B Is along the shoreline of the Inner Harbor, southerly of the Com- munity Center. This area Is flat to roiling. Pope Resources has conducted an assessment of the vegetation that was removed and what remains In both areas. Replanting of ground cover and large trees has been done In these two areas. Fir trees up to 30 feet high have been planted In Area B using a tree spade. This machine couldn't be used In Area A due to the steep slope. Jim Pearson then reviewed the determinations he made after a site Inspection on July 10, 1991. He reported that Zone 3 (the area 15 feet back from the Ordinary High Water mark to the edge of the Building Setback Line) In both of these areas Is In compliance with the Vegetation Management Formula. In Area B, Zones 1 (area that overhangs the water) and 2 (area 15 feet back from the Ordinary High Water Mark), Pope Resources was directed to plant three additional large fir trees. With this addition, Jim Pearson reported, that It Is his determination that these zones are In compliance with the VMF. Jim Pearson reported that In Area Ä, zones 1 and 2 west of Building 4 (closest to the Paradise Bay Road) are In compliance with the VMF. The area from Building 4 east Is not In compliance with the VMF. Pope Resource was directed to have a plan for additional planting of trees and shrubs to bring this area Into compliance. This plan has been submitted by Pope Resources, and Jim Pearson reviewed It and feels It will bring the area Into compliance. The plan recommends, however, that the planting not be done until after October 15 to allow for better survival of the plants. pope Resources has done extensive planting In this area over the past few days. A video tape taken on July 10 of Area B and August 5, of Area A was then shown. Jim Pearson concluded by reporting that If the Board feels that what has been done meets the requirements of the VMF then the Building Department can directed to Issue the building and occupancy permits that are being held. The three large trees that Pope Resources was directed to plant, have not been planted yet and Pope Resources has Indicated that they will plant those trees Immediately If the Board feels It Is necessary, and replant them later If they die. This may not be the best time to plant these large trees and the landscape architect recommended that they be planted after October 15. Commissioner Brown stated that It would be best to have them planted In October as recommended when they have the best chance for survival. Commissioner Brown moved to accept that the project has met the condi- tions of the Vegetation Management Formula. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, asked If a statement can be made for the record that Indicates that the violations relative to the Shoreline Permit have all been satisfied. Jim Pearson agreed that there are no other Indica- tions of violations and that all of the violations noted have now been satisfied. Reauest for Variance from the Road Construction Standards: Two (2) lot Short Subdivision· SP8-91: Dabob Cove Tracts on the Toandos Peninsula. West of Thorndyke Road and Coyle Road Intersection: Robert and HollY Clark. Applicants: Jerry Smith Associate Planner reported that this request for variance Is for a two lot short subdivision In the area Identified as the Dabob Cove Tracts which Is an unrecorded plat. The access to this area Is off of the Coyle Road via an existing private road which has a gate at Its entrance. The road Is 12 foot wide with a gravel surface for the 3/4 of a mile to this property . ~ V(}L i 7 r~Gf 00 -~¡.r-¿~' r~':/~ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 7 The Clark's are requesting a variance from the requirement that the road be Improved to a 24 foot ~ width because It will cause environmental damage. Other subdivided properties In the area have already done environmental damage due to clear cutting. The Planning Commission held a hearing on this request. Jerry Smith reviewed the Planning Commission findings and noted that the members expressed concern during their hearing that Fire District officials had not responded regarding the adequacy of the existing road. The Planning Commission found that the requirements are not. an undue hardship and recommend that the Board deny the variance request. In response to Commissioner Wojt, Jerry Smith reported that there Is a 1 ~k to 15% grade on Rhododendron Drive which bisects the Clark property. To widen the road will require that the bank on their property be cut back further and fill will be required on the down slope side. The road system In this area Is private. There are a total of nine cabins and two full time residen- ces In this area, Mr. Clark reported. He added that his residence Is located above the slope that would need to be cut Into In order to widen the road. An engineering report has been done which Indicates that the slope below his house Is a 30% grade and to cut Into It to widen the road would make the slope a 35% grade which Is beyond the Ideal maximum angle of repose for the soli conditions In the area. Mrs. Clark reported that their house sits about six feet back from the edge of the slope right now. Chairman Dennison asked If the properties In the area could be divided further? Mr. Clark reported that the covenants on the properties In the Dabob Cove Tracts limit the division of each five acre parcel Into four lots. He said that the topography of the area will not allow that much division, however. h r Mr. Clark added that he has a total of six letters from volunteer fire fighters who serve In the Fire District that say that the roads are superior to County roads In the area that they would have no problem bringing any emergency vehicles Into the area. He also has letters from adjacent property owners Indicating that they are In favor of the variance. Mark Huth asked If the solis report Mr. Clark referred to was submitted to the Planning Commission? Mr. Clark answered that the Geologist/Soli Engineer report (done by NTI) was given to Jerry Smith at the Planning Commission hearing.- Mr. Clark then gave Jerry Smith copies of letters from the Volunteer Fire Captains all Indicating that the road Is adequate for emergency vehicles. Mr. Clark added that he measured the 16 County roads on the Coyle Pen- Insula and many of them are not 24 feet wide. Mrs. Clark stated that these are private roads 'In a private community with a locked gate and a 10 mph speed 11m It. Chairman Dennison then reviewed the Public Works Department comment which states that the road width should not be reduced to less than that required by the Uniform Fire Code which Is 20 feet. Commissioner Wojt moved to table action on this request until such time as the Public Works Department presents recommendations for how to deal with this type of request. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. i. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the "Responslble Officlal" Deslanation Under the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance No. 7- 84: Chairman Dennison explained to the 20± Interested County residents, the process that would be used during this hearing. Planning Director Craig Ward reported that the amendment being proposed Is Intended to accomplish three objectives: .. I \lOt. 17r~(;r OQ --",I-"-"'ß«fJ G'~ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 8 1. To conserve the time spent by the Commissioners In conducting project reviews which could more effectively and expeditiously be dealt with by Department staff. 2. To improve the consistency and predictability of SEPA threshold determinations by entrusting the decision making process to Depart- ment staff. 3. To de-politicize the SEPA threshold determination process by removing It from the partisan arena. This amendment, Craig Ward continued, will assist In clarifying the Board's duties and responsibilities under the appeal process as well. The amendment will eliminate an Imprecise and perplexing situation on appeals because the Board wouid no longer sit as an appellate body to review Its own decisions. The proposed amendment Is consistent with SEPA WAC rules. Community Services Director David Goldsmith explained that this amendment would be a significant change In the SEPA process. There is currently no authority or accountability with the Planning Department staff during the SEPA process. A majority of the jurisdictions within the State deal with SEPA at a staff level. 90% of the cases that come before the Board are not controver- sial, they are straight forward and the projects that are more difficult will probably make their way to the Board anyway. David Goldmslth made the following suggestion for the Board to consider: 1) Placing some parameters that would indicate at what point the Board feels that an Environmental Impact Statement should be considered as a response to a major project, such as a large sub- division. 2) Some type of public notification system for not only the adjacent property owners, but the public at large Is something the Board should consider adding. The law requires very minimal public notifica- tion. Commissioner Brown asked what type of better notification for neighbors could be provided and how that would be done? David Goldsmith stated that If the Responsible Official changes to a staff process the open meeting process, which the Commissioners must abide by, would not be a factor unless an appeal Is made. Notification could be done through a newspaper listing of the SEPA determinations that are under review. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing. David CunnlnQham: David Cunningham asked If this hearing Is only on that segment of the Ordinance relating to the Responsible Official designation and not on notification? Chairman Dennison answered that Is correct. David Hero: David Hero stated that there Is an Incredible amount of free staff time available among the public to find things out for the Board. By Involving the public more In the Initial stages of the determination, the Board would be supplied with much more Information to make decisions. With regard to de- politicizing SEPA determinations, Mr. Hero stated that they are political deci- sions. If this amendment goes through that decision making process Is moved from politically elected officials, who are accountable to their constituents, and given to an appointed person, where the public has no direct recourse available to them. Chairman Dennison asked Mr. Hero what he sees as different In the propos- ed amendment from the way things are done now? Mr. Hero answered that he believe that anytime public process can be Involved at front end of a decision Instead of the back end the Commissioners and the public will benefit. I VOL 17 fMF OD¿'"'":¿3 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 9 Bob Crowley, Olympic Environmental Council: Bob Crowley stated that he Is pleased to hear discussion of the notification question, however that Is not the heart of the Issue. The key to this Is who Is actually doing the environm- ental review and whether or not they are qualified to do It. Qualified In the sense of having professional background for making environmental assess- ments. The OEC recommendation Is that the County hire a Senior Planner for Environmental Review. There will not be a substantive change to the process unless qualified staff does the review. Mr. Crowley agreed that most of the environmental reviews should not come to the Commissioners, but feels that a Senior Planner for Environmental Review who would report directly to the Board, will accomplish what the Board wants and leave a more direct line of accountability for the citizens. The OEC recommends that a citizens hiring committee help In writing the job descrip- tion, screen the candidates and provide the Board with three recommen- dations for hiring. It would be fair to Include a member of the Planning Department staff on that committee. The three suggestions, the position of Environmental Planner, that position report directly to the Commissioners, and the citizens hiring committee are crucial to whether or not any kind of upgra- ding of the public notification Is really meaningful, Mr. Crowley stated. Bob Crowley concluded by noting that by having this person report directly to the Commissioners means that they are separate from the Planning Depart- ment. They would like to see an environmental position that will operate In a semi-Independent position. The person hired would have a tremendous amount of background In environmental science and would be thinking In terms of the broad landscape, the ecology of the land, and the limits on the land that cannot be exceeded. Kathryn Jenks: Kathryn Jenks stated that she feels that there Is a reason-able need for this delegation of responsibility to an official of the planning depart- ment to facilitate the appeals process. She questioned the possible conflict of Interest problem with an appointed staff member being given this respon- sibility. She stated that some of Craig Ward's statements at the beginning of the hearing were highly opinionated. What Is controversial and what isn't and If timely process means speed, Ms. Jenks explained are Irrelevant as long as the· process Is fair. She asked why we want to streamline the process? She added that she wants the process to take as long as necessary to address real Issues, and not just make It easy for the responsible official. Ms. Jenks then read from RCW 21 C.Ol 0 Purposes and 21 C.020 Responsibility. She noted that In no place In these sections does the RCW talk about timely considerations. Julie Jaman, Watershed Council: Julie Jaman read the Watershed Council's letter Into the record. It Is very Important to find a way to get notification to the public even before official survey work Is done on a piece of property. It would serve the public trust If we develop a way to get the public and the public's knowledge In the open before anything begins. Using a skilled professional to assess through the SEPA process, seems a very good, con- structive step In getting more accurate Information and a better basis upon which to evaluate a project. Steve Hayden: Steve Hayden stated that after the staff does an analysis of the checklist the next thing that happens Is the County Planning staff and the project proponent go Into negotiations about the mitigation for the project. Those negotiations are critical. A legal binding decision will be made at the staff level, If this amendment Is approved. That decision can only be over- turned by a formal appeal which Is a legal process. This puts a whole different tone and requirement on the public. He added that he supports the OEC proposal. There has to be a public input process early on. Given the at- titudes and lack of professional expertise of the Planning Department Mr. ¡VOL 17 r~r,~·· 00 ,:':~ v'-1 ./1 u" Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 10 Hayden said, the Commissioners really need to look at hiring someone for that specific task. Pete Lanaley: Pete Langley asked what the Planning Department will do If they have a 200 parcel subdivision proposed, when there may be a lack of resources such as water to supply It? How are they going to determine all this when the resources have been expended beyond their available use now? How are they going to review the project If they don't have the specific Information at hand and the management and assessment of the resources hasn't been done? Kay Goodhue: Kay Goodhue, representing herself, stated that she has been getting the threshold determinations that have been issued because of her association with the Audubon Society. She stated that the majority of the determinations were of non-significance or a determination with mitigative measures already written. She reported she has reviewed them and In all but one case the mitigation and determinations have been sufficient. The one that was In question had listed "unknownll on the Items in the environmental checklist. As a representative of the Audubon Society, Mrs. Goodhue stated that the County needs an Environmental Planner and she would rather that he not be In the Planning Department. This person needs to be someone with environ- mental expertise to make these decisions. Mrs. Goodhue added that the adjacent property owners should be notified by mall and a notice should be posted on the property. Harvey (Mike) Flemlna: Harvey Fleming stated that he served on the Planning Commission and the Shoreline Commission. When these Commissions are reviewing projects they hear many environmental Issues even though that Is not their charge. He stated that he supports the suggestion for public notice and the addition of an Environmental Specialist to the County staff. Peter Badame: Peter Badame stated that In many ways he would endorse the position suggested by the Olympic Environmental Council. One way to look at this position Is the same as the Hearing Examiner, which Is that you have a professional person who has levels of responsibility that focuses strictly on activities within the defined parameters. Preservation, conservation and diminution of degradation must be considered In Jefferson County. The Idea here, Mr. Badame continued, Is to reduce the appeals by bringing public Involvement In at the front end and by hiring a responsible person who Is trained and qualified to answer some of the questions. It Is Important to have a qualified individual with the technical background to address the Issues, and really evaluate the situation. Mr. Badame urged the Board not to look at this as just a chore to be delegated down, but to look at It as a challenge to the County to deal with the Issues. There Is more than enough work for a position which could be called a SEPA Coordinator. The OEC proposal Is reasonoble, Mr. Badame noted and he feels that the public should be Involved In the hiring process. He concluded by stating that he would feel more comfortable If the process was flushed out before the resolution Is adopted. Chris Marrs: Mr. Marrs stated that he supports the OEC proposal. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed amendment to the SEPA Ordinance, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Brown both Indicated that they would like more time to consider the comments received today. VOL 17 FM,r on c~~-V'ß51 _ 1..--1 i<~~'}¡ -'~L,- ;~~i;-~~-' ¡iE ,;'~~)J~!mßr,'\.~~~ii----";,..w":ndH:-_~ .ltll -, Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 11 Review of Comments Received on Mitigated DNS Issued: Proposed Addition to an Existing Mini Storage Development: Brlnnon: Stan Johnston. Applicant: Jerry Smith reviewed the comment received on the mitigated determination of non-significance from the State Department of Ecology on the Stan Johnston mini-storage project In Brlnnon. The DOE stated that erosion control Is needed on this project to prevent siltation and eliminate the pos- sibility of contamination of nearby waters. There Is a small stream within 1,000 feet of this project that provides habitat for salmon. Jerry Smith added that one of the mitigating measures Imposed Is that a drainage control plan must be submitted to the Public Works Department. The DOE did not make any recommendation on how the County could better mitigate the potential Impacts. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels the DOE concern Is addressed by mitigative measure number one. Chairman Dennison stated that DOE Is saying that they want the erosion control measures In place prior to any clearing, grading or construction on the site. Chairman Dennison suggested that the following wording be added to mitigative measure # 1 after the first sentence, "Erosion control plan will be sub- mitted prIor to any clearIng, gradIng and constructIon." Commissioner Brown moved to add the suggested language to mitigative measure # 1 and to uphold ·the mitigative determination of non-significance with this change. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ReQuest for Variance from Two (2) Development Code Standards: For CC14-91 Upgrading Existing Pump Facilities and Adding a Convenience Store/Dell to Gasoline Station: Intersection of Rhodv Drive and Irondaie Road: G.S. Properties/Norm Sather. Applicant: Jerry Smith reported that Norm Sather, the owner of the property located at Rhody Drive and Irondale Road (known as Community Shell), Is proposing to Install new gasoline tanks, covered canopies over the pump Islands, and to Improve access to the property. A variance from two requirements of the Development Code are requested: 1) The setback for one of the canopies. The requirement Is that the canopy be setback 35 feet from the property line, and 2) The location of the access driveways. The requirement Is that they be at least 100 feet from the Intersection of major roads. Where that point Is measured from Is not clearly Indicated In the Develop- ment Code, other than It should be measured from the curbllne. There are no curbllnes on this site. The Planning Commission reviewed this request, Jerry Smith noted, and be- cause of the size and the shape of the property felt that there was justifica- tion for the variances as requested and they recommend that the variances be approved. The Public Works Department response was presented and reviewed, which Indicates that the road approaches have been re-deslgned and that they support the requested variance. The Public Works Department also supports the variance request for the setback of the canopy. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the findings of fact as determined by the Planning Commission and the recommendation from the Public Works Department and to approve these variances as requested. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed after completion of the scheduled busi- ness. The meeting was reconvened on Tuesday August 6, 1991. All Board members were present. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported to the Board by phone that the Judge had ruled in favor of the County In the law suit regarding the appeal of the MDNS Issued on the Captain Vancouver Estates and the Board may proceed with their appeal hearing on this project tvOl 17 rACE 00 ¿VIG ,"-' ',- Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 12 at 2:30 p.m. The Board met with the Planning, Public Works, and Health Departments and with the Director of Community Development from 9:00 a.m. to Noon. HEARING re: Reconsideration of SEPA Threshold Determination Issued: Captain Vancouver Estates: large lot Subdivision and Class IV General Forest Practices Permit: Haines Street Trust. Tom Beavers. Trustee: Chairman Dennison reported to the 24+ interested area residents that the purpose of this hearing Is to formally addrëss an appeal of the Issuance of the Mitigated Determina- tion of Non-Significance on the Captain Vancouver Estates Large Lot Sub- division and Class IV General Forest Practices Permit. He then asked the Board members to disclose any "ex parte" contact that they may have had with any person about this project. Chairman Dennison stated that he has spoken with Steve Hayden and Tom Beavers about the procedural Issues of the SEPA process. He has not talked about substantive Issues. On Instances when he was asked questions that he felt were substantive he answered that he could not talk about those things. He stated he does not feel these contacts will playa role or detract from his ability to make an Impartial decision. Commissioner Brown stated that he had a phone call from Tom Beavers In regard to this project, but nothing substantive was discussed. Commissioner Wojt stated that he has listened to people. Steve Hayden has talked with him and he talked briefly with Tom Beavers before the trip to Mount Olympus. Nothing substantive concerning the project was discussed. Commissioner Wojt stated that he feels he can make a fair determination on this matter. Commissioner Wojt asked If this Is a "de novo" hearing? Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that It Is. He suggested that the Commissioners adopt as testimony all the written comments they have received on this project and accept any new material that Is offered. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt all of the previously submitted written testimony on this project. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Michael Gendler, Bricklln, Gendler, Attorney's representlna the Friends of Mlddlepolnt: Michael Gendler stated that an appeal was flied that prompted this proceeding. He then reviewed the letters that have been submitted: A Brlcklln and Gendler letter dated June 28, 1991; a Friends of Mlddlepolnt letter dated July 31 and a letter dated July 29, 1991 from Tim Rymer of the State Department of Wildlife. He asked that these materials be considered and adopted as part of the record as well as the ones previously submitted. Sebastian Eaaert, Friends of Mlddlepolnt: Sebastian Eggert summarized some of the points made In the Friends of Middlepolnt letter of July 31. The MDNS Is being appealed and an Environmental Impact Statement Is necessary for the reasons stated. He then quoted from several of the letters previously sub- mitted on the project: the Point No Point Treaty Council (dated July 8), Washington Environmental Council (dated July 4), Olympic Environmental Council (dated July 9), and Debaran Kelso (dated July 6). Mr. Eggert con- cluded by noting that the entire habitat block Is at question. The reduction of 25% of the habitat block as proposed by this development will reduce the viability of that habitat block by a much greater percentage. To determine the effects of development on the wildlife use of this area, which Is stili greatly In doubt they feel that an EIS needs to be done and that Is why the Commls- slonersdeclslon Is being appealed. [VOL 17 rAC;~ 00 iV-'7 .ý -' -- Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 50 1991 Page: 13 Mark Huth then asked the following questions of Sebastian Eggert: Q. You stated that the property was logged once about a 100 years ago. Do you have any documentation to prove that? A. In the Commissioners flies there was a report done by the WEC about a preliminary survey done by Bob Crowley, which Ind- icated that. Q. What Is your relation to the property In question? How close do you live to the property? A. I'm a neighbor. I live about a 1/2 a mile from the property. Q. The noise disturbance noted by Debaran Kelso, did you hear that, specifically from February 21 to April 1991. A. There was disturbance going on there on a couple of walks I made through the area during that time. Most of my observa- tion occurred on weekends when a lot of the activity was not occurring. Yes, I personally have heard activity down there. Q. Is your residence In this same forest area or tract? A. No. The forest that I live In was logged around 1918 and the second growth was logged again around 1972. The tract of forest upland of the McCurdy Point area Is third growth forest. Chuck Henry then asked Sebastian Eggert the following questions: Q. Why do you conclude that the Board of Commissioners Ignored the several letters that were In their file and attached to the agenda for various meetings at the time they were received? A. The Commissioners, In our observation, operate from staff reports that are prepared with Information that the staff receives and submits to them. We have not seen any staff reports that note directly or Indirectly a lot of the Information that we've brought forth to the Commissioners ourselves, personally. Q. Do you have reason to believe that the Commissioners did not read those letters prior to the meetings at which they were mentioned In the agenda? A. I don't sit on the shoulders of the Commissioners and don't know If they read them or not, but I presume that as good public officials they would. There Is no way of saying that giving their current workload they wouldn't count on the recommendations prepared by their staff as most good execu- tives do. Q. During the period of time that the activity was occurring on the property, that you said may have affected the wildlife studies, do you recall what times of the day, what periods of time those activities went on? A. Obviously a lot of the brush cutting would have occurred during the day time. Well drilling activity occurred there during the daytime, during the normal business hours, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Q. How early In the day did the activity start that you have heard? A. Activity that I personally have heard occurring - 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. In my personal experience there has been a lot of activity down there. Q. How late In the day do you recall having heard activity? A. 5:00 In the evening. Q. Do you remember what months or what time periods were Involved In the activity youOrs talking about? 'VOl 17 U(E 00 -.'VJ8 ¡ , 1. ~-.....J ' .' .:,jf".'';:" "j':8;~;::2~,'<;;;', :-j:;i:m~_t~':æ;_;:j;· ",J_~: ~~~f.Œ_ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 A. I can only speak generally, as far as that goes. Q. Did you have day to day contact with Debaron Kelso during the winter of 1990-91, during the time that activity was going on and she was doing her study? A. Yes. Page: 14 Q. Is It correct that she was on the property doing a voluntary wildlife survey for about two months before Cynthia Kuntz and Ken Radekey became Involved? A. She used the County right-of-way to gain access to an ease- ment across the Erickson property to the beach, at or below high tide line, during the time that she did her surveys. Mr. Henry then asked Mr. Eggert to relate what he recalled of the dally activities of Debaran Kelso, when she was doing the voluntary wildlife study. There was a discussion about whether or not Mr. Eggert should answer these questions because Debaran Kelso was present to relate her activities herself. Mr. Henry's questioning of Sebastian Eggert continued. Q. Did you have occasion to observe the blow down of trees In what- ever native old growth forest Is around this area as compared to the Beavers property? A. There's Is so little of It left, I can't recall having gone Into one. Michael Gendler: Mr. Gendler asked Debaran Kelso to explain what she did and her qualifications. Debaran Kelso: Debaran Kelso reported that she has a Masters Degree In Ecology and about twelve years of field experience. She was doing a volunteer study for the Marine Science Center surveying the bluff and record- Ing what sort of organisms washed up on the beach. She would note Eagle activity every time she was down on the beach, She also knew that Pereg- rine Falcon studies had been done In that area and she was curious to see If they were stili In the area. After she became aware of the development of the McCurdy Point area she became more vigorous In recording activity In that area, starting In Novem- ber when there was a lot of surveying and cutting of trees. She added that throughout November and December perk holes were dug and there was a lot of machinery In that area. There was the storm and well drilling In Decem- ber and January and after the blown down there was clearing of the pro- perty in which a high pitched brush saw and chalnsaw were used. She stated that she feels these things severely effected the wildlife surveys that were being done at the time. Commissioner Wojt asked what type of field experience Ms. Kelso had? She reported that she worked In Alaska d.olng studies of wolverines, deer, wolves, coyotes and fox In McKlnnley Park. She worked for a short period of time as a fisheries biologist. She then went to Africa to do her Masters Degree work with studies on antelope and went on the Desert Ecological Research Unit. She came back In 1987 and since then has been Involved in Spotted Owl studies working for the Forest Service and the National Park Service, the State Department of Natural Resources and did some plant surveys for the Park and the Forest Service. She stated that she Is familiar with the techniques of wildlife surveys. Mark Huth then asked Debaran Kelso the following questions: Q. Old the spotted owl surveys take place on the Olympic Peninsula? A. Yes they did. Q. Do you have any expertise In the state of the forest habitat Itself? . /1" ~'7" O~n :..,v~ct1I : ViM... . f,!(t"· . _1' 'G" ~ :- ,C .... !~¥ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 15 A. She answered that she has some expertise In habitat classifica- tion. She stated that this forest Is valuable as a forest habitat. It Is not classic old growth, It does have some elements of an old growth forest. It contains some old trees and nice layering effects. It Is particularly valuable because there Is so little of It left on the Olympic Peninsula. Q. Is there something that distinguishes this piece of forest land from general second growth? A. Yes, the downed material and larger trees. You don't get a layering of different levels of trees In a second growth forest. There Is more species diversity In an old growth forest. Q. Are you familiar with the surveys that Dr. Radekey and Ms. Kuntz did? A. I have read their reports. I have not spoken specifically with them since the time of the survey to see what their techniques actually were. I think that Ken Radekey has just flown over the area In a helicopter. Q. How does that compare to surveys that you have been Involved In, say for Spotted Owls? A. You can't really compare them directly. Spotted Owl surveying Is a totally different thing than surveying for Eagles or Peregrines. You have to target the species when you set up your survey. Q. In your letter you mentioned Plleated Woodpecker use of the site, by personal observation. Have you observed those birds there? A. Yes, I have observed Plleated Woodpeckers, both on the proposed development site and In the general area. Q. You also mentioned the presence of distinctive feeding holes. What do you mean by that? A. They have feeding holes that are rectangular In shape. Most Woodpeckers make round holes, while Plleated Woodpeckers make a rectangular slot In a tree. Q. Where In that area have you observed those, on the development site? A. I'm not sure exactly where through that block of property. I'm not sure If they were exactly on the development site or not. I didn't feel free to walk through Tom's property to check that out. I felt like he didn't want people trespassing on his property and I tried to respect that. Q. Mr. Eggert spoke of an easement that goes to the beach. Where In relation to Mr. Beaver's property Is that easement? A. The County road actually splits through the property that's been purchased. The easement actually goes to the beach through the piece that's to the north, that actually includes McCurdy Point. Q. Does the easement bisect Mr. Beavers property? A. No. It's actually on the Erickson piece of property that goes out to the point. Tom's piece ends at the gate. It Is directly adjacent to Mr. Beaver's property. Chuck Henry then asked Debaran Kelso the following questions: Q. In your field work do you have a routine, a record keeping approach that you use In your species observations? A. I do In terms of the Eagle slghtlngs I wasn't as specific as I now see I should have been. I have kept records of when I've seen birds there and what time for a period of a couple of months. [VOl 17 fAŒ 00 ¿30 ~: ./~··l..¡Y¡"'k;~;:';::~:'~:,',._'Gj.~~C'" 5~; ..~ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 16 I don't have records for the full spectrum of time I was there which was approximately three or four months that I walked In that area. Q. What months were those roughly? A. Probably November through April. Q. So, both before and during the period of time that Cindy Kuntz, Anita McMillan and Ken Radekey were doing their studies? You pre dated them and then covered that same time period? A. Yes. -I'd like to make clear that my surveys were not as Inten- sive as Cynthia Kuntz for that two week period. She made reference In her report that I had done two months of work before that time and had not seen any Peregrines. I'd like to make clear that my surveys were not as Intensive as hers and therefore I can not say that there were not Peregrines using that area. I was down probably once a week to survey that area, but not necessarily at dusk and at dawn. Q. In Cynthia Kuntz's report she makes reference to having received from you personal observations about the Eagles and the absence of Peregrine Falcons. Did you, after having read Cynthia Kuntz's report, submit anything In writing or make any written records to document what Information you had given her? A. That comes from a very brief conservation I had with her on the beach, and I have not had any communication with her other than that. In her report she made no reference to Eagles. I did not speak to her about Eagles. She was doing a Peregrine survey and wondered If I had seen any and I said no. Q. Do you feel that her report mis-represented or mis-colored what you told her about your observation? A. I do feel It mis-represented what I had told her. She Implied that I had been there two months doing Intensive surveys and that wasn't the case. Q,. Have you done anything with such records as you kept of your time and date of observation of whatever you saw? A. I wrote the letter to the Commissioners and I hoped that would be sufficient to summarize my findings there. Q. The letter sort of summarizes your belief that there are Plleated Woodpeckers from personal observation, without details of when, how many, what kind of trees, that sort of thing. Would that be correct? A. That would be correct. I generally summarized what I had found there. Q. You conclude high Eagle use of the area without much detail as to when, mature, Immature, nesting, roosting, transitory, passing over, that sort of thing. Would that be true? A. That would be true. If I were to put It In to percentages figures I would say that 95% of the time that I walked down there I would see Eagles, either mature or Immature, using the area. Q. Using In what respect? A. Passing over, roosting, and this is the entire block, not specifical- ly the piece proposed for development. I think they use that block as a whole. Q. Do you know from your studies what to look for as far as frequent roosting trees? Are you an expert In knowing what kind of trees, \f~t 17 UŒ 00 q"\'1 ,--;¿ · . Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 17 species, age, location, configuration of trees that Eagles look for In roost trees? A. I wouldn't call myself an expert. I can, from my observations of other wild animals and some from Eagles. I know what looks like a tree that they would use and have seen which trees they've used. The person that Is the expert, I believe, Is Anita McMillan, and that comes from five years of exclusively Eagle experience. Q. The Eagles that you saw roosting. What was the duration of their roosting? Was it a short touch down, a long stay? A. That's difficult to assess because they are flushed very easily In that area. I would always carry my binoculars with me and always be looking for the Eagles, but when I would come within usually 800 feet of them, they would fly off. So, I could note what trees they were using at that time, but they would In- variably fly. Q. Do you agree that the slghtlngs that you had made were prior to the IDS (Interdisciplinary Team Study) meeting on February 6? You were present and Tim Rymer was there. Did you notify Tim Rymero Anita McMillan, Cynthia Kuntz, Dr. Radekey or anybody about your observa- tions of Plleated Woodpeckers? A. I believe that they had made this observation themselves from looking at the holes In the area. I don't think at that meeting I mentioned It. Q. Did you mention a concern about Peregrine Falcons at that meeting? A. That was one of the objectives of that meeting, to highlight our concerns for both of those species as well as for the geology of that area. Q. Did you at the meeting, join In the concern that there should be a formal wildlife biology survey of the endangered and threatened " species using the area Including Eagles, Falcons and anything else that might be there? A. I don't believe I made very many comments at that meeting. I was there as an observer. I was told specifically before I came that my comments would not be part of the record, that I was welcome to attend, but I was not there as an expert witness. I was there as an observer. I felt like there were several represe- ntatives that I could trust to make my comments for me. The environmental concerns were well represented and I was there as an observer for the most part. Q. Is It correct that Tim Rymer recommended to Mr. Beavers that he, Mr. Beavers, employ you to do the wildlife survey? A. I don't remember that. I don't remember It being address specifically to Tom. I think Tim did say as an aside to me that I would be a good person to do that, but I felt that I would not be the choice of Mr. Beavers because I would be viewed as a biased person and that Is within reason. Q. In your field survey experience, would you feel It to have been an appropriate procedure for Cynthia Kuntz to have made her observa- tions for roosting and possible nesting of Peregrines and Eagles an hour before and after dawn and dusk? " A. I have no problems with the survey techniques for Peregrine Falcons. I have problems with the fact that they were so short In duration and that winter roosting of Eagles was not Includedo and that there was so much disturbance during the actual surveys. l Val 1 '7 rAÇ,~ 00 ,'Cì? t...J~_;J~ t Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 18 Q. The Issue of winter roosting of Eagles would be fairly obvious. If Anita McMillan was there looking for Falcons and saw Eagles roostlngo Is It not likely that she would have mentioned that? A. She mentioned that there was high use of that area by Eagles. She Is grossly overworked and has not been surveying that area for Peregrine Falcons and has not been In there very much surveying for Eagles. Q. You speak of the short period of time for her studies. Cynthia Kuntz and Anita Mcmillan, both. Do you feel that their observations were at the wrong time of year? A. For winter roosting, I do believe that they were at the wrong time of year. They were looking for nesting of Eagles at that time and the Peregrine Falcon study was done at the very tall end of the winter roost period. It's unfortunate that the devel- opment has proceeded so quickly. Q. Do you ogree that the time periods of the day that Cindy Kuntz used would be appropriate to avoid the daytime disturbance of well drilling and that kind of thing? A. No I don't. I believe when there's that sort of disturbance In an area It's not like the birds are going to come back straight away after being disturbed. I believe that It's not such a temporal thing, that once the birds are disturbed they don't Immediately come back after 5 when people have stopped sawing and hammering or whatever. Q. If both Cindy Kuntz and Anita McMillan come to the conclusion that there is no such use of the Beaver's property by Eagles as to require an Eagle Management Plan, do you feel you have the expertise to disagree with them on this? A. I believe that Anita McMillan had lost hope for more than what she could get In terms of protection for that area. The Depart- ment of Wildlife Is under Intense political pressure as well and I believe that she would wish for more protection than what was stated In the letter. I do believe that she Is under some political pressure. That Is speculation, some of It Is personal communica- tion. Q. Do you know of any existing Inventory of slmiiar forest on the Qulmper Peninsula? A. Do you mean a similar Inventory for a development project? Mr. Henry clarified that she had testified about what kind of forest this Is. She stated that It was unique. He osked again If she knew of an Inventory of the forests of the Quimper Peninsula on which to base that statement? Pete Langley Interrupted by noting that a 40 acre piece like this was cut three years ago which was located on Nelson's Landing. He then apologized for speaking out of turn. Michael Gendler Interjected that the Issue Is not proving the certainty of environmental Impacts. The Issue is whether there Is a reasonable possibility that substantial Impacts may occur. Chuck Henry corrected him by adding that the wording Is a reasonable likelihood. The discussion then turned the relevance of some of the Information being presented, and If there Is an objective factual basis for the Information being presented. Debaran Kelso answered that In the other forests that she has been In on the Qulmper Peninsula, she has not seen a similar type to that forest. Mr. Henry then asked her approximately what percentage of the forested property from Port Townsend to and around McCurdy Point to the southo she has personally observed for Its forest habitat type. She responded that she has not made a VOl 17 r~G€ 00 , r¡ 6)¡ W~¡)~ ~: ...)/':?Jî'i~<{:':; ~Ji!' j= Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 19 habit of stopping and walking through every piece. It has come to her observation that there Is not much of It left, particularly along the waterfront and It Is critical that It be on a waterfront bluff. Mark Huth asked If Mr. Crowley would be willing to enlighten the Board to his Information on forest types. Bob Crowley, Olympic Environmental Council: Mr. Crowley reported that his comments about the forest (on this property) were based on a very brief visit to the site at'the request of the Friends of Mlddlepolnt. His observations were made on a walk through the property. What he saw there, based on his observations of other forests around the north Peninsula, Is a special area that Is unique In that It has old growth characteristics. The structural diversity that Is present In an old growth forest, Is present In that stand. Mr. Crowley explained the classic definition of old growth forest, developed by the Pacific Northwest Lab of the Forest Service, as one that Is 200 years or older with trees of 32 Inches or greater diameter. The forest contains a certain number of snags per acres and a certain volume of downed woody material per acre. The structural diversity Is the downed woody material and the multi-layered canopy, which Is younger trees growing up underneath older trees. This definition Is applied to Douglas Fir, primarily. This area has a fair amount of residual old growth. There Is evidence of fire In that area. That area was probably burned In 1701 In the major fire that burned the entire north peninsula. In the 1870's another fire burned that area also. What has come back In that are has been naturally regenerated. Douglas Fir Is resis- tant to fire because It is a very thick barked tree. The older trees that were observed on that site would not have been considered good timber trees at the time that the property may have been logged. Observations as to the date of logging were speculative. Mr. Crowley explained that his expertise Is not as a Forest Ecologist. Michael Gendler then asked Mr. Crowley the following questions: Q. If this Isn't your direct expertise can you speak to why you were asked to do this? A. I was asked to do this because for the past three years I have been working on timber sale management In the Olympic National Forest. First as a member of the Qullcene Ancient Forest Coalition, and as the environmental member of the Olympic National Forest Advisory Board appointed by the United Stated Congress to oversee operations of the old growth legislation that was passed by Congress In 1989. I am currently Involved In a cooperative management program with the Forest Service for the Spenser Integrated Resource Area. Mark Huth then questioned Bob Crowley: Q. In your letter of July 9, you speak about the stand being valuable In terms of it being a biological diversity reservoir. Could you explain to the Board what that refers to? A. Biological diversity Is a function of three components, genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. In the old growth forest that covered this landscape, research has shown that the highest level of species diversity and genetic diversity exists within old growth systems. This area, given that It has residual old growth retains much of that species and genetic diversity. Chairman Dennison asked If Mr. Crowley Is speaking of animal species or tree species? Mr. Crowley answered that he Is talking about both plant and animal species. ; VOl 17 fAŒ ,00 ¿84 .~0F,: 'i.\ff, ,I' ""'"'- lit '. Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 20 Q. Are those areas characterized as biological diversity reservoirs abun- dant In this area? A. Of the entire Olympic Peninsula there Is less that about 1% of this forest type left below the elevation of 1,500 feet. That, I would say, Is fairly rare. Q. You also mentioned old growth recruitment area. Could you des- cribe what that term refers to? A. Old growth recruitment Is that part of the forest that has not yet reached those criteria that we define as classic old growth. The research people are finding that old growth systems are dynam- Ic and are constantly emerging. Q. So In other words there Is a potential for this to become old growth, given time? A. Yes. Given the condition of the forest across this north end of the Peninsula, particularly at low elevations, we have very little In this age class that Is available for recruitment for those species that are significantly dependent upon that age class of forest. What we have Is a lot of forest that Is very young that has at least 100 to 150 years before ,It will reach the point where It will support those species. We have here a forest that already has a substantial amount of the structural characteristics of old growth and would very rapidly emerge Into full old growth structural diversity. Q. Does the fact that It's waterfront property have any effect on that judgment that its fairly rare? A. That's going to change the plant association that exists there. The plant association Is what combination of plants you find within a given habitat area. Certainly there's going to be effects because of the Impacts of wind and salt water In the air. You're going to have a different kind of habitat type than you would have a half a mile In from the bluff. Chuck Henry then asked Mr. Crowley the following questions: Q. Can you tell us what portion of the property you saw? A. I would guess that I saw probably 75% of the property. Q. By walking through, boxing or sectoring It, that sort of thing? A. No, I did not, In any way, conduct a formal timber cruise or survey of It. Q. Did you do any age sampling? A. No, I was aware that we were on Mr. Beavers property and I certainly didn't feel that It was within my parameters to start coring trees and doing things of that sort. What I saw made It very clear to me that was necessary, to have some formal surveys done, which Is why we have requested an EIS. Q. You say that less than 1 % of this type of forest Is left on the Qulmpef Peninsula? A. On the Olympic Peninsula. Q. Can you narrow It down to the Qulmper Peninsula, Discovery Bay area? A. No, I can't. There's been no specific surveys done. No mapp- Inghas been done of the forests. Observation would say that we have less of It here. We're below the 1% even. That would have to be confirmed by aerial photography and then crown analysis of the forest type. ~ VOl 17 rMr~ 00 -'35 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 21 Q. If less than 1% of this type of forest Is left on the Olympic Penlnsula~ do you have the basis for knowledge of what the threatened and endangered species have done about that? A. I don't understand the question. Q. Have they adapted and learned to perch In front of people's houses and nest In large trees In the center of Port Townsend and that sort of thing? A. For the most part the threatened and endangered species have declined rapidly both In their range and the size of their num- bers. Q. Do you have a basis of knowledge of how much impact on the species numbers, numbers of Peregrines and Eagles, have been effected by building houses in this kind of forest? A. No I don't. Michael Gendler, Attorney, Representlno the Friends of Mlddlepolnt: Michael Gendler stated that he feels what the Commissioners have heard today gives them a very strong Indication of why an Impact statement Is needed. SEPA requires an environmental Impact statement If there are significant adverse Impacts. The Commissioners have authority under SEPA to require an environ- mental Impact statement. This is an appeal, which Is an opportunity for the Commissioners to correct an error, If one has been made. Yesterday a Court said that the Commissioners have the authority to hear this appeai. Chuck Henry then questioned the procedure of the meeting. Michael Gendler: Mr. Gendler stated that he Is attempting to summarize what has been presented to the Commissioners In writing and to give them some reasons for the purpose of the appeal from a legal perspective. He then emphasized that the decision that the Commissioners make now Is not subject to any Immediate judicial challenge. A challenge can not be made until a permit decision Is made. He then read Sections 075(1) and (2) a. from SEPA. He added that the threat of litigation at this point should be Irrelevant to the Commissioners decision. Mr. Gendler continued by noting that the focus should whether there are environmental Impacts that need to be addressed. This property Is wildlife habitat for Important species that haven't been addresses In any systematic survey. Plleated woodpeckers and their distinctive marks have been ob- served. They are there and their habitat Is being encroached upon systemat- Ically and they and other wildlife species need protection and need a systematic study. There are Important cumulative Impact questions. There Is a progressive loss of an Increasingly rare forest type. What other people have been required to do, Is not what we're here about, and Mr. Gendler stated he doesn't feel that Is a proper perspective for the what the Board's con- siderations ought to be. The essence of SEPA Is whether the future will be determined by planning or by default. Mr. Gendler then referred to the bluff stability Issue, and referred to a geolog- Ist report done for a perspective purchaser nearby. This report recommended much greater setbacks. The setbacks suggested aren't sufficient. The SEPA rules direct all of us to address the context and Intensity of the Impacts. The context here Is In a piece of land that Is increasingly rare In this small area of the Qulmper Peninsula and on the Olympic Peninsula. This land needs to be studied so that we know what we're doing to It before we take that step. The Supreme Court In the Asarco Case, made It clear that certainty Is not required. A reasonable likelihood Is what's required and Impacts need not be proven conclusively. ~ VOL 17 t~G~ 00 ¿D6 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 22 The Washington Supreme Court indicated that If there Is controversy among the experts, that's when you want to get your Information Mr. Gendler stated. The purpose If an Impact statement Is to try to get good information to resolve who to listen to In the case of conflicting reports. The Courts have said that you have to consider "responslble opposing viewpoints." He also stated that the people who testified today live In the area, they'd like to see It be nicer than It could be If bad things happen and they don't hide that fact. They admit where they're coming from and they are very forthright about what they don't know. No one who has come before you today has tried to portray themselves as knowing more than they do or as having greater expertise than they do. On the other hand they do have con- siderable expertise and as citizen volunteers, Mr. Gendler stated that he feels their views should be highly respected. The strongest basis for an Impact statement Is the comments from Mr. Rymer of the Washington State Depart- ment of Wildlife. Mr. Gendler then quoted from Mr. Rymer's letter of July 29, 1991. Mr. Gendler continued by noting that only the applicant Is of the view that an Impact statement Is not necessary. He said that he has reviewed the mitigative conditions on the determination and they sound nice, but every single tree could be cut down. He asked what employee of the County will be assigned to oversee them, what measures will be taken In that regard and how there will be a determination of what trees are removed, whether due care was used, whether It was too much and when it's too late? Studies of the water table and traffic should be done as part of the Impact statement. Studies alone will not protect the environment, particularly if they are done during and after the development. Mr Rymer, as well as another geologist, have said that the setbacks are Inadequate and it Is clear that this needs to be addressed much more carefully. The Washington Supreme Court said In the Norway Hili case (1976-77) that forest land conversion alone is a special Impact and that a change of use, requires an Impact statement. In conclusion Mr. Gendler stated that the question now Is whether you are going to proceed without Information, and some vague and lido the best you canJl conditions or get the proper Information together with the benefit of professionally done formal surveys at the right time of year, as well as agency and public comment, to make an Informed decision. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Gendler If the surveys that the applicant had done, were not done at the proper time of year? Mr. Gendler answered that he believes that Is part of the emphasis of Ms. Kelso's statements. The survey as far as Falcons, was done at the very end of their roosting season and should have been done during their roosting season. With the Eagles the survey time did not cover their roosting season. Commissioner Wojt asked If the EIS process Is done, how would the negotia- tions for the mitigation take place? Michael Gendler responded that the County's staff people can coordinate and develop their recommendations to the Board for mitigation. The proposed mitigation will also be subject to public and agency review. Chuck Henrv, Attorney Representing Tom Beavers: Chuck Henry explained that Gerald Thorsen, Geologist, has done further work since the MDNS which was previously reviewed In the timely comment period. Tom Beavers was asked to present and explain that report to the Board. Tom Beavers: Tom Beavers reported that Jerry Thorsen was recommended to him by the Planning Department as a Geologist who could do a needed study on the stability of the bluff. Mr. Thorsen has been out to study the bluff In November, December and again In February as well as three other times. V~L 17 r~r,r. 00 , ""1 "'" G,,-_¡) (f " Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 23 Mr. Beavers then reviewed the photographs and the report that goes with them prepared by Jerry Thorsen In response to the Information presented by Chris Marrs, and the Dixon/Newlin study. Mr. Beavers noted that Jerry Thorsen has been studying this property regularly. He has taken coring of 20 to 30 trees to determine their ages. Most of them were 40 years old. There were some older trees, but he added that he doesn't feel there are any trees on the site that are over 100 years old. Jerry Thorsen Is one of the people that wrote the original Coastal Zone Atlas which states where these slide areas are. He talks about that In the report sub- mitted to the County back In January. Michael Gendler then asked Tom Beavers the following questions: Q. Was the June 1991 addendum previously submitted to anyone? A. We attempted to submit It at the last hearing and were told that It was new Information and we couldn't present it. Q. In terms of the June 1991 Addendum, It discusses quantifying the precipitation equivalent, do you know If the total development would actually result in spreading the dralnfleld effluent over the area evenly or concentrate It In certain areas? A. Chuck Henry reported that Mr. Thorsen gave the best answer on these questions In the public hearing for the Board. Tom Beavers stated that the dralnflelds are going to be spread out over a considerable area of the property. One concern was that the properties and the dralnfleldswouldn't be clumped at the edge of the bluff. In the plan and the mitigation all the dralnflelds are back more than 300 feet from the edge of the bluff. We even put a mitigation In that only one house per five acres could be within 125 feet of the bluff, anything beyond that would have to be over 400 feet back. Q. In this calculation It says spread over an area and the square foot- age Is every square foot of the entire 48 acres, right? A. Yes. Q. And you're not saying that the Geologist reports that the dralnfleld collectively will be disbursed over every square foot of the 48 acres are you? A. No. After Sebastian Eggert asked Mr. Beavers questions about Mr. Thorsen doing core samples of trees on the property, Mark Huth suggested that cross examination be limited to questions from Counsel. Chuck Henry then asked Mr. Beavers the following questions: Q. Do you recall who first recommended that you obtain wildlife biology studies? A. My first conversation with the County was with Dave Goldsmith and he said that I should check to see If there were any Eagles or endangered species. I asked him where to check and he said to check with Mike Ajax. I checked with Mike Ajax near the end of October, first of November 1990, and he did some research and checked with the DNR computer scan and called Olympia and then said that there Is no evidence of any Eagles on the property or any endangered species. I went In to get that In writing from Mike and he said that something else may have come up and there was a letter from Anita McMillan saying that there had been reports of Eagle activity out there. went back to the County and asked what to do and they ',Vûl 1;-"1 On , I r~Œ ',-, -,,-')~ C:'·Q L -~"1i{;;,_'-" -:&:; ,_. "~ ::1tfi¡¡;", iìliiill;f;31ii:;;·1 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 24 suggested that I get with Anita McMillan and find out where to go from there. Mr. Beavers continued by saying that he called Anita McMillan to find out what needed to be done. She set down some very strict guidelines, In several letters, of when, how, and what time of the year the studies were to be done. She suggested a list of people who she felt were qualified to do the study. Cindy Kuntz, who has an advanced degree In Wildlife Biology and does all of the Eagle and Falcon management plans for the Navy property, was approved by Anita McMillan to do this study. There was a week's notice to get Cindy to do the study at the time specified by Anita McMillan. Anita and Cindy both flew over the property In a helicopter for a considerable length of time. Mr. Beavers continued by reporting that the only Eagle nest that was found was on the Erickson property which was measured to be 800 feet from the corner of the project. Cindy, Ken Radekey and Anita concluded In their reports that there was no evidence or even the likelihood of Falcons In this area. They did say that there Is evidence of Falcons and potential Falcon roosting or nests In an area closer to Port Townsend. The last communication from Anita McMillan Is dated May 29, 1991, Mr. Beavers added. 'In that letter she said "any proposed land altering activity on the east side of East Mlddlepolnt Road will require a Bald Eagle management plan." She goes on to say that "the subdivision of your property will not require 0 Bold Eagle management plan at this time unless some of the proposed building sites ore located east of the road." She and the Depart- ment of Natural Resources have also Indicated that six perch trees per 1 00 feet should be left In the first 1 00 feet of the property. The mitigation requires that six to eight perch trees over 24 Inches dbh be left along that stretch of property. Mr. Beavers then Indicated on a map the area being proposed to be left as open space, as well as the area where the perch trees must be left. Mr. Beavers continued by noting that he Is only proposing to cut down 35% of the trees, of which 20% are already on the ground due to a wind storm. The Non-game Data System was contacted to see If there was any other rare, endangered or threatened species on this property and they said they show nothing. Mr. Beavers stated that from the beginning he was told by David Goldsmith that he would not need an environmental impact statement If he did some of these kinds of things. He further reported that before he was able to submit his application to the County he had to survey the property, put a bond up for the road, buy the property for the road, and have septic permits. He did all of this. He put his $70,000 Into meeting the County requirements before the County would take his $50 application fee. Mr. Beavers continued by detailing all of the proce- dures and requirements that he has gone through since starting this project. He also recounted his dealings with the Friends of Mlddlepolnt. Chuck Henry continued his questioning of Mr. Beavers: Q. Do you know whether or not any of the noise making activities such as well drilling, brush cutting, any equipment operation, was con- ducted on the property during the hours of day and period of time that Cynthia Kuntz was making her dawn and dusk observations? A. When she was doing the dawn to dusk observations, there was not. Q. Do you know If at any time you received from Debaran Kelso any Information about her prior observations of Eagle, Falcon or Wood- pecker use of the property? , Vo.l 1 ¡ (fM,E GO L~ ~9 ;j ,(tf ~- :'i1f," )t~)!o'¡¡¡ -ti<:¡ ~i.':_ ë:0" [¡J.:i_:'j~:J Commissioners' Meetln Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 25 A. Yes. Wh n we went down In February with the Interdisciplinary Team. t the last minute I was told that Debaran Kelso was going W~ICh I thought was unusual because she was one of the major 08ponents of the project, she and Sebastian. Tim Rymer had askEfd her to come with them. She brought up that she had see~m a lot of Eagles down there. I got somewhat upset and ask d what she was even doing down there? She said she was 't really on this property or something to that effect. I think she~brou ght up. the woodpeckers at that time, but I know she brou ht up the concern about the Eagles. Tim Rymer asked m If I'd consider having her as my biologist. I told him I didn't th nk that would be a good Idea. From that point on Tim Rymer d~ about everything he could to try to make this thing fall apar. Every time Anita writes something, Tim writes some- thing th t takes what she says and expands It and enlarges It and ma1'es It considerably more onerous than what Anita Is saying. Tom Beavers then expr~ssed concern that he has not been able to use this property because of t~e Eagles, and Falcons and while that has been going on the County has be,n Issuing building permits on properties all around his. He then pointed out O~ a map of the area, places where building permits have been Issued and logging has been done. He concluded by noting that If this property Is unlqu, and rare he should have been told that back In October before he bo ght the property. Mark Huth then asked Mr. Beavers the following questions: piece? A. About 1/2 a mile to 3/4 of a mile. 48 acres. Q. Is that being tear cut or what's being done on that piece of property. A. It's beln selectively logged. Q. Do you know bf any other development between the Doll property and your prop rty that's taking place now or proposed now? A. The Rick I rd property. They bought 20 acres from Mr. Wor- thington nd they subdivided It and they got building permits and are building houses out there. Q. Q. Q. Q. . "::~;',<:::'~ ~:';:,> ~ Is that being qlear cut do you know? A. They've tmoved trees, right. Between your roperty (the subdivision project) and the property where you live I is about a 1,000 feet In the opposite direction from the Doll EstateQ A. Yes aboJt 1,000 feet. That's right. Do you know tf any development other than the Johanson piece which Is In the e that's proposed or on-going now? A. Just abo~t everyone of these have sold In the last year. Have they be n clear cut or cut at all? A. They wer all cut back In 1974 and there has been at least one other, onE right next to my property, where they put In a road not too lJ:.ng ago. Again they did It without a DNR permit, which I ~as told If you do 600 feet you have to get a DNR permit. B t, they've put In a road and a well right adjacent to my prop rty. I ' l VOL 17 r~Œ 00 ,~90 ~, Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 26 Q. Is the border of your property where the 74 clear cut was? A. Mr. Beavers Indicated on the map where the 74 clear cut was done. Q. So, you're Indicating basically all of the 1,000 feet between your property and (the project site)? A. That's right. Q. In your forest practices application I thought you said you were going to cut lOOk to 15% of the trees, Is that correct? Now, today you said 35%, what's the difference? A. That Is correct. After the blow downs I had Vall Case out again. He came out when the group was there and he said that more than 15% of the timber was on the ground. So I asked what to do? He said you have to send In an amend- ment. I did that. I sent In an amendment saying 35% because of the stuff that was on the ground. Q. Do you know whether or not the County ever received that amend- ment? A. I gave It to the County. Michael Gendler then asked Tom Beavers the following questions: Q. Can you tell me which of the mitigative measures you propose would prohibit someone who bought a lot from cutting down any of the trees? A. Well I have all the area of the bluff (he Indicated an area on the map). They can't cut any of the bluff or do anything with the bluff area. That's considered open space. From the bluff 100 feet back I'm required, and the mitigating things say I'm leaving 6 to 8 trees every 100 feet of large 24 to 36 Inch trees. Q. Could you point to the language In the mitigating measures? Are we talking about condition 4? Is there something In that statement that tells me that If I left some natural vegetation that I couldn't cut down a small tree? A. I'm not sure I understand. Chuck Henry said that one of the basic rules Is that a document which Is unambiguous on Its face, speaks for Itself. The County Commissioners have read that document and know exactly what It says. Commissioner Brown Interjected that the reason for leaving the lower growing vegetation on the 50 feet next to the bluff Is to control erosion. That Is one of the recommendations In the geological report. Mr. Gendler expressed concern that he wants to see where the mitigation It says In writing that It prohibits tree cutting. Q. Do you see anything or are you aware of anything outside of those 50 feet that we have discussed that would prohibit a purchasers of a lot from cutting down any trees? A. The DNR and the County have said that I have to leave those trees for perch trees In the first 100 feet. Q. Is that what's contained In this condition that says "the applicant also agrees to provIde the followIng notIce to subsequent purchasers?'1 A. That's my understanding. I don't know If that's the only thing that says that or not. Q. I'll ask you if you see anything in there that tells a purchaser that they can't cut down a tree? : Val 17 fAf.f 00 _,-'O"f7 '-..1,'" jJ;¡¡. Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 27 A. Chuck Henry answered that he believes that the Eagle Protec- tion Area, the area In which the state Department of Wildlife has recommended the Eagle Protection Plan, that Section Q covers It. That Is a covenant, condition of restriction, of which the purchasers are given notice. The rest of Mr. Gendler's question seem to be, IIcan a property owner cut a tree some place else on the property?1I and I guess the answer Is yes. But, since that Is not the environmentally sensitive area that has been designated by Anita McMillan, or anybody else, It's not a SEPA Issue, unless you find that all the experts that say it Is not an environmentally sensitive Issue are wrong. The discussion continued about the cutting of trees In areas of the property other than those noted by the DNR, and If a property owner could cut down every tree on their property If they wanted to. Michael Gendler continued with his questioning of Mr. Beavers: Q. Are you aware of the concern about blow down that Mr. Rymer has expressed In his letter? A. Yes, I am. Q. Has anyone Indicated to you whether leaving six perch trees per acre, If they are left, how that would fair given blow down concerns? A. I have studied, I have talked to a number of people about blow down possibilities and things like that and we lost about 15% to 25% of our trees In the last blow down and there haven't been any trees cut down, other than the survey lines. Many of those trees that were blown down weren't anywhere near sUNey lines or perc holes or anything like that. In fact on the property right next door, on Mrs. Erickson's property there were just as many trees knocked down. I don't think I can protect or guarantee what trees are or aren't going to blow down out there. I sat In my house during two of those wind storms and clocked winds over 95 mph. The house shook like that. Whether the trees are going to stand forever our there, whether they are removed or not removed, I guess I can't assure that even If I left It untouched. Q, Do you disagree with Mr. Rymer's conclusion that leaving as few as six perch trees per acre would Increase the likelihood of blow down? A. The proposal of leaving six perch trees per acre was Mr. Rymer's suggestion and recommendation to the Department of Natural Resources In February. And It was only after that concern was brought by this group at one of the later hearings that It was brought up as a concern. In fact It was only after Steve Hayden became Involved In the discussions that was even brought up as an Issue. Chuck Henry added that the mitigation leaves It to the Department of Wildlife to pick the trees. Q. Did Mr. Rymer make that recommendation In writing? A. He made It to Vall Case In front of me, and Vall Case said that he would put It In the recommendations from the Department of Natural Resources, which he did. Q. When In your view Is the first time you became aware that people were contending that this was a high use Eagle area? A. The first time was when I went up to see Mike Ajax to get It In writing from him that there weren't any Eagles on the property. Q. Do you know If that was December or January? A. That was around December 15th because the letter came In December 12th. ~ Val 1 7 rAGf 00 'n,ry 'G C::j.è.d '1t'~i\: ,;~_~. Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 28 Q. You did receive a copy of Ms. McMillan's letter to Mr. Ajax on December 17th. Her December 17, 1990 letter Indicates that you received a carbon copy. A. Yes. Q. And where she says "there has been recorded use of this area by both Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcon?" A. Yes. Q. And you filled out an environmental checklist some two weeks later Is that right? A. That's right. Q. Where you checked the box Indicating that there was no known use of Bald Eagles In the area. Is that true? A. I believe that I put on there that there weren't any of record that they had given me on the thing. Q. Right, that there weren't any of record and here It says this Is a recorded use. Is that a coincidence that you said there were none of record and her letter says that there Is recorded use? A. I have corrected that In my amendment to the DNR. I put that In as a correction, that there were Eagles and Falcons recorded use. At the time I had just found out that they thought that there might some and I had gone through from like about October until December being told there weren't any. So I put down basically what I had been told that there weren't any out of a sense of frustration and I corrected that after It became apparent that was an Issue. And It was definitely corrected many months before the final hearings. Chuck Henry then questioned Shirley Rudolph, a licensed Real Estate Agent: Q. Where do you live? A. I live on the bluff on Tax 12 which Is part of a 43 acre, five acre division that was done maybe ten years ago and I've lived there for eight years. Q. How close to the bluff Is your house? A. The house Is 75 feet back from the bluff. Q. What does the water side of your house consist of? A. Windows. There's nothing you can do In my house that you can't see out the windows. Q. In the period of eight years that you've lived there, what has hap- pened to the density of development and residential development on the properties adjacent to you? A. There are six homes, one of them Is a trailer, on the adjacent properties. My house Is on (Tax) 12 and there Is a house on 13, 14 and 15. Q. How many trees have been left along the top of the bluff? A. A rough estimate Is that there Is about 75% of the trees that are stili remaining In the rear of the homes. Q. On the land side? A. Yes. Most of the houses are between 50 feet and 125 feet back from the bluff. Some of them have some trees around the houses, but the majority, the actual what was there when ~ Val 17 rAŒ 00 > O\>ry¡ _-, j:1.JJ ç.,~~~~:,.. ~j' .¡]illr~ ,~',\i¿:iÆj!E:;::;;¡; _¡JIIIII ,'-, Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 29 we all found it, Is behind the houses, because our properties are about 1,000 feet deep. Land side, rather than water side. Q. The trees between the houses and the bluff. About how many, how big, what kind of trees are there along In there? A. I think everyone has probably taken out the trees between the houses and the bluff because there are three Instances (and she Indicated where on the map) where a tree was left within 25 feet of the edge~ where the tree by Itself would start to do this (wobble) and then bring the bluff down. Q. Have you witnessed any use of those trees by Eagles? A. We have a lot of Eagles going back and forth. The Eagle fly on a regular basis (she Indicated a route on the map) all along like this. I've see Eagles roost or land, perch on very rare occasion. What I have see Is that along the edge of the bluff where trees have been and the roots will stick out from the bluff, the Eagles will come down and land on those snags. I'm up about 300 feet altogether and I think they must be observing something that they like down below. I have two snags on my property and the last Eagle to land on a snag on my property was last Thursday night at 6 o'clock. Q. How often does that happen that they land on the snags In front of your house. A. Once a month, at this time of the year. Q. Do they seem to be unduly concerned by being, by perching that close to your house? A. The people In my neighborhood, we don't have children or anything, we're all quiet, In our house, and so there's no one outside of the house and they just land for a couple of minutes of then they leave, they don't stay very long. Michael Gendler then asked Ms. Rudolph the following questions: Q. Ms. Rudolph how are you employed? A. I'm a realtor. Q. Who do you work for? A. Tom Beavers. Q. So you do have a financial Interest In this application then? A. No. I work for Tom Beavers. Q. You would make commissions on the sales? A. I suppose so. But, I'd be willing to testify under oath to any- thing I said. Tom Beavers corrected that she doesn't work for him anymore because he has sold the business. Q. You are testifying as a resident not as a wildlife expert, Is that cor- rect? A. Yes. Chuck Henry then submitted a copy, to the Board, of the application for the Johanson property that Mr. Beaver's mentioned. He concluded that his basic argument Is that there Is virtually no human activity which can be ac- complished with no environmental Impact. The State Environmental Protection Act was a very clear attempt to layout the balancing of the environmental Interest against property Interests. In attempting to strike a balance the ! VOl 17 fArl 00 <'''f'- _ ~".',(il U ,~ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of August 5, 1991 Page: 30 legislature has laid out the test that when a SEPA review Is done what Is being looked for Is probable significant adverse environmental Impacts. SEPA defines the word significant as /'a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse Impact In environmental quality. II The Commissioners are looking to see If the application and the comments to It lead them to conclude that It would require that an environmental Impact statement or mitigation be done. Mr. Henry continued by saying that he believes that If there was an objective belief, as contrasted to a sUbjective belief of the opponents of this project, that there Is going to be a significant adverse envlrónmental Impact It would have been a matter of simplicity for Debaran Kelso to sit down and con- solidate her factual sightlngs noting time, date and place, weather conditions, age of bird, type of bird and behavior. This could have been presented as objective evidence. This has not been done and Mr. Henry asked the Board to take that Into consideration when they review the documents that have come In since the Issuance of the MDNS. He stated that the opponents to the project do not have the facts to oppose a person's right to use their property and they are using an unsupported conclusion to try to convince the Commissioners that they have met their burden. Mr. Henry stated that If an environmental impact statement Is required on this project, the Issue to be addressed must be designated. He stated the issues that the opponents want addressed have already been studied by experts and if the Commissioners feel that those studies are adequate, then there Is no purpose in doing an EIS. He urged the Commis- sioners consider if there have been proposals presented that really do require that an EIS be done. Mr. Henry concluded his summary by noting that the applicant has gone far beyond meeting the requirements Imposed under the law and has gone to a moral level of trying to meet the requirements of protecting the environment. He asked the Board to confirm their previous ruling Issuing the MDNS. Michael Gendler then responded to some of the points made by Mr. Henry. In reference to the geologist supplement study that was submitted, Mr. Gendler noted that there has been no public comment or opportunity to review this work and when there Is an apparent point of view or degree difference between experts, an Impact statement must be done. Mr. Gendler reminded the Board that the people Involved In the appeal process have been urging that an Impact statement be done since day one. He con- cluded by stating that all that Is being requested Is a straight forward applica- tion of the law. There are Bald Eagles, It Is a very rare type of forest environ- ment that could be severely Impacted If no measures are taken. Commissioner Wojt moved to take this information under advisement to allow time for review and to meet with legal counsel. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. [ VOL 17 rM,f 00 ~1 ~·'T.ær . _"~e:; -. Commissioners' Me~t1ng Agenda: Week of August 5,1991 Page: 31 CONTRACT re:ProfesslonalServlces Jefferson 2000: Bredouw: .. CommIs- sioner Wojt moved to approve the professional servlpes contract with Bredollw for the Jefferson 2000 project assubrnltted.' Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried bya unanimous vote. MEErf~<'~~Dj9~~ED ~. ,l' ',)."," ". -, ~ \. ,~' ". ,'i .~. 'tic" .'.. . "",' ,.. " : " ' ,,^ .. ""-.' , '~.~-r~':;,. :-~ ~¡.'" SE~~., t.., \ , .':.' /.~'.!-\..'..I·... ~ ;c.~· , -~'. ,. 't __ I. .A: _ _ _,' _ '.' ,'" , .- . , ',' ., , , , . , .. ". I: : ~ ...: I, I,,' tlÄ~ ~~'.- ~'..\ '1<~.~'! ,. ,>;;$),....../, ATTEST::~, ,__~.." . ., " ....... '\,... ~fJJlo~···.·.·· Lorna L. Delan¡¡y'i . ...... . Clerk of the Board . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~. .~~J~ - - -~ - . ..·-¡¡nn ..... · n. Chplrmao G············· '. ..... .....-/ B. . . Brown, Member : VOl 17 JAG~ no .'0(.: t, ~-""'<J,,¡ /1