Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091691 '.. MINUTES WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 The meeting was called to Order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison at 9:00 a.m. 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. [BU~~~][E~~ f[R{OM COU~1Y [))[E~A[R{"M[E~"~: PUBLIC WORKS HEARING: Chanaina The Name of A Certain Private Road on the Official County Private Road Loa: Sherwood Forest to Windridae Road: Chair- man Dennison asked Bob Henderson, 911 System Coordinator, about the letter received from Mr; Amerson regarding the process for road name changes. Bob Henderson explained that Mr. Amerson did not have a chance to comment on the original name chosen for the road when the large lot subdivision was submitted for approval. He reported that a notice is sent to all agencies for their comments when a road name change is requested. The agencies notified of this name change had no objection to it. Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against this proposed road name change, the Chairman closed thå hearing. Commissioner Brown asked that Mr. Amerson's letter be made part of the hearing record. Commissioner Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 90-91 changing the name of a private road from Sherwood Forest Road to Windridge Road. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motipn which carried by a unanimous vote. Authorization to Revise ProJect CC0951; Heatina. Ventilation and Lightina (Eneray Conservation' Measures): Jefferson County Corrections Center: Frank Hall, Architectural Projects Inspector, explained that a bid opening was held on this project but no bids were received. After discussing the project with several contractors, Frank Hall reported that he submitted a request to Puget Power to review and make suggestions for revising the project. They have presented a new proposal for this project. The energy savings are estimated to take 4.4 years to pay for the cost of the project which is $41,473.00. The Board directed Frank Hall to check the Capital Improvements budget to deter- mine if there is enough funding to proceed with this project. If there is, a bid call will be brought before the Board at a later date. , YO:!. 17 rÄ[';~ 00 113¿¡ , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 2 Craia Ward Plannina & Buildina Director re: Various Items: Planning & Building Department Director, Craig Ward came before the Board to discuss the following: Proposals for 10 Week Meetina Schedule for Resource Lands and Critical Area Interim Ordinances: Craig Ward reported that three firms have been interviewed to provide facilitation services for the Resource Lands and Critical Area forums which are scheduled to begin on Thursday. Keturah Brown, Public Involvement Coordinator for the Planning Department, then reviewed the proposals received. AII'three firms did not included any costs for supplies, long distance phone calls and mailings, so these costs will have' to be added. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve hiring Connie Miller as the facilitator for the forums and that the Planning Department negotiate a fixed contract for her services. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of Draft Amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: A Policv Guide for Growth and Development Addina Lanauaae to the Enerav: Conserva- tion and Facilities Element to Discouraae the Sitina of Oil Pipelines Within Jefferson County: Craig Ward reported that the Comprehensive Plan language in the Energy Element (Chapter 7) does not specifically exclude oil pipelines. This proposed amendment adds "oil pipelines," to make this section more specific. Chairman Dennison suggested that "general welfare" be changed to say "general, health, safety and welfare." and that the proper section make reference to groundwater protection. Commissioner Brown moved to refer this proposed change to the Planning Commis- sion for their review and recommendation. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Proposed Amendments to the IIResponsible Officialll Desianation under the Jefferson County SEPA Implementina Ordinance. No. 7-84: The proposed amendments to the SEPA Implementing ordinance have been changed to reflect the public comments received at the hearing, Craig Ward reported. Eric Toews, Associate Planner, reported that a new sub-section 7.20(1) has been added to require that the Planning Department give public notice of pending SEPA actions. Notice would be mailed to adjacent property owners, posted on the property and advertised in the newspaper. A 15 day comment period is included. Any such notice may be incorporated with other notices (i.e. shoreline permit notice, etc.) if pos- sible. The requirements for posting the notice on the site were then discussed. Commissioner Brown felt that the language should be expanded to say "Said notices shall be mounted on easily visible boards not smaller than two feet (2' by three feet (3' which will be orovided bv the Countv." Paula Mackrow stated that the 15 day comment period after the notice is given, is too short. Craig Ward explained that the new public notice provisions and comment period will require about 22 days to complete. Eric Toews added that the SEPA rules state that a County should try to issue a SEPA determination within 15 days of the application being made, and this time frame is already a week past that suggested time frame. In addition to the enhanced notice requirement, policy has been drafted to require that a summary of all SEPA actions be published on a weekly basis in the newspaper, Eric Toews reported. Since some of the text to these provisions was developed after the public hearing, the Planning Department recommends that a public hearing be held on them. Craig Ward reported that some of these changes were a result of the comments received at the last hearing, but some, such as the details of the public notice policy, were not part of the last hearing. VOL 17 rA~ 00 :11.35 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 3 Commissioner Wojt moved to set a public hearing on the changes suggested to the SEPA Ordinance for 2:00 p.m. on October 14, 1991. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Later in the Dav: After checking with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth on procedural questions, Commissioner Brown moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 5-0916-91 changing the designation of the responsible official under the Jefferson County State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, No. 7-84, from the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners to the Director of the Jefferson County Planning Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Wayne KInG re: Presentation of Citizens Petition ReQuestina that an Advisory Initiative be put on the November Ballot ReGardina the Peninsula Partners Proiect on the Miller Peninsula: Wayne King presented petitions with approximately 478 citizen signatures which states "Shall Cape Discovery Resort be built on the proposed Miller Peninsula State Park lands near Diamond Point?". He asked that the Board put this issue on the November ballot as an advisory initiative. Chairman Dennison stated that it is his understanding that an advisory ballot is to advise the County Commissioners on a course of action. Since this project is not in the County's jurisdiction, he said he doesn't know what this advisory ballot would be advising the Commissioners about. Wayne King answered that the Mitsubishi representatives have stated that if the people don't want this project, it will not be built. He added that the deadline for submitting an issue for the November ballot is September 20, 1991. Kay Goodhue, Audubon Society, stated that they have concern about the shortness of time to advise the residents of what an advisory ballot is as well as why they are being asked to vote on what is basically a Clallam County issue. She reported that Jefferson County residents can write to their public officials and the Clallam County officials individually. She stated that this kind of ballot won't be meaningful if the people don't know the issues and that the County should save the money it will cost to put this type of issue on the ballot. In response to a question from Paula Mackrow regarding the need for Jefferson County to address the impacts from this project, Chairman Dennison reported that the County has responded with the County's concerns as part of the SEPA process on the project. Dave LaRue, Clallam County resident, stated that Mitsubishi has said on several occasions that if the people don't want this project they won't build it here, but they have never asked the people if they want it or not. This ballot is to gauge public support. This project will impact Jefferson County because the resort is located closer to Port Townsend than it is to Port Angeles. Chairman Dennison stated that he has some questions about whether this is the type of issue that an advisory ballot should be used for. Mr. Goodhue stated that he is not sure that the people in Jefferson County are up to speed about this project to be able to make an informed decision about it. I n his opinion, to put this issue on the ballot now, would be premature. Fridav September 20, 1991: After considering the request for an advisory ballot on the Cape Discovery Resort, Commissioner Wojt moved to deny the request to have an advisory ballot at the November General election regarding the Cape Discovery Resort. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion in the absence of Commissioner Brown. The motion carried. VOL 1 7 rAGê on :11.36 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 4 PLANNING AND BUILDING State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: Construction of a Temporary GravinG Dock within the Exlstina Mats Mats Quarry to be Used for 2 to 3 Years to Construct Concrete FloatinG BridGe Pontoons: Mats Mats. North of Port Ludlow: General Construction Company (Continued, from AUGust 26. 1991): 30+ area residents were present when Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that on September 3, 1991 General Con- struction submitted a letter to the Board asking for early notice under WAC 197.11.350 (2) regarding whether the Commissioners are considering a Determination of Significance and if so, requesting that probable significant adverse impacts be identified to allow changes to the proposal to address those impacts. Jim Pearson reported that he discussed this request with individual Board members who noted the following impacts: surface water, groundwater, aquifers, residential wells, air, noise, traffic, and housing. Jim Pearson reported that he sent a letter to General Con- struction on September 5 outlining these impacts and noting that impacts must be identified by the Board at a public meeting. General Construction submitted more information for the Board's consideration last Friday (September 13, 1991) with some suggested mitigation to deal with the identified impacts, Jim Pearson reported. A geo-technical report was prepared for General Construction by a consultant to address the issues regarding water and the geology of the site, and a report on noise was also prepared by a consultant. The consultants for these studies are present at this meeting. Jim Pearson then asked if the Board wanted to add or delete any identified impacts and if there was enough information to make a threshold determination? Chairman Dennison stated that one potential impact discussed at the first meeting on this project, was the impact of the blasting tremors to house foundations in the vicinity. He stated that should be added to the identified impacts. In response to a question from the audience, Chairman Dennison stated that there would be no public input on this project today. He reported that there is a 15 day comment period if a determination of non-significance is issued and written testimony can be submitted during that period. Brad Biaaerstaff. Geo Enaineers, Redmond Washinaton: Brad Biggerstaff reported that Geo Engineers has been asked by General Construction to provide geo-technical information on this project, such as information on seismic activity that would result from blasting. Mr. Biggerstaff reported that the quarry has operated since 1932. Their study found no historical evidence related to seismic damage to structures from the level of blasting currently permitted in the quarry. This included structures that General owns within the quarry site itself. He added that General Construction is willing to provide monitoring of the surrounding structures on a regular basis. This monitoring could be done by an independent surveyor who could establish control elevations on the foundations of structures that the residents have concerns about. These structures could then be monitored on a regular basis. Chairman Dennison asked if an in depth analysis of the geologic structure of the area was done? Mr. Biggerstaff stated that they have reviewed the existing geology of the area and the plan that General Construction has proposed to construct the dock. The site has a significant amount of basalt which does transmit seismic waves for some distance. But there is no historical evidence that the blasting levels at which the quarry has operated in the past have resulted in any damage to structures or settlement of foundations. Chairman Dennison asked if the blasting will intensify for this project? Mr. Biggerstaff responded that the frequency of the blasting will increase, but the level of the seismic activity will not increase in intensity. Commissioner Wojt asked if this meant that the blasting would increase from once a day, five days a week, to twice a day, five days a week? Tom Sherman, General Construction, indicated that they may blast that 1,'01. 1 7 rAC! 00 1.:137 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 5 often, but suggested that they will still blast once a day. He noted that they don't always blast once a day now. Mr. Biggerstaff then submitted a copy of a memo from his firm to General Construction concerning the seismic report on the site. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth asked if the pattern of blasting will change and if that would have any effect on the seismic activity? Mr. Biggerstaff stated that moving the blasting from one location to another would change the relative pattern of the seismic activity. The portion of the quarry that has been selected as the site of the graving dock is the portion that has been mined in the past. General Construction has offered to do a monitoring program during the blasting and to repair any damage due to the blasting. A monitoring program would provide more accurate information than a study because it would be done when the blasting was actually being done. Chairman Dennison noted that he has a problem with historical data because the site isn't the same and the activity for this project sounds like it will be more intense in certain locations than it has been in the past. Brad Biggerstaff continued by stating that the long term objective of the quarry is to mine at a certain rate and produce and sell material. If the graving dock is con- structed the level of seismic activity would be increased to lower the elevation in a certain portion of the quarry which will increase the production of quarry rock. This material would be stock piled and at the end of the six months of activity there would be a reduction in the seismic activity until that surplus material is used up. There would be an increase for six months and then the seismic activity would be limited until the stockpiled materials are used up. Tom Sherman, General Construction, added that the digging of this hole (which will be used for the graving dock) is a permitted operation under the surface mining permit that is already held by General Construction. The extension of an offer to monitor homes or structures in this general area is in addition to what is required by their current permit. Mark Huth asked if an EIS was done for that permit? Mr. Sherman reported the permit was granted under a "grandfather statusll in 1970 or 1971 by the State Department of Natural Resources. The operation was grandfathered since the quarry has been operating since 1932. Mark Huth reported that the operations at the quarry must meet the State laws regarding noise, health and welfare, etc. Commissioner Wojt asked h9w deep fracturing of the basalt rock would be expected to occur below where the blast charges are placed? One of the concerns expressed is that the basalt will be fractured and then the salt water will flow into the aquifer. Mr. Biggerstaff answered that in typical quarry operations the charges are directional so that they limit the amount of fracturing that would occur below the bottom of the shot hole. The rock is broken laterally rather than vertically. Chairman Dennison asked if there is a legitimate issue regarding groundwater contamination due to cracks in the basalt? Brad Biggerstaff answered that if the cracks were to occur to a tremendous depth that would be a concern. The study presented was then reviewed including the direction of the flow of ground water, the weight of salt water and fresh water and the effect that has on the water table elevation. Mr. Biggerstaff reminded the Board that there will only be three time (days) over the life of the project that there will be salt water in the dock area. Commissioner Wojt asked how deep the hole could be dug on the site before any approval is needed locally? Tom Sherman answered that he doesn't think there is any actual regulation regarding the depth of a hole. They currently have a hole dug that is 17 feet deep at the quarry and this hole will be two feet deep. The hole that is located just a couple of hundred feet to the north of the graving site is 15 feet deeper than that hole will be. Mr. Biggerstaff reported that there is currently fresh water in the pit on the site, with no salt water intrusion. The geological studies done in the Puget Sound indicate the rock elevations to be as much as eight miles deep, but it is not known exactly how deep they are in the Mats Mats area. . yQt 1 7 rA~ 00 1:13B Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of Septemb~r 16, 1991 Page: 6 Tom Sherman explained that there are 2, 12 foot deep wells on the property. One is located within about 70 feet of the high tide line and has salt water in it, the other well was contaminated 19 to 20 years ago by a diesel spill, has been cleaned out and is not in use and there is a third drilled well that is 220 feet deep and it was full of sulphur from the day it was drilled. That is why water has been pumped into the house on the property. Commissioner Wojt asked if the well logs to the south of the site were reviewed? Mr. Biggerstaff stated that they reviewed 58 well logs within a mile of the quarry. Nine of these wells are in basalt, and all of the rest of the wells are producing from sediments that are above the basalt. Tom Sherman stated that if the company gets this job they would work with the neighbors to guarantee them a water source if there was any damage to their water source. Chairman Dennison asked how that would be done? Mr. Sherman advised that the Company could purchase property above the Fire Station and develop a water system on it or participate in a ULlD that is proposed for Oak Bay Road. Chairman Dennison asked if the company would be willing to do this if there were only three wells contaminated? Mr. Sherman stated that they may have to put the system in initially and then people could be hooked up to it as necessary. Craig Ward stated that initially General Construction would be using storm water runoff for the production of the concrete, now they are saying water for this purpose will be barged or piped in. What is the source of the water for making concrete? Tom Sherman answered they would purchase water from whatever source had water available in the necessary quantity and then barge it in from that source. The on- site water system is yet to be defined. Commissioner Wojt asked where the storm water runoff and water used on the site would go after it is used? Tom Sherman stated that the current pit has been pumped out on occasion in the past to be used for dust control or it has evaporated or seeped into the ground. Mr. Biggerstaff reported that the quarry is shallow which tends to increase temperatures and increase the evaporation rate. Tom Sherman reviewed how the graving dock will operate when the pontoons are ready to be shipped out. The noise study was then discussed. Dennis Nison, Michael Yantis Associates, (Acoustical Consultants) Bellevue: Dennis Nison stated that his firm visited the site on July 8, 1991 and the rock crushing plant was not in operation. He did noise measurements that day and attempted to estimate what the rock crushing would contribute to the existing noise environment. The conclusion at that time was that the noise level would be below the State limits. Mr. Nison then explained that statistical levels are measured, per the noise level regulations. The LEO is the arithmetic average of the sound level. Sound level is measured in terms ,of energy, by the measuring instrument and reported as decibels. A decibel is a logarithmic scale of the sound energy measured. . The statistic levels are: L90: This represents the noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time. L25: This is the noise level exceeded 25% of the time. L8.3: This is the noise level exceeded 8.3% of the time. L2.5: This is the level exceeded 2.5% of the time. Maximum Level: The maximum noise level during the monitoring time. The original measurements (on July 8) showed existing levels that combined both the noise generated in the vicinity of the noise measurement location plus noise from the quarry if it were significant at that point. The levels measured were at below 50db, Mr. Ni.son reported. The sites were chosen as those that were the closest property lines to the quarry and sites across Mats Mats Bay. Mr. Nison stated that the highest noise level measured was the point that was closest to the rock crusher. Commissioner Wojt asked what decibel change would give the sense of twice as much sound? Mr. Nison reported that a noise that is 10 db higher than another noise sounds twice as loud. 3 db is the minimum difference a human can perceive. vat 1 7 r~r~ on 1:139 "','-" H':,~ij '_"!' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 7 Commissioner Wojt asked how practical it is for the rock crushing machine to be housed to mitigate the noise levels of the machine? Mr. Patterson stated that they would abide by the State noise standards. Jim Pearson asked what the possibility is of setting up a continuous monitoring program? Dennis Nison stated that it is possible to do but there are difficulties. One would be to identify the source of noise and the other would be the cost of the program. Chairman Dennison asked how the noise readings differed with the rock crusher running. Mr. Nison answered that with the rock crusher running at the sites that received the noise, there was about a1 0 db increase which means the noise was . twice as loud. The level opposite the rock crusher was 60 db at L25. He then reviewed Table C Odentified potential new noise sources) and Table D (predicted new noise levels). At receiving site 2 the new construction noise level of 47 db would not change the L25 level. Commissioner Wojt asked what the average ambient noise level is in this ,area? Mr. Nison stated that depending on the weather it would be about 45db. Chairman Dennison asked about the proposed noise mitigation? He asked if General Construction would shut down until they reached compliance with the State noise standards? Mr. Sherman reported they would if that is what it would take to come into compliance. He added that General Construction would pay for a consulting firm, which the County could chose, to do the noise monitoring. Time is of the essence for this project. The pontoon construction will not be started until after the first of the year. They have already started moving materials from the site of the graving dock. Chairman Dennison asked if General Construction would be willing as part of their mitigation to commit to decreasing the overall noise level from the site? Mr. Sherman answered that they would be willing to reduce existing noise levels that are very near the limits. Chairman Dennison stated that he is nervous with the information that has been presented. The Geologist has stated that they didn't do a study they reviewed existing information. It is difficult to determine if the information presented is sufficient to be able to develop adequate mitigation for the project. Commissioner Wojt stated that another concern expressed by the residents of the area is the hours of operation. When the contract is nearing completion the company may feel they want to operate two or three shifts a day. He asked how General Construction would be willing to condition the project to limit their operating hours? Tom Sherman stated that they would be willing to work with the Mats Mats Coalition to determine what is acceptable. He added that they would be willing to consider' meeting something less in the mitigation than the State requirements. Mark Huth stated that the law requires specific mitigation which describes how the desired result will be reached. Commissioner Wojt asked what the process will be to develop mitigative measures? Mark Huth stated that the Planning Department staff or a hired consultant could develop the mitigation. Erwin Jones, Attorney, asked if a Determination of Non Significance could be issued on the condition that the mitigation be developed? If they can not be worked out the DNS could be withdrawn. Chairman Dennison stated that he wants to review the SEPA regulations further and is not ready to make a determination. Commissioner Brown added that any further information or clarification of information must be identified before a determination is made. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would like to see proposed mitigation developed by General Construction to address the issues that have been identified. Carl Katzbaum, representing General Construction, asked exactly what the County wants? Commissioner Wojt stated that he wants the mitigation to be developed with Yal 1 7 fA~~ 00 11.40 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 8 the input and concurrence of the neighbors. Commissioner Brown noted that the people have expressed their concerns and mitigation needs to be proposed to address them. Chairman Dennison added that he would like to see the community have input into the process of developing the mitigation. Commissioner Brown moved to direct General Construction to submit their proposed mitigating measures to the Board by September 30, 1991. The Board will consider them at their public meeting on Tuesday October 8, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison noted his concerns which are that an improvement be made in the existing conditions in the area of the quarry. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Request 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 (Tabled AUGust S. 1991): Associate Planner, Jerry Smith, reported that this request was reviewed and action tabled on August 5, 1991 with the Board asking that a recommendation be made by the Public Works Department regarding the road standards. The Public Works Department has recommended that the County and the Fire District's develop a policy for uniform interpretation of Section 10.207 of the Uniform Fire Code. Carter Breskin, Planning and Program Manager for the Public Works Department, reported that she discussed this, with the Public Works Director and they feel that their original comment on this variance request still stands. Robert Clark, Applicant, stated that there is an existing road which meets the minimum AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Official) standard for a local service road (12 to 14 feet). Bruce Laurie, Public Works Construction Engineer reported that the AASHTO standard is for a local service road and it may not meet the provisions of the Fire Code. Mr. Clark reported that he has letters from the Fire Captain and volunteers of the Fire District stating that the road is adequate. Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the variance be denied because they did not feel the cost to improve the roads constituted an lIunnecessary and undue hardship for the applicants. n They also felt that the limited access private roads with a locked gate and the damage to the environment to improve the road are not an extraordinary condition or an unusual circumstance for which a variance should be approved. Mr. Clark reported that there are currently 31 parcels with 11 residences in the Dabob Cove Tracts. He added that no more than 55 additional lots could be created in this plat even if every parcel was divided to the maximum allowed. Mrs. Clark noted that this area is a critical slope stability area and their house is built on top of a slope that would have to be cut into in order to widen the road. Sam Swanson, Planning' Commission stated that the main problem was whether this was a unique situátion and if the County should keep allowing variances from the standards. Their main concern was for safety on that road. Mr. Clark added that the Cove area looks like a sanctuary and the private roads are behind a locked gate. The speed limit is 10 mph. He added that the necessary authorities have a key to the gate. Mark Huth then reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. Bruce Laurie stated that the letter from Northwest Territories regarding the geology of the site was signed by a Civil Engineer, not a Geologist. Chairman Dennison stated that if the slope stability problem exits on the site, then that is what the variance criteria is referencing as "an extraordinary condition or an unusual circumstance. n In VOj. 1 7 rAr,~ 001.1.4:1 , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 9 response to a question from Commissioner Wojt regarding the turn outs on the road, Mr. Clark reported that there are turn outs at each end of the road now, but they are not graveled. He added that he has been waiting to do the necessary road main- tenance until he was given some direction on the standard for improvement. Jerry Smith reported that the Engineer did not address filling the road on the other side instead of cutting into the slope. The discussion then turned to the topography of the area, the number of lots that currently exist and how many could possibly be developed in the Mure and the road standards. Commissioner Wojt suggested that the road be improved to the required standard from the intersection to the Clark property line, but not through the Clark property where the problem is with the slope. After more discussion, the Planning Commis- sion recommendation was reviewed. Commissioner Brown moved that the Board grant the variance based on the findings of fact noted in the Engineer's report on the stability of the slope. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion for discussion. The discussion continued regarding the County standard (24 feet wide), the ~tandard of the Uniform Fire Code (20 feet wide), and the AASHTO standard (service road 12 to 14 feet wide). The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Brown voted in favor. The Chairman voted against the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted in favor of the motion. The motion carried. Bert Loomis re: Shoreline Permit #SDP88-0016 Port Ludlow Inner Harbor Violations: Jeff Tilden, Attorney representing Bert Loomis explained that they have come before the Board to discuss violations of the Shoreline Permit issued for the Port Ludlow Inner Harbor project. He noted that he is not giving any opinion on whether the violations are intentional or un-intentional. The permit requires, Mr. Tilden reported, re-vegetation of all areas disturbed in the process of construction of roads, residences, and utilities (Condition 10). The first violation is the installation of the 8 inch sewer line. The swath cut for the installation of this line is 55 feet wide. Pope Resources has re-vegetated much of the area with ferns at a cost of about $25,000.00. Mr. Tilden stated that he doesn't feel the ferns represent compliance with the shoreline permit. The second violation is of Condition No. 18 regarding exterior building materials which says II. . . paint colors shall be earth-tone. II The complaint isn't about just the particular blue house referred to, but it is the fear that as the neighborhood is developed that houses will not be required to comply with the provisions of the permit. Mr. Tilden identified other, violations including: In the area of Ludlow 'Creek there is a spot about 100 feet in length where there is bluff erosion into the Creek. A monitor- ing program for the water quality in the Inner Harbor was required by the permit. The only monitoring that has occurred in the 34 months since the permit was issued was one instance of sediment monitoring. Pope Resources has ignored the re- vegetation, the housing aesthetics and monitoring requirements of the permit. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Tilden if he is saying that the water quality monitoring is insufficient? Mr. Tilden indicated that is correct. He stated that the permit requires shellfish, storm water and sediment monitoring. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that since the County has enforcement liability on this permit these allegations will have to be' investigated. lint 17 fMl 00 ·1.14.2 -'fS'!:tf1f!T . 'ff':' Me ";',,0.,.'- }¡"; ,-' ,- -J Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Page: 10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of July 22, August 5, 12, and 19, 1991 as written. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve all of the items on the consent agenda as present- ed. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Approval of Loan Application; CH0940 Additional Funding ($380,000.00) for Jefferson County Courthouse Re-Roofing Project; Farmers Home Administration 2. Approval of "Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions" CH0940; Extension of Time for Use of Existing $360,000 Loan for Jefferson County Courthouse Re-Roofing Project; Farmers Home Administration 3. Letter of Representation to State Auditor's re: Audit of County Records for Calendar Year 1990 4. HEARING NOTICE; A Proposed Ordinance Regulating the Carrying and Use of Firearms in a Safety Zone Surrounding the Olympic and Clearwater Correction Centers; Prescribing Enforcement Officials and Providing Penalties; Hearing set for October 7, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers. 5. CONTRACT re: Use of County Roads for Filming of Commercials; Siegel/Nelson Films (As Approved September 9, 1991) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 91-91 re: Creating a County Road Project CR1003; South Discovery Road/South Jacob Miller Road Intersection Improvement 7. Request for Payment of Bill for Tourism Marketing Study $760.03; Economic Development Council 8. Approved Request for Use of County Logo on Poster of City of Port Townsend; Captain Gallery 9. AGREEMENT, Supplement No.2 TM0960; Base Mapping Phase, Phase 1; Increase Time for Completion and Deliver of Maps and Digital Data; Spencer B. Gross, Inc. 10.AGREEMENT, Supplement No.1 CR0953; 20 Day Extension for Consultant . Services on Chimacum Road Project; AES, Inc. of Silverdale 11.HEARING NOTICE re: Six Year Facilities Capital Improvement Plan; Setting Hearing for September 23, 1991 at 11 :00 a.m. 12.CALL FOR BIDS re: One (1) New Hydraulic Hook Life System Mounted on a New Truck; Bid Opening Set for October 7, 1991 at 10:30 a.m. 13.Claim for Damages #C-09-91 Ivan F. Crutcher; Replace Windshield $294.53; Claim Rejected as recommended. 14.Claim for Damages #C-05-91 United Telephone Company; Repair of Telephone Pedestal and 50 Pair Telephone Cable $270.20; Claim Rejected as recom- mended. 15.Claim for Damages #C-06-91 U.S. West Communications; Repair of Telephone Cable $259.21; Claim Rejected as recommended. 16.AGREEMENT #91-005-8 re: Water Quality Improvement, Exhibits A (Rehabilitation Measures), B (Premises), C (Promissory Note), and D (Deed of Trust); Michael E. and Lisa Moore 17.AGREEMENT #91-004-7 re: Water Quality Improvement, Exhibits A (Rehabilitation Measures), B (Premises), C (Promissory Note), and D (Deed of Trust); Donald W. Sr. & Bonnie S. Kimball The meeting was recessed at the end of, the business day on Monday and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. Thursday September 19, 1991. Chairman Dennison was not present. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. State Environmental Polley Act Review and Threshold Determination re: Proposed Shoreline Master Proaram Amendments for Ocean Uses. Utilities. etc.: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that this SEPA review is of proposed changes to the Shoreline Program for Ocean Uses, Mining, Oil Transshipment, vot 1 7 rACl on 11 43 i$¿«;¡ . ... 4 .1 , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of September 16, 1991 Section 4.107 Section 5.135 Section 5.120 Section 5.170 Section 5.200 Section 5.xx Page: 11 Create a new environmental designation, the ocean environ- ment, which includes the Pacific Ocean coastal waters and adjacent uplands. . Creates definitions, prohibited uses, policies and performance standards for subsection on: Ocean energy production, disposal, mining, transportation, research, salvage, and oil and gas uses. Mining - includes requirements for natural resources and natural systems assessments and prohibitions for mining Scientific and Education Facilities Utilities - This covers aU utilities. Development of utilities would be prohibited where they would have significant adverse effects on air and water quality, marine mammals and marine biological resources. Utilities that produce, transport, store, or process oil, gas, or hazardous substances would be prohibited in areas subject to 100 year flood events and geologic hazards. These utilities would be required to have approved operational and spill contingency plans. Oil Transshipment - regulates the loading, off-loading, or transfer of petrochemical products between vessels or between vessels and on-shore facilities. Jim Pearson reported that impacts have been identified in the environmental checklist from this proposed policy to earth, air, water, plants, animals, environmental health, land and shoreline use, recreation, historical and cultural preservation, transportation, and public services. The Planning Staff found that there are no impacts identified from the adoption of these changes to the Shoreline Program, but impacts may arise from these types of activities. The supplemental sheet for non-project actions was then reviewed. Jim Pearson noted that on question 7 which says II identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state and federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. II The proposed amendments would prohibit ocean oil and gas uses and activities, which is consistent with State policy, but not federal policy. Commissioner Wojt moved to issued a determination of non-significance as recom- mended by the Planning staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the day's business on Tuesday and reconvened on Friday. Chairman Dennison and Commissioner Wojt were both present. Commissioner Brown was out of town at a meeting. The Board took action on the request from citizens to have an Advisory Initiative put on the November Ballot regarding the Peninsula Partners project on the Miller Peninsula. (See page 3). ¿--2:;"\~F' \ . ~.".,..~~"~",..,,, MEETING A .l:J q¡qeÐ,/,·(\\~~\.j -', /, ,,:J¡,~', :.I..,', '7",' , j'.1 ~. ¥,C\¡,?}\ /If:' /1 ,-'" · ,,... ~ ~..' (>.. \ ,. , . "',.,,~..,, q", SEAL' ",: (.~, \ ~r ,..~I~\~ . ";..',,~" \. . ' <:, ", 'J"' '~ ~, 'I \. LI' ~ ,,<,.\ ", j' ,'" ' ;: ,J" \ 1"''''"\\'' ¡ ~."'" .. "Ú fi'" \ _ ,'I ... ' ~ - \' - /:' .~ '\ .., .. ~\ . , )'" ..~',' . .. ' . ~i. ' '<.,...~' , ~. t¡¡ ...... .. r~...._"'~ ~.'..".~ f .: 'if . "'( " '...... )J ""'...... ,,'" ~ ..~'"'" ATTEST: orna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~ vot 17 fA~f 00 1:144 -:--......,.