HomeMy WebLinkAboutM100791
..
......
'\7
./ .
MINUTES
WEEK OF OCTOBER 7,1991
After attending a Finance Committee meeting, Chairman L.,arry W. Dennison called
the meeting to order. Commissioner B.G. Brown was present. Commissioner Richard E.
Wojt was not present due to an excused absence. The Board met in executive session with
Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth regarding potential litigation.
HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Regulating the' Carrying and Use of
Firearms In a Safety Zone Surrounding the Olvmplc and Clearwater Corrections
Centers: Prescribing Enforcement and Officials and Providing Penalties: Chairman
Dennison opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak before or against this
proposed ordinance and the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to
approve the ordinance as submitted for the establishment of a safety zone surroùnding the
Olympic and Clearwater Corrections Centers. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote.
Discussion then followed regarding a letter received from West End residents about their
concern that weapons could not be carried in a car on the Hoh Mainline Road if this
Ordinance is approved. In order to look into the matter further, Commissioner Brown moved
to rescind his previous motion. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by
a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown
moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Chairman
Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
1. Call for Bids; Criminal Indigent Defense Services and Services for Cases in Conflict with
the Cases Assigned on the General Contract; Bid Opening Set for October 28, 1991 at
10:00 a.m.
2. Request for Reimbursable Work; Public Works to do Work to Enlarge Parking Area; Cost
not to exceed $3,000; Jefferson Transit
3. AGREEMENT, Cooperative Purchasing; Using Jefferson County Competitively Awarded
Contracts for Various Equipment and Supplies; Mason County
4. AGREEMENT, Cooperative Purchasing; Using Mason County Competitively Awarded
Contracts for Various Equipment and Supplies; Mason County
5. Accept Resignation; Andrew C. "Chet" Dalgleish; Jefferson County Civil Service
Commission
6. AGREEMENT re: Use of School District Swimming Pool from September 3, 1991 to May
3, 1991 and from June 1 , 1992 to August 31, 1992; Port Townsend School District #50
7. RESOLUTION NO. 95-91 re: Cancellation of Unclaimed Warrants
~'C:_ 1 7 PAfÆ 00 i19~
1IIimw.'I!1:;·
'I ; ~i'~- ~u:
~b,,\!>_
i1
·
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 2
8. Approved of the Policy and Procedures of What consists of a "Coroner's Case"
9. Approved Request for Use of County's Chimacum Park; October 19, 1991 from Noon to
3:00 p.m. for a Drill; Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management
10 PROCLAMATION re: The month of October as "JEFFERSON COUNTY WALKS
AGAINST AIDS MONTH"
11.AGREEMENT #1-91-265015 re: At-Risk Youth Reimbursement Program to Jefferson
County Juvenile Services; State Department of Community Development
12. RESOLUTION NO. 96-91 re: Adoption of the Final Draft of the Quilcene/Dabob Bays
Watershed Action Plan
13.Approval of the State Uquor Ucense Change in Corporate Officers for Reeds
Enterprises, Inc. - Hadlock Super Valu
14.Approval of the Request for Payment of Fourth Quarter Allocation $2,500 of
Hotel/Motel Tax Funds; East Jefferson Visitor Center
15. RESOLUTION NO. 97-91 re: Establishment of a Budget for the Park & Recreation
District #1
16.Approval of Notice re: Request for Statement of Qualifications and Request to be
Considered for Award of Contract for Professional Engineering Services for the
Jefferson County Public Works Department
17.Clalm for Damages #C-08-91 Myrl Hancock; Repair Loss of Well Casing and Cap
$1,582.46; Approved Claim at Reduced Amount of $800.95
18.Clalm for Damages #C-1Q-91 Robert Gadbaw; Repair of Chipped and Cracked
Windshield; Rejected Claim
19.AGREEMENT #91-006-9 re: Water Quality Improvement, Exhibits A (Rehabilitation
Measures), B (Premises), C (Promissory Note), and D (Deed of Trust); Jeffrey M.
Larson i
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS
BID OPENING re: Furnlshlna One (1) New Hydraulic Hook Lift System
Mounted on a New Truck: Public Works Director Gary Rowe opened and read the
bids after the appointed time:
BIDDERS:
BID TOTAL:
$40,611.00
$41,492.00
a) Cascad~ Container, Ridgefield, Wa. 98642
(With Sales Tax of $3,086.44 total bid would be $43,697.44)
b) Peterbilt/GMC Inc., Portland, Or. 97208
(Bid does not include sales tax)
Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department check the bids for
accurancy ~nd make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of
the County~ Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote. '
Later that day: Commissioner Brown moved to award the bid for the new hydrualic hook
lift system, to Cascade Container-Fab Company of Ridgefield for their bid price of
$43,697.44i as recommended by the Public Works Department. Chairman Dennison
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
I
Approval of Vacation of a County Road Right-of-waY; Flndlna. Conclusion
and Recommendation of the Hearlna Examiner; A Portion of Ludlow Point Road.
Ludlow Point Tract; Ronald E. Towerv: Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon reported
that the He~ring Examiner recommends approval of this vacation request on the condition
that the use of the area does not interfere with' the maintenance of the utilities.
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the recommendation of the hearing Examiner and
approve the vacation as requested subject to the applicant providing a utility access
1,'01" 1 7 rA~£ 00 1193'
,
,
"
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 3
easement to Ludlow Utilities Company, if necessary. Chairman Dennison seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Approval of Vacation of a County Road Right-of-Way; FindinG. Con-
clusion and Recommendation of the HearinG Examiner; A Portion . of Glen Cove
Road Between Phillips Avenue on the South and Lake Avenue/Otto Street on the
North and a Portion of Stevens Avenue Between Glen Cove Road and Otto Street;
Discovery Timber Company: Eileen Simon reported that the Hearing Examiner
recommends approval of this request to vacate a portion of the Glen Cove Road which
has been closed since 1989 for safety reasons. There is access into this area from Otto
Street. The Public Works department recommended that the applicant deed right-of-
way to the County in lieu of compensation for the vacated right-of-way. The applicant
has agreed to this.
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and
approve the vacation on t~e condition that the applicant deed right-of-way to the County
in lieu of compensation. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Recommendation on Proposals Received for SeptaGe Treatment and
Disposal Services: Solid Waste Specialist Jeff Frettingham presented a summary of
the recommendations made by a committee set up to review proposals for disposal
services for septage after the County's septage lagoon is. closed. The review committee
which included members representing the County and City Public Works Departments,
the County Environmental Health Department, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and
a private consultant, recommends that the County consider Metcalf and Eddy Services,
Inc. and Accelerated Bioremedial Composting, Inc. for their on-site treatment proposals
and Bio Recycling Corporation, if necessary, for the off-site treatment proposal. They
also recommend that a negotiating team be established to begin negotiations with these
two companies on preliminary contract terms.
After discussion of the "request for proposalu and the services requested in it, Gary
Rowe explained that the top two recommended firms will do the treatment on-site.
Negotiations will have to be entered into regarding the volume of septage to be treated
and the price for that treatment. He reported that the County's facility must be closed
at the end of this year and an interim treatment process may be required, as well as a
long term process.
Commissioner Brown moved to accept the recommendation of the committee and to
direct the Public Works Department to enter into negotiations for a short and long term
process facility. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Planning & Building Department Director Craig Ward: Public Works Road
fmlects Manager Bruce laurie: and Assessor's Office Assessment Oøerations
ManaGer Jeff ChaDman re: Discussion of Scope of Work and FundinG for Optimum
Land Use Resource Land Maps: Craig Ward updated the Board on the scope of work
for updating the optimum land use maps and how much it will cost. Parcel specific
maps are to be digitized but first the maps that will be used in this process must be
accurate. To update these maps will require staff time. A proposal has been received
from Econmic and Engineering Services to have the digitizing done by end of March
1992. The estimated cost of this work will require that it be awarded through the bidding
process. The initial cost estimate is $150,000.00.
Jeff Chapman reported that it will take two employees six months to do the research
necessary to update the parcel maps for this project. Chairman Dennison stated that he
would like more information on in-house and contract costs for this scope of work.
VOL 17 fAGf 00 1.194
,
,
.'
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 4
Ted Kryslnskl and Qullcene Residents re: Qullcene Helahts Development:
Ted Krysinski reported that he is here representing Quilcene residents regarding
questions they would like to have addrressed on the Quilcene Heights Development. He
then submitted a list of questions the residents would like answered regarding this
development. The Chairman explained the SEPA process and noted that these
questions will be considered as comments submitted during the 15 day comment period
triggered by SEPA.
Annual Visit of Gary Lowe. Executive Director. WashinGton State
Association of Counties (WSAC).and Fred Saeaer. Executive Director. Washlnaton
State Association of County Officials (WACO): Gary Lowe, representing WSAC and
Fred Saeger representing WACO discussed the operations of these two organizations
and several issues that will be on the November election ballot.
AUDITOR
Budaet Manaaer Gary Rowe and Auditor Mary Gaboury re:Presentation
of Preliminary 1992 Budaet: Mary Baldridge, Accountant, Auditor's Office; Anne Sears,
Accountant, Public Works Department; and Mary Gaboury, Auditor, were present when
Budget Manager Gary Rowe presented the preliminary 1992 budget to the Board.
PLANNING AND BUILDING
State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination;
Mixed Use Residential. Commercial and Recreational Development (SDP91-0017);
Port Ludlow; Pope Resources: 100+ area residents were present when Chairman
Dennison explained that this is a public meeting (not a hearing) and explained the SEPA
process.
C. Montaomerv Johnson asked if the previously issued SEPA Threshold Determination
on the overall project plan submitted by Pope would be used for this project? Chairman
Dennison stated that this project will be reviewed on its own merits. David Cunningham,
representing Pope Resources, stated that the .Board invoked phase review when that
SEPA determination was made on the overall plan.
Associate Planner Jim Pearson then reviewed the elements of the proposed project and
the environmental checklist. He submitted a letter from Pope Resources dated October
4, 1991 which is a response to additional information requested by the Planning
Department.
John Parker. Fire Commissioner. FD#3. submitted an additional letter from the Fire
District concerning this project. He clarified that this letter is in addition to the October
3, 1991 letter.
Jim Pearson then began his review of this proposal for a mixed use residential,
commercial and recreational development at Port Ludlow. It would include: a 36 room
hotel, 90 single/multi family residential dwelling units, infrastructure (roads, parking and
utilities), 2,500 square feet of retail space and modifications to the existing restaurant
and marina including a new Manager's Office, restrooms, laudry and replacement of
existing fuel tanks, as well as landscaping. The existing use of this 28 acre site
includes a 300 slip marina with parking, a restaurant, administrative offices, a small
miniature golf course, and a man made mill pond.
The applicant submitted the following documents with their application: A traffic impact
analysis, an environmental site assessment, and two water quality reports (on water
quality in Port Ludlow Bay).
Earth: The site has flat areas adjoinging the water, a rolling upland plateau with
slopes of less than 10% and fairly steep slopes which reach 50%.
vot 17 rA~ 00 1.195
;.._._----:;,~".:", .,_.....
~-
·
,
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 5
Soils: The soils 'are a combination of fill, typical beach material, and gravel and
sandy loam (on the steep slopes on the western portion of the site) with slow to
medium runoff potential. Additional information on filling and grading proposed
was provided by Pope Resources in their letter dated October 4. Approximately
20,000 cubic yards of excavating, grading and filling will occur for building
construction and installing utilities. The existing pond will be excavated and
expanded (approximately 25,000 cubic yards of material will be removed). Dunes
will be created on the pit located on the southeast portion of the site. 500 yards
of rip rap will be placed along the shoreline. There is proposed clearing, grading
and excavating in the area where the steep slopes are located for parking, utilities,
and 12 single family residences,
The staff concurs with the applicant that the soils could be subject to erosion during
clearing and grading, particularly in the area on the west portion of the site. This is
also a concern on the areas that have been filled.
28 percent of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. In order to control
erosion and impacts to the earth, the applicant states that buildings have been
located to take advantage of topographic features and reduce site disturbance.
A County approved erosion control plan will be implemented during construction
which will utilize temporary settlement ponds, hydroseeding if necessary and other
devices to. reduce and control erosion. The staff notes that the extent of clearing
and grading that will occur on steep westerly slopes is not clear.
Air: There will be dust and equipment exhaust emissions during construction.
Once the project is complete low level emissions from automobiles and fireplaces
will occur. Dust suppression will be handled by watering during construction. A
shuttle service to the Golf Course will be used to reduce vehicle emissions, and
retention of 2/3 of the project site in vegetative cover.
Water/Surface Water: Port Ludlow Bay is adacent to the site and there is a man
made mill pond on the site. Modifications will be made to the existing marina.
Within 200 feet of the water there will be a 36 room Inn, a Town Hall, 32 single
family detached residences, 58 multi-family units, shops, expansion of the mill
pond, landscaping, parking and other related infrastructure.
Approximately 25,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated from the northern and
eastern sectors of the existing man made mill pond. That material will be placed
immediately east and southeast of the area to create level building areas and to
create dunes in an area that is flat and occupied presently by part of the golf course.
The staff noted that the applicant estimates that 28% of the site will be covered by
impervious surfaces which will increase stormwater runoff which could carry eroded
soils (due to clearing and grading), oil, grease, metals (from roadways), fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides (from lawns and landscaping), into Port Ludlow Bay which
currently meets Class A Extraordinary water quality standards.
The project will be served by Ludlow Water Company's domestic water system.
The total daily domestic water consumption is projected to be a maximum of
85,000 gallons per day including the Inn and all the residential units. Pope
Resources has provided additional information on their projected water use.
Stormwater runoff will be generated from impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff
from the site will be directed into catchments which will contain oil/water
separators. It will then be directed into the expanded mill pond at which time it
will be subject to biofiltration and also settling. Stormwater will not pass over or
through any property other than that owned by the applicant. After treatment the
stormwater will be discharged into Port Ludlow Bay.
The applicants state that based on their monitoring studies of Port Ludlow Bay,
non-point pollution can be managed so as to not adversely affect the water quality
status of the Bay. Two water quality reports prepared by a consultant have been
17 rA~ 00 11.9G
VOl
t:;t;,,;"~~j.~: ';~'it_
£>';~"\ ~·i~
~t:0.~"
¿-,¡:,¡¡;t:¡
'_:é_'
,;;::¡J
.
,
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 6
submitted by the applicant. The area where runoff may potentially enter directly
into Ludlow Bay is on the westly steep slopes, and that will depend on the amount
of clearing and grading done in this area.
Plants: 38% of the site will remain in open space. An overall landscape plan will
be submitted for the project. A major portion of this landscape plan will re-introduce
native dune grasses along the eastern shore and over most of the spit. Wetland
plants will be installed around the perimeter of the mill pond. Landscaping on single
family residence lots will be controlled by restrictive covenants.
Animals: There are no known threatened or endangered species on the site.
The site itself is not part of a migration route, but migrating water fowl and fish
use the adjoining waters of Port. Ludlow Bay. Shoreline setback of structures, re-
introduction of native plant species on the spit, enlargement of the existing pond
and establishment of wetland plants around the mill pond are proposed to preserve
and enhance wildlife on the site.
Enivronmental Health: The Planning Department staff reports that the proposal site
was used as a sawmill from 1852 until 1935. Landau and Associates, a consultant
for Pope Resources, has conducted a study of the site to determine the possible
presence of hazardous substances from past uses. This assessment included
historical research. It indicates that elevated levels of lead and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons were found on the site easterly of the existing pond in an area
proposed for expansion of the pond. The study includes recommended actions to
address this specific contamination source and other potential contamination sources
on the site.
The applicants state that access to emergency service vehicles will be provided to all
parts of the project consistent with the requirements of Jefferson County Fire District
#3. A sprinkler and standpipe fire suppression system will be installed at the Inn.
Jim Pearson reported that the recommendations made by Landau and Associates will
be incorporated, into the project.
Land and Shoreline Use: The Planning staff reports that the site and surrounding
area are designated suburban in the Comprehensive Plan, not commercial. The
existing resturant and marina are commercial uses. They were in place prior to the
adoption of the Development Code. The Development Code allows commercial
development to locate on properties adjacent to existing active commercial uses which
are outside of designated commercial areas. A special conditional use permit would
be required for that activity under the Development Code. The proposal would
require a variance pertaining to multi-family standard structure setbacks, and parking
and roadway standards. The site is designated as Urban and Aquatic in the
Shoreline Management Master Program and a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit as well as variances from Performance standards for docks, piers and floats,
and residential setbacks will be required.
Transportation: The site is served by Oak Bay Road (County). The roads within the
proposed project will be private. An existing access point north of the Marina will be
improved. The completed project will contain a total of at least 315 parking spaces,
including those which now serve the Marina. Part or all of the existing parking
spaces which now serve the restaurant will be re-configured. A detailed parking
schedule has been submitted. An existing private access road north of the Marina
will be improved to serve as the main point of egress from the Inn and residential
. complex. A new intersection will be constructed where that private roads meets the
County's Oak Bay Road. The plans for roads and road improvements will comply
with the requirements of the Jefferson County Public Works Department.
A traffic impact analysis has been submitted by the applicants. The Public Works
Department states that the existing County road system in the area is adequate to
accomodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposal (Oak Bay
Road, Paradise Bay Road, and the Beaver Valley Road). Variances will be required
for several internal circulation roads as proposed.
VOL 1 Î r~' 00 1197,
_ ~~'J"'> .;,:~;';:-:;:C:.'";..:'1>~.';;,;"~
t¡¡..¡¡,jiü;1:;.~...
..
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 7
The applicants state that traffic counts taken as the existing Inn at Langley (on
Whidbey Island), which is similar to this project, by guests, employees and service
vehicles is 130 to 160 cars per day. Recent residential traffic studies in the Port
Ludlow area indicate that the trips generated by 90 proposed dwelling units is
expected to be 540 cars per day with peaks in traffic occuring between 8:30 and
10:30 a.m. arid 3:30 and 5:30 p.m.
The applicant stated that Jefferson Transit will be asked to serve the Inn on its
regular route. A private shuttle service will be provided for guests arriving at the
Airport and the Golf Course.
Public Services: The applicant states that additional public services required will be
emergency medical aid, fire protection and law enforcement. There will not be any
impact to schools. The applicant reports that a fire suppression sprinkler system will
be installed at the Inn, additional fire hydrants will be installed throughout the entire
project at 300 foot intervals in accordance with the requirements of Fire District #3;
The Fire District has indicated that their greatest concern in this expansion project is
the proposed hotel which is planned to be 3 stories, or 45 feet in height. The Fire
District has ground ladders, which will only reach a height of 27 feet, and a 50 foot
extention ladder that will only reach 38 feet. In order to reach the third floor of the
hotel an aerial platform truck is needed. . The Fire District does not own or have any
plans to buy such a truck. The closest such truck available on a mutual aid basis
is at Port Townsend, which means there would be a 30 minute response time.
The Planning Staff, based on their review of the proposal and the site, recommends that
the Board consider the following potential significant environmental impacts:
· Impacts to soils due to clearing and grading, excavating and the
presence of steep slopes.
Water quality impacts due to eroded soils and contaminants
entering rainwater due to stormwater runoff from exposed soils
and increased impervious surfaces.
Environmental health hazards due to the excavation of
hazardous substances on the site.
Impacts to public services (from Fire District letters)
·
·
·
Chairman Dennison asked if this site is designated as commercial? Jim Pearson
reported that the Inn will require a special conditional use permit, but it can be reviewed
as a commercial project located next to an existing commercial operation under the
provisions of the Jefferson County Development Code. Chairman Dennison asked if the
current restuarant is a non-conforming use? Jerry Smith reported that it is. The
Chairman then asked if the Development Code would allow the placement of a
commercial business next to a non-conforming commercial use? Jerry Smith reported
that the Development Code allows the County to consider the siting of new commercial
projects adjacent to existing commercial activities even though the site is not designated
as commercial.
Chairman Dennison asked if it is know what the 25,000 cubic yards of material
excavated from the mill pond might contain? Jim Pearson stated that it would contain
a mix of various types of fill. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, added that this pond
was created as a recreational salt water pond and it was never a real mill pond. It was
created in 1968. He reported that the Landau report details what was in soil samples
and where the samples were taken.
Chairman Dennison asked if the dunes are going to be created from materials dredged
from the mill pond? David Cunningham reported that is correct, but that the dunes will
be surfaced with sand imported from another site. The intention is to use the excavated
material, (subject to the Landau recommendations for testing as its removed) as it's
removed, as the basis for the dunes.
The water supply for the proposed development was discussed. David Cunningham
reported that no new wells will be drilled for this development. The State Department
VOL 1 7 r~' 00 119'tj
::f" ;.tfJli--""-
\~>::J:íl'
r..t.\;.;
I
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 8
of Social and Health Services requires 800 gallons of water per unit per day. The
actual records of the Port Ludlow Utility company indicate that in the peak season each
household uses about 200 gallons per day.
C. Montgomery Johnson asked if the land and water portions of this project are linked
and if an EIS could be required on just one portion of the project? Jim Pearson
reported that there is only one application for this project. Prosecuting Attorney Mark
Huth reported that the County could invoke phased review which would mean that
environmental review could be done of one portion of the project at a time.
Richard Hauf stated that he is a diver who has dived at the Port Ludlow Marina for five
years. I n the last year he has found a new sediment on the bottom that is about 18
inches deep. He noted that he doesn't know where it came from or what it is, but
nothing grows where it is located. Chairman Dennison suggested that Mr. Hauf put his
information in writing and submit it during the comment period when a determination is
made.
Chairman Dennison asked about the front yard setbacks? Jerry Smith reported that the
proposal indicates a front yard setback from the County road right-of-way of less than
what is required under the Development Code (25 feet). Another man asked what the
setback is from the shoreline? Jim Pearson reported that the standard shoreline setback
is 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. If there is a bluff that exceeds 10 feet in
height the minimum setback is measured from the top of the bank. The minimum
setback is 30 feet. If the bank exceeds 30 feet in height the setback is one foot from
the top of the bank for every foot of bank height. More information is needed on the
regarding the setback for the proposed residences.
Commissioner Brown asked Jim Pearson if he feels that there are areas that néed
further mitigation than that proposed by the project proponent? Jim Pearson reported
that his review is to identify potential impacts for the Board's consideration. He added
that the following issues need to be incorporated into the proposal: the clearing to be
done on the west side of the site; environmental health hazards due to the excavation
of hazardous substances; and the question of the ability of the fire protection district to
adequately protect the Inn.
Chairman Dennison suggested that the Board and the Planning Department staff need
more time to review the information provided, the concerns noted and the mitigation
proposed. Commissioner Brown added that he feels the mitigation that has been
proposed must be reviewed to see if it will do what the County wants done and that the
applicant needs to be asked to offer mitigation for other areas that have been identified.
Commissioner Brown moved to table action on this determination until the Board
has time to review the Information to determine how it relates to the proposed
mitigations. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
A man asked if the Board would be giving a notice when this project is on the
Commissioner's agenda again. After discussion of the best way to proceed the Board
advised everyone present that this matter will be put on the October 28, 1991 agenda.
David Cunningham asked if the County will let them know what concerns do not yet
have appropriate mitigation so that they can propose mitigation?
Jim Pearson asked how the Board would like staff to proceed on this proposal?
Chairman Dennison suggested that the Board meet with the Planning Department staff
to discuss the issues and the proposed mitigations as well as any new concerns that
have been discussed.
C. Montgomery Johnson asked what the County will do to enforce the mitigations?
Chairman Dennison stated that is a concern that the Board will be dealing with.
Shoreline Permit ISDP88-0016 Revision: Proposed ChanGe to Permit
Condition #18: Pope Resources: Jim Pearson reported that the orginal property
VOl 17 h\~ 00 1:199
, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 9
owner, Pope Resources, and subsequent property owners in the plat known as the Inner
Harbor Development are subject to the conditions of Shoreline Permit #SDP88-0016.
Permit condition #18 states "Exterior building materials shall be shake, shingle or wood
siding. Paint colors shall be earth tone. Roof materials shall be shake, shingle or earth
tone concrete tile. ø Pope Resources has applied for a revision to this condition which
would state II Exterior building materials shall be wood, wood products, stone brick or dry
bed. No asphalt, fiberglass, metal or plastic materials shall be used as finish exterior
siding. Exterior siding shall be earth tone, semi-transparent stain, or other light color
which shall be approved at the discretion of the South Bay Community Association's
Architectural Review committee. However no primary paint color such as blue, black or
white will be premitted. Trim colors shall be permitted under the same criteria, including
white. All exposed metals, such as roofing, flue pipes, fireplace chimneys and caps,
plumbing stacks, miscellaneous flashings, bark affesters, ect. must be painted with a flat
dark color. Gutters, however, may be painted to blend with siding and/or trim colors.
Roof materials shall be wood shake, wood shingle, metal, concrete tile or a wood
product acceptable to the Committee. Colors shall be natural wood, in the case of wood
roof material or in the case of other material, colors shall conform to said criteria of a
muted color. No asphalt, shingle or composition roofing shall be used. "
Jim Pearson reported that he has not had time to make a site inspection to determine
how many buildings have violated the original permit condition. The Shoreline Master
Program (Section 6.404) outlines the procedure for reviewing permit revisions. Prosecut-
ing Attorney Mark Huth stated that Burt Loomis appeared before the Board (after the
revision request had been submitted to the Planning Department) and presented
allegations regarding violations of this permit condition. There has been no response to
the County from Pope Resources concerning those allegations. He added that it would
be in the Board's best interest to have all of the information on this issue before any
action' is taken on this revision request.
A representative of Pope Resources reported that may of the allegations required some
follow up work such as measuring the width of the sewer easement. That work is being
done and Pope Resources expects to have a response to the allegations within a week.
Chairman Dennison asked if anyone present wanted to address the Board with respect
to the allegations or the permit revision.
Bruce Halvorsen. Lot 17 Inner Harbor Villaae: Mr. Halvorsen reported that he is
presently constructing a home on his lot. He stated that he signed covenants and
restrictions which have a direct bearing on what he can and can not do on his lot. He
has built his house in accordance with those covenants and restrictions. He asked why
this process is taking place? He added that he doesn't know who the members of the
Architectural Review Committee are.
Mark Huth explained that the suggested revision to the shoreline permit puts the South
Bay Community Association's Architectural Review Committee in the place of approving
exterior siding colors. The County has nothing to do with the covenants and restrictions
that a property owner signs. The County enforces the conditions of the Shoreline
Permit, one of which covers the exterior siding colors.
James Watson. Lot 23 Inner Harbor: Mr. Watson stated that he owns the house who
some people say is in violation of the Shoreline Permit condition. He noted that he
spent a lot of money with his architect working with the Architectural Revi~w Commit-
tee. They submitted their entire project, including all the building materials and the
color, to that Committee and received approval for the plans as submitted. One of the
conditions of that approval was that if they wished to change the color they would have
to present that request to the Committee for their approval. The color on the house
now is the color that was approved. The Shoreline Permit condition uses the term
"earthtone" and he has not been able to find a definition of that term anywhere. The
term needs clarification. He added that he feels a blue/gray color is an earth tone.
Val 1 7 rA~ 00 1200
L..')ffi~"'.-~".'t¡i5iU
-"t"
:¡¡:""...L~~íWot~1II!:i
r...,
,-
~~'ì:'W.Á:il1!ilP-J~~
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 10
Jim Pearson reported that there is a policy in the Shoreline Master Program (Section
5.160 Residential Development, Policy 2) which states "Residential development should
be designed to adequately protect the water and shoreline aesthetic characteristics. "
Craia McCarv. Pope Resources: Mr. McCary stated that the language of both the
Shoreline Permit and the covenants may be too restrictive. It is putting a burden on
the property owners in terms of compliance, and on the Architectural Review Committee
in terms of interpretation. He suggested that a small committee of property owners in
the Inner Harbor Development to be formed to review and recommend language that is
acceptable and appropriate and submit that language to the County for revising this
permit condition. He invited Mr. Loomis to participate on that committee.
Commissioner Brown moved to table this consideration until such time as better
information and input has been received from the Homeowners Association. Chairman
Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Review comments on Determination of Non-slanificance for Revisions to
the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Master Proaram: Jim Pearson reported that
no comments were received on these proposed revisions.
Approval of Fundina for the SEPA Public Education Forum: Craig Ward
reported that there are two consultants who have proposed to do the public education
forums for $1,400.00. The Board directed that the Planning Department to proceed with
these consultants and submit the billing to the Commissioners' Office.
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Appointment of Deputy Coroners: Commissioner Brown moved to approve
and sign Resolution No. 97A-91 appointing the following Deputy Coroners: Sergeant
Dick Pierce, Sergeant Kenneth Smelcer and Trooper Thomas Anderson of the Washing-
ton State Patrol and Deputies Kenneth D. Sukert and Robert M. Haynes of the Jefferson
County Sheriff's Department. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by
a unanimous vote.
The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the day's business. The
meeting was reconvened on Tuesday afternoon with Chairman Dennison and Commis-
sioner Brown both present.
Tuesday October 8. 1991. 2:00 p.m.
State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination; Con-
struction of a Temporary Gravina Dock within the Existina Mats Mats Quarry to
be Used for 2 to 3 Years to Construct Concrete Floatlna Bridae Pontoons; Mats
Mats. North of Port Ludlow: General Construction Company {Continued from
September 16. 1991\: Chairman Dennison explained that the purpose of this meeting
is to review the proposed mitigation submitted by General Construction for their graving
dock proposal at the Mats Mats quarry. General Construction submitted mitigation on
September 20 and the Planning Department responded to them on October 5, 1991 that
VOl
1 7 rAGE 00 ~201
"
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 11
they were not adequate to meet the issues raised. The letter received today is a
response to the Planning Department's October 5th letter.
Carl Kassebaum. General Construction noted that the October 7 letter from General
was in response to a meeting they had on October 1 with the Planning Department
staff as a follow up to the last meeting. Based on the meeting with the Planning Staff
General Construction's response is broken down into the following areas: 1) process
clarification, 2) mitigation enforcement procedures, and 3) issue by issue clarification of
the eight concerns identified by Jefferson County.
1. Process Clarifications: The proposal has been revised, based on public
comment, to make sure that all the water for making concrete will come from
another source. They are proposing to bring the water in by barge from Seattle.
General Construction has checked with the City of. Seattle Water Department and
they can purchase the necessary water from them. The water will be brought to
the site in the ballast tanks of barges. After the water is pumped out of the ballast
tanks, those barges will then be used to haul the rock product out.
Carl Kassebaum clarified that there would be no additional barges required for this
project. A total of 10 barge trips will be needed and there are more barges than
are used for the rock production operations. The aggregate will be supplied by
Lone Star Quarry in Stillacum. It is estimated that 3 to 5 barges per month (or
65 trips over the course of the project) will be required. The aggregate would be
unloaded from the barges by a front end loader and then transported by truck to
the gravel storage area located on the north side of the graving dock, next to the
batch plant. The aggregate unloading would occur between the hours 7 a.m. and
7 p.m.
The operating hours are between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. with the following
exceptions:
a)
b)
c)
d)
If there is an exceptionally long concrete pour. This would be
if the pour could not be broken due to the construction stability
requirements.
Periods when the graving dock is open. Launching the
pontoons is tidal dependent.
Disaster type situations when there is no control over what
occurs. For example during a major weather event.
Maintenance activities associated with major repairs of vital
pieces of equipment. For example if the concrete batch plant
broke down and required 12 to 15 hours to repair. This would
be for repair operations only.
Placement of forms and re-enforcing steel during a second shift
operation. This could be an overtime operation for a limited
number of workers (7 to 10) who would be constructing forms
and re-enforcing steel for the next days concrete pour. This is
a low impact operation. Tom Sherman added that they would
be setting the forms in place with an electric crane.
e)
Number of people on the site would include a maximum of 175-185 workers and
various State inspectors, and other General Construction supervisory staff which
could be an additional maximum per day of 40 people. General Construction has
committed to having 100 or less vehicle trips per day generated by private vehicles
to and from the site.
2. Mitigation Enforcement Procedures: There is concern that the County have
controls to assure that General Construction does what is required in the mitigation.
General Construction has suggested the following:
· All environmental monitoring requirements become conditions of the permits and
be under the supervision of Jefferson County.
· The County hire an Environmental Coordinator who would contract with
professionals to do monitoring activities such as a noise study or ground water
monitoring.
VOL 17 r~ 00 1203
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 12
·
All plans for baseline studies for environmental monitoring would be subject to
review by the Environmental Coordinator and approved by the Commissioners
or their designee.
The Environmental Coordinator have the authority to enforce the mitigative
measures. This person could shut down operations until such time as the
problem is resolved.
General Construction will reimburse Jefferson County for all the costs for the
Environmental Coordinator position and the consultants hired by him.
General Construction would designate a company employee to act as their
Environmental Coordinator. That persons primary responsibility would be to
coordinate activities to enforce the mitigative measures, and be the first contact
for the Jefferson County Environmental Coordinator.
General Construction will provide a performance bond, suitable to the
County's requirements, to assure that the permit conditions will be adhered
to.
·
·
·
·
Baseline monitoring will be required for seismic, groundwater, noise and traffic impacts.
Chairman Dennison asked if marine water quality will be included. The discussion
continued about the need for monitoring of marine water quality, and how degradation
to the water quality would be known if a baseline study is not done. Mr. Kassebaum
stated that the flushing action of the bay will wash out the water used in the graving
dock. The problem, if any, might occur in the sediments of the surrounding area. A
baseline study of the sediments was done for General Construction by Parametrix.
Chairman Dennison stated that he would be interested in a study for Mats Mats Bay.
Mr. Kassebaum suggested that this concern be added to the items that the Environ-
mental Coordinator will handle.
Regarding the baseline studies for seismic and groundwater concerns, General Construc-
tion will provide whatever is necessary to assist the County in having these studies
done. The discussion turned to the time it would take to meet the "request for proposal II
requirements that the County must go through in order to hire the consultants and if that
process would meet the time frames for this project.
3. Issue by issue clarification of the eight concerns identified by Jefferson
County:
· Seismic monitoring - the County Environmental Coordinator will be
responsible for identifying the baseline monitoring conditions and how that
study will be done.
Procedures for the property owners, if damage is found and they have
participated in the seismic monitoring program, were reviewed. Chairman
Dennison agreed with the Planning staff that property owners should not have
to go to court to make a claim. Mark Huth suggested that the procedures need
to include where claims are to be filed (insurance carrier, the court or General
Construction). Tom Sherman noted that the claim would have to be filed with
General Construction and with the property owners insurance carrier.
· Surface Water - General Construction will establish a hazardous material control
program for the entire project. The plan will be submitted to and approved
by the Jefferson County Environmental Coordinator.
Tom Sherman reported that the pontoons will have to be set on some type
of leveling course, probably concrete. Since the material would not be
leaving the graving dock because of its' density, it would not need to be
included in the hazardous material clean up program. Carl Kassebaum
noted that the surface water would be included in the baseline monitoring
study.
Ground Water - The baseline and long term monitoring programs will be
established by the County's Environmental Coordinator. The conditions that
would indicate a problem would include: salt water contamination of a well,
and the increased turbidity or decreased production in water supply wells as
.
VOL 1 7 fAGt ÓO 1203
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 13
a result of the graving dock operation. If it is determined that there is a
problem General Construction would immediately provide a temporary water
supply until a more permanent solution can be found. The temporary supply
would be secured from a private source such as the Ludlow Utilities
Company or Jefferson County PUD. Tom Sherman reported that both of
these water suppliers have been contacted and they have indicated that
water would be available. The source of contamination would have to be
identified to prevent further contamination. The options for resolving the
problems are:
1) A new well on the property owners property.
2) If public water cannot be restored a permanent water supply system will
have to be provided.
.
The precise details for these options have not been worked out. Chairman
Dennison stated that the County needs to know specifically what the short and
long term water supplies will be. Commissioner Brown added that a specific
source must be identified as well as the capability of that source.
Chairman Dennison suggested that a dispute resolution process be
established for this project.
Air Quality - General Construction will make their operations throughout the
graving dock and quarry as efficient as possible which should help control dust
on the site. A full scale watering program will be employed to assure that the
dust from operations is controlled. General's Environmental Coordinator and
the County's Environmental Coordinator will assure that the control procedures
are adequate and complied with. The Environmental Coordinator will work with
the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority to develop a program for monitoring
emissions.
Jim Pearson reported that there was a suggestion that heavily used roads be
paved to keep the dust to a minimum, however, if the roadways are going to
be consolidated into a few haulways, that might be a method to keep dust
generation down.
· Noise - Mr. Kassebaum reported that it is extremely difficult to get an overall
noise measurement for a large variety of sources (baseline existing conditions)
and then be able to compare that to noise measurements from other sources
(new conditions). Noise consultants have indicated that this type of study
would be extremely complex and expensive. General Construction proposes
that noise level comparisons be made on an individual equipment or operations
basis.
General Construction will notify the Environmental Coordinator weekly or as
necessary regarding the anticipated operations for the next given time period.
This will allow the Environmental Coordinator to test appropriately for the
dominant impact based on actual operations. The Planning Department
recommends, Jim Pearson added, that General Construction provide adequate
funding for an average of two noise measurements per week for the duration
of the project.
Mark Huth brought up the question of whether there is enough time to have the
necessary baseline studies done and still meet General Construction's timeline.
Carl Kassebaum stated that the critical baseline studies are for seismic and
water quality. Tom Sherman added that there can be several different
consultants in the area at the same time to do the baseline studies. After
discussion of the RFP process, Tom Sherman stated that General Construction
will work within the timeframe established by the County.
Chairman Dennison asked when the bid process starts for this project? Tom Sherman
answered that the State will be receiving bids on November 20, 1991, but there are
rumors that the bid period may be extended another couple of weeks.
'JOl 1 7 rA~ 00 1:204
''t,im:
!::MJii~:; .~
";':;"":.,.j1j!j¡
,
.
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 14
· Traffic - Metering the cars onto the highway at 15 second intervals is proposed
to deal with a large number of vehicles leaving the site at one time. This
would work like the metering lights used on freeways.
Van and car pools will be encouraged for the workers, and the van/car pools
would be allowed to leave the site before any private cars. Commissioner
Brown suggested that staggering the quitting time for the employees may help.
Jim Pearson expressed concern that even if cars leave the site every 15
seconds, a large number of them will be held up at the Oak Bay/Olympus
Boulevard intersection at the same time.
The Jefferson County Public Works Department is doing a traffic study in this
area and General Construction will participate in it.
· Housing - Since there is concern about the adverse impact on the already
tight housing market in the County, General Construction has agreed to the
condition that they will identify available rental housing units in the price range
of the workers, in Jefferson, and northern Kitsap Counties. The discussion
turned to preferential hiring for Jefferson County residents and how that could
be addressed.
Chairman Dennison stated that people coming into the County for this project
could bid up the price on what little housing there is available in the County,
to a figure that local residents can't afford. The discussion continued regarding
hiring local workers, transportation for workers, and how these items would be
impacted by Union contracts.
· Public Service Impacts - General Construction will agree to participate in having
a physical impact analysis done to assess the potential increase need for
County services as a result of this project. General will work closely with the
Port Ludlow Fire Department during the planning stages of this project and will
supplement the Fire Departments needs. There is no impact anticipated to
schools and the only impact to utilities is for power and General Construction
will pay for that directly. Chairman Dennison asked that a contingency plan be
developed to deal with the possibility of more workers than anticipated coming
to live in the County.
Commissioner Brown asked if these items could be addressed by the Countyfs
Environmental Coordinator? Tom Sherman suggested that a Dispute Review
Board be established to address this type of issue if it arises. Chairman
Dennison suggested that a mediation step be included in the process employed
by this review board and that arbitration be a last resort.
Chairman Dennison stated that his understanding of the DNR permit is that General
Construction is permitted to excavate the quarry site to a level of plus one foot. Tom
Sherman reported that the DNR has not been able to tell them what the +1 or - 1 on
the permit means. It doesn't say if it means foot, inch, or yard. He noted that the
elevation of the portion of the site where the graving dock will be placed is +28 to +30
feet above a zero tide.
Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reviewed the proposed mitigations
and explained that General Construction will need to make a strong statement of their
willingness to work under these and other mitigations that are unknown at this stage.
The discussion turned to what would happen if a stop work order had to be put on the
project because of a violation of the State noise standards. Commissioner Brown stated
that he wants everyone, including General Construction and the area residents, to have
reasonable expectations regarding what the mitigation will and won't do. Craig Ward
added that the proposed mitigation gives the County more authority to deal with noise
at this site than the County now has. The County only has the authority to do more
than the State Law requires if the applicant agrees.
VOl. 1 7 lACif 00 :1205
..
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 15
Mark Huth reported that case law allows the Issuance of a mitigated determination of
non-significance based on information provided by future studies. Commissioner Brown
added that his understanding is that the County's Environmental Coordinator would have
the ability to review and request action for any mitigation that does not meet the need
identified. An enforcement contract is needed between the applicant and the County,
Mark Huthadded, in which the applicant would agree that they would comply with
whatever mitigation is reasonably necessary.
Commissioner Brown stated that he wants more information on the source of water that
is available on a long term basis, before' any action is taken to issue a threshold
determination on this project. Chairman Dennison reviewed the issues on which more
information is needed as: marine water quality, water supply, noise, traffic, and housing.
He that letters have been received about the possibility of certain roads being used as
short cuts to the site. Jim Pearson reviewed a memo from the Public Works Department
in which they indicate that a traffic study will include: traffic generation, peak hour
volumes, level of service, structural strength and current road standards for Quarry Road,
Olympus Boulevard, Oak Bay Road, Verner Avenue and Paradise Bay Road, including
the State highway intersection to Paradise Bay Road. Chairman Dennison asked that
Swansonville Road be added to that list.
Craig Ward suggested that the process that must be used (Request for Qualifications or
Request for Proposals) for hiring the County Environmental Coordinator be started
immediately, independent of the threshold determination being made.
Chairman Dennison suggested that the aquifer be identified.
Mark Beaufait. Attornev for the Mats Mats Area Coalition. stated that this project will
have a significant impact on the environment. To discuss issuing a MDNS before the
baseline studies are done is putting the cart before the horse. The County should make
a finding of significance and order an EIS. H,e noted that under the County's
Shoreline program and established policies, the applicant cannot alter the geohydrology
of the area. The existing ground water information is inaccurate, there has been no
mention of glare or nighttime operations, and the pumping required in the graving dock
has not been addressed. The noise information is incomplete, and a reclamation plan
is required under the shoreline permit process.
The mitigation doesn't address the significant impacts that are likely to occur. As the
October 5, Planning staff response indicates, there are many details left to be worked
out, Mr. Beaufait noted. The County's enabling ordinance requires that the details must
be spelled out. Monitoring after the fact is really doing an EIS after the fact, which
contradicts the purpose of the public process and does not give the decision makers any
basis for making their decisions. This project, if approved, will establish a precedent for
the use of this property. General Construction intends to turn this property into a marina
which contradicts their reclamation plan. This project is different than the work being
done at the site currently.
Mark Huth advised that an EIS would address alternatives to mitigate impacts.
Chairman Dennison asked what would happen if a seismic study required by an EIS
indicated that no seismic impact was likely? It is his understanding that the County
wouldn't have any basis to require mitigation. In asking for an MDNS the County is
acknowledging that an impact could occur requiring the appliC'ant to address how that
impact would be corrected, which potentially gives the County more regulatory authority
than the EIS would. The advantage of an MDNS, Chairman Dennison continued, is that
the potential impacts are addressed up front and the applicant proposes mitigation to
deal with those impacts. He added that the reason mitigation are being discussed at all
is to see if the situation in this area can be made better than it currently is. There is
currently an industrial operation on this site which will continue if this project is approved
or not.
ý(}L 1 7 rAC~ 00 120(,
(..- .~
III!I!iF'" ·,:;;·.···o't. t'.,(é':¡L·>""b
11 ..
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 7, 1991
Page: 16
The Board directed that this revie be put back on their agenda on Wednesday October
16, 1991 at 1 :30 p.m.
17 ,\1~ r'ì\,
, ~! . f-~ ~~'.. ',,, , "'.
SE..·..'¡f1¡ ...... ,J .. . .' j "\'
·f'''-·'' . "';c\
.. ". ','j "
I ~ . '. f . .,...... \
" .. I¡ , ~
:/.. \.. }..~.,,;;,
.~ ¡J'~"\' ¡'¡,'it. ., - ,
... .....;t.(~. ,'" . -..' I ' :\!¡}
. iii' ," ' .
.. ,I!I' I r ,..._;...,~..-,/, ~ ø :
.' ~. ~. . ~ '
, ,-~ '. ,,'
'. ..' ,ô;' ¡* :. .' '1;. · ~ '
I,/",#,.·W·,·: '" ..
II 0,,: ,,/14"~. .... ." ~' .'"
:' :". [l> f' "'.\ /
,:'>:'~"'~so~ yJ "..-
',r [r.,_~:' ,,_-:__~~';'jøoJ'"
A TT9S~'.:~~)j'¡if' . .....,
'~;' ~:':if:~f<~;~:,~?;:f, :'i I
dCYl/luu!
Lorna L. Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~
~
U r enn so, hairman
~.,. )
B. G. Brown, ember-
(excused absence)
. Richard E. Wojt, Member
'"~
1 7 rMl '. 00 1207