Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM101491 ?:; ..... ./ MINUTES WEEK OF OCTOBER 14, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B.G. Brown was present. Commissioner Richard Wojt was not present due to an excused absence. The Board met In Executive Session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth and Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward regarding litigation. Plannlna Director Crala Ward re: Discussion of Scope of Work and Fundina for Optimum Land Use/Resource Land Maps: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that the land use maps will be up- dated by Economic and Engineering Services as part of the GIS mapping project. Approval of the Board Is needed to hire two temporary employees In the Assessor's Office, a cartographer and a researcher. The PUD and the City of Port Townsend will participate In part of the cost of this project. Commissioner Brown asked how much work Is left to complete the parcel maps? Assessment Operations Manager Jeff Chapman reported that there are 435 maps left to digitize. The two part time positions will provide the research on each map which will enable EES to do the digitizing. The current EES contract and scope of work, funding, and budget priority for this project were then discussed. Craig Ward reported that the costs are estimated to be as follows: EES -Digitize Parcel Maps $100,000.00 Resource Lands/Critical Areas 20,000.00 Final Maps 8,000.00 Sub-total $128,000.00 Assessor's Staff 32,000.00 Total $160,000.00 ----------- ----------- Mark Huth asked If there Is a way to prioritize what land use maps will be needed first, so that work could start on them Immediately? Craig Ward reported that the Resource Lands and Critical area maps are a priority. Chairman Dennison stated that It is a consensus of the Board that this project Is a high priority and that the scope of work, final costs, and hiring process for two temporary people In the Assessor's Office begin. VQ.L 17 rA~ 00 f2i.~ · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Minutes of August 26, September 3, and 9, 1991 as read. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Revised Park and Recreation Community Grant Guidelines: Janet Kearsley, Public Works Environmental Planner, presented a copy of the guidelines for the Community Grant program which Is to provide matching funds to volunteer organizations for capital Improvement projects. She noted that the Parks Advisory Board Is asking that all of the applications for these funds be made by a specific date. This will allow them to review and prioritize the applications to allocate the funding which Is not adequate to meet all of the re- quests. A maximum amount for each request, a contingency amount to be held out for applications that don't meet the deadline, and a semi-annual applica- tion date were discussed. The Board asked that these options be reviewed by the Parks Advisory Board, and that policies be established. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the Community Grant guidelines as presented. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISTRICT COURT Office Supervisor Sue Dlllinaham re: Reauest for Law & Justice Fundina: Sue Dillingham reported that a change In the law requires that the Court shall charge $150.00 monitoring fee for deferred prosecutions and they may charge up to $50.00 a month for probation costs. The District Court is charging $25.00 per month for deferred prosecution. This fee must be used by the County for probation services. Sue Dillingham reported that she Is changing her request to purchase the hand held BAC machines for the Probation Department from Law and Justice Funds to an appropriation from the Current Expense Fund to use these new fees. The request for chairs would also be a request for an appropriation from the Current Expense Fund. Sue Dillingham will add these amounts to her request for appropriation. PLANNING AND BUILDING HEARING re: An Ordinance Amendina the Public Notice and Appeals Provision Under the Jefferson County SEPA Implementina Ordinance No. 7-84: Prosecuting A1torney Mark Huth reported that this proposed amendment to the SEPA Implementing Ordinance Is the result of comments from the public which were received during the hearing held regarding the change In the responsible official for SEPA, The Planning Department has drafted these proposed changes to address the public's concern that the SEPA process remain as public as possible since the responsible official Is now the Director of Planning and Building and not the Board of Commissioners. Mark Huth reported that currently SEPA provides that a threshold determination Is made administratively and then public comment is requested. The County cannot make rules that are Inconsistent with SEPA. SEPA rules require that a threshold determination be made within 15 days. The public notification time VOl 1 7 rA~ 00.12:10 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 3 lines for pending threshold determinations suggested In this draft will make It very hard and perhaps Impossible to comply with that 15 day rule. He then suggested the following changes to the proposed ordinance: . Subsection 7.20 (l), paragraph (1) - delete "No later than seven (7) days." The paragraph would then begin "After the filing of a project application. . ." This would eliminate a particular time line at this point. . paragraph (a) - Add language to require that the applicant submit a list of adjacent property owners (APO) with the completed application. Commissioner Brown asked what happens If an adjacent property owner Is not properly notified? After some discussion of the process, Mark Huth reminded the Board that the SEP A rules do not require the County to do any of the pre- determination notification. Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Planning Department policy Is to have applicants go to a title Insurance company for the list of adjacent property owners. He reported that this was done because the Planning Department and Assessor's Office do not have the staff to do this research. Commissioner Brown reported that the Ordinance doesn't have this wording In It. He added that there have been complaints from applicants who have had to go to a title company for the list when the only adjacent property owners were their own family. Eric Toews reported that the wording "provided to the Planning Department by all applicants, subject to Planning Department approval," should allow for a variance from the policy In this type of circumstance. Mark Huth stated that all SEPA applications would be published In the news- paper. The discussion turned to when SEPA Is required, what applications require notificatIon of adjacent property owners, and the possibility of making an exception If all of the adjacent property owners are family members. Craig Ward added that a consistent process for development of APO lists Is necessary for all applications where they are required. Mark Huth suggested that the wording be changed In Section 7 .20(1) from I'the PlannIng Department shall provide the public . . .11 to the I'Plannlng Department should provide public notice. . ,II This would not make the notification man- datory on the Planning Department. Craig Ward stated that a list of pending threshold determinations would be published each week In the County official newspaper. In response to a comment received from Pope Resources regarding the time constraints of SEPA, Mark Huth suggested that Section 7.20 (1) second paragraph, page 4, which says ". . . all notices shall Include a statement Indicating that any person shall have a period of fifteen (15) days· from the date of the notice to submit Information and comments. . /' be changed to delete this time frame. This time frame would not allow the SEPA requirement of Issuing a threshold determination within 15 days. He suggested the following wording for this paragraph l'Any person may submit Information and comments relating to the pending threshold determination to the Planning Department. II In Subsection 8.20 sub paragraph 1, second sentence should be changed to read ''The propon- ent or any aggrieved party may appeal by giving written notice. . ,II Chairman Dennison opened the hearing for comments for or against the proposed amendments to this ordinance. Hearing no comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the changes as discussed above and to approve Ordinance 06-1014-91 with the changes as suggested, and direct the staff to prepare findings of fact on the changes made today. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #SDP91-0013 and Variance Reauest: To Construct a 50 x 6 Foot Dock Teelna into an 88 x 6 Foot Ramp for the VOL 1 7 r^~ OO~2:1D Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 4 Joint. Recreational Use of the Owners of Two Adjoining Residential Lots: Lots 5 and 6 of Pleasant Harbor Tracts: Nick at Marla Cecil: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reviewed this proposal to construct a dock and pier for joint recreational use by Lots 5 and 60f Pleasant Harbor Tracts on Hood Canal. The Shoreline Commission reviewed this proposal and required that the ramp be made longer. This length- ened the whole structure by five feet. They felt this was necessary In order to make sure that the dock Is In deep enough water. Jim Pearson then reviewed the Shoreline Commission findings and recommenda- tion. He reported that Hydraulic project approval was Issued by the State Department of Fisheries on September 16. The Shoreline Commission discussed the use of creosote pilings and Included a condition that these piling not be used In this project. The other recommended conditions of approval were then reviewed. The discussion turned to the County's policy for non-proliferation of docks. Jim Pearson reported that there are 13 lots on the shoreline In this area and this dock would serve two adjacent lots. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the findings of fact, recommendation and conditions of approval as proposed by the. Shoreline Commission and to approve the Shoreline Permit. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. He asked If there Is any enforcement mechanism for these conditions? Jim Pearson reported that the conditions give the County the authority to be Involved If there Is a violation reported In the future. Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AdoDtlon of a Revised "Jefferson Port Townsend Shoreline Manaaement Master Proaram: Revisions to be Consistent with WAC Section 173-16-064 Ocean Management: Jim Pearson reported that this proposal is to amend the Shoreline Management Master Program to add several new sections, and amend existing sections to adopt the Ocean Uses Section of the Washington Administrative Code. A determination of non-significance was Issued on this revision on September 23, 1991, and no comments have been received on that determina- tion. In response to a question from Chairman Dennison regarding the SEPA review, Mark Huth reported that this document, In and of Itself, will not have a significant environmental Impact. Projects suggested under this document may have significant environmental Impacts, however, this document will provide policies for mitigating environmental Impacts and any such project will be subject to environmental review on their own. Commissioner Brown moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 98-91 adopting the revision of the 'IJefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program./I Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Substantial DeveloDment Permit #SDP91-0005: To Construct a 40 x 6 Foot Dock Connected to a 45 x 6 Foot Pier and 4 Foot RamD for Private. Non- Commercial Use: Lot 20 of Ludlow Point Village. Division 2: W.E. Foust: Jim Pearson reported that this Shoreline Permit application Is for a dock and pier for private, non-commercial use on Lot 20 of the Ludlow Point Village, Division 2 which corresponds to Lot 36 of the Preliminary Plat of Inner Harbor (reviewed under Shoreline Permit #SDP88-0016). A shoreline permit was issued for a dock on Lot 21 of this same subdivision In April of 1991 (McLaughlin SDP90-0012). The joint use dock, and non-proliferation policies as well as the use of creosote pilings were discussed by the Shoreline Commission. The Shoreline Commission recommends approval of this project with four conditions of approval. 17 00 1220 VOl rA~ . _. .'J\;;;!!('".'_' ·.·~.~1iII ;c_ ,_? ..¡¡¡.;, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October .14, 1991 Page: 5 Commissioner Brown moved for the adoption of the findings of fact Issued by the Shoreline Commission and approval of the permit with the conditions as recommended. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental, Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: To Subdivide 8.6 Acres Into a Three (3) Lot Short Plat. SP21-90. Wakefield Short Plat: Between Paradise Bay Road and By-Water Bay. Approximately One Mlie North of the Hood Canal Floating Bridge: Steve and Margo Wakefield: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this project Is to develop an 8.3 acre parcel Into a three lot short plat, located approximately one mile North of the Hood Canal Floating Bridge on the Paradise Bay Road. This site fronts on By-Water Bay and the bluffs are considered to be unstable by the Coastal Zone Atlas and by County Resolution. Jerry Smith then reviewed the environmental checklist. The bluff Is a vertical bank and Is covered with vegetation. The proponents Indicate that they are going to Install a driveway that will be built to County standards. They propose to follow the recommendation of the Geologist In the Slope Stability report to protect against erosion. This report Indicates that there have been some small landslides and soli creep on the site. Along the southern border of this property there Is evidence of an old landslide where the slope stability report Indicates there should be no construction or excavation done without the guidance of a Geologist. There Is a swampy area near the southwest corner of the site referenced In the soli stability report. Jerry Smith reported that a Resolution (No. 119-90) was adopted last year to repeal the building moratorium on properties In this area Including this site. Jerry Smith then reviewed the nine proposed mitigative measures. Commissioner Brown asked If these proposed mitigative measures are agreeable with the applicant? Steve Wakefield stated that the Geologist Indicated to him that a 75 foot setback from the bluff where the old landslide scarp Is located would be adequate. Jerry Smith reviewed mitigative measure #8 which addresses this Issue. The Board asked Mr. Wakefield to submit the Geologist's recommenda- tion In writing. Mr. Wakefield questioned' Condition #9 (Notice to Potential Purchasers) which requires preservation of a buffer of undisturbed under story vegetation along the shoreline of Hood Canal. Jerry Smith reported that this condition Is required by the County's Shoreline Management Plan. Chairman Dennison then asked how the County will enforce these mitigative measures? Jerry Smith reported that some of the measures are self-policing. Chairman Dennison asked how mea- sure #4 (The area within 50 feet of the top of the bank shall remain In natural vegetative cover) would be enforced? Commissioner Brown stated that there Is a benefit to having this m)tlgatlon even If the County cannot visit the site to ensure compliance. If something Is done to violate this mitigative measure, the property owner Is liable for that action. Mr. Wakefield noted that when a site Is cleared for building, trees fall toward the bank and the vegetation may be removed as the fallen tree Is removed. Commissioner Brown reported that there are means for failing trees to cause as little damage to the vegetation as possible. Commissioner Brown moved to Issue a mitigative determination of non- significance for the Wakefield Short Plat with the findings of fact and mitigative measures as outlined by the Planning Department. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Final Valianl Short Plat #SP5-89 Approval: Four (4) Lot Subdivision off of Cape George Drive: Permit Technician Michelle Grewell reported that all of the VOl. 1 7 fAGf 00 1221 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 6 necessary County Departments have reviewed and approved this plat. Com- ml~sloner Brown moved to Issue' final approval of the Vallanl Short Plat as submitted. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: To Subdivide a 7.3 Acre Waterfront Parcel Into a Four (4) Lot Short Plat 5P20-91 Sauamlsh View Short Plat: Immediately South of Shine Road. Upland of Sauamlsh Harbor of Hood Canal: Bob Scott. Walker Mountain. Ltd.: Jerry Smith reported that this four lot subdivision Is located South of Shine Road. He then reviewed a summary of the significant environmental comments and the environmental checklist. This parcel of property has a vertical bank to the waterfront and steep slopes on the uplands. There Is soli creep on the site related to excessive shallow ground water. Jerry Smith then reviewed the proposed mitigation for this project. He reported that a curtain drain has ,been Installed on the site to handle storm water runoff. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the findings of fact developed by the Planning Department and to Issue a mitigated determination of non-significance with the mitigations as proposed. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: To Subdivide a 6.98 Acre Parcel into a Two (2) Lot Short Plat. Swanson's Short Plat: &;Dacent to the Intersection of Brlnnon Lane and Schoolhouse Road. West of Highway 101 and North of the Dosewallips River: Margie Wagner for Robert Swanson (Deceased): Jerry Smith reported that this 7 acre parcel falls within the flood plain of the Dosewalllps River and Is located at the end of Brlnnon Lane. The environmental checklist, potential environmental impacts, and proposed mitigative measures were then reviewed. Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the findings of fact and Issue a mitigated determination of non-significance with the mitigations as suggested by the Planning Department. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF 'FHE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Brown moved to adopt and approve the Items on the consent agenda as submitted. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Approval of Treasurer's Statements of Receipts and DIsbursements; For the Period from July 1, 1991 to September 30, 1991 2. AGREEMENT; Reimbursement for Services; Assistance In Preparation and Analysis for Development of a Planning Polley to Guide Growth Manage- ment Planning Activities (ReSHB 1025); Albert Boucher 3. Request for Payment of Third and Fourth Quarter Allocations; Hotel/Motel Tax Fund; Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce 4. Appointment of Anna McEnery, Human Services - Developmental Disabilities Specialist, to Serve on the National Organization on Disability 5. RESOLUTION NO. 99-91 re: Establishment of a Polley Concerning Com- puter Software Practices 6. RESOLUTION NO. 100-91 re: Hearing Notice re: Request for Budget Ap- propriations/Extension; Various County Departments; Setting Hearing for October 28, 1991 at 11 :30 a.m. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 101·91 re: 1991 Budget Transfers; Various County Depart- ments VOl 1 7 rA~ 00 1:2~2 .' ,...~~~ ~i\;-;;ii:r-,-;-~-;l, __';;;\~¥~~-:;;t.mi.. ,___: ,.C.)'t --, Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 7 8. CONTRACT #1445- re: Human Services Alcohol & Other Drug Prevention Community Youth Activity Program; State Department of Social and Health Services Proposed Ordinance Regulating the Carrying and Use of Firearms In a Safety Zone Surrounding the Olympic and Clearwater Corrections Centers: Prescribing Enforcement and Officials and Providing Penalties: Commissioner Brown moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 07-1014-91 regulating the carrying and use of firearms In a safety zone surrounding the Olympic and Clearwater Corrections Centers. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the business day on Monday and reconvened on Wednesday afternoon. Commissioner B.G. Brown and Chairman Larry W. Dennison were both present. Commissioner Richard Wojt was not present due to an excused absence. 2:00 p.m. Wednesday. October 16. 1991: , State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determination: Construction of a Temporary Graving Dock within the Existing 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 October 7, 1991) Chairman Dennison reported that the additional Information submitted by General Construction and information from the Mats Mats Coalition was just given to the Board members and they have not had time to review It. Jim Pearson also provided an Informational map done by Jerry Knudson regarding topography and the placement of wells In the area. This Information Is submitted to show water elevations In wells In the area of the graving dock. The proposed graving docks will be excavated to a level of -2 feet. Chairman Dennison noted that there are certain Issues In the Shoreline process that have to be addressed. It would be helpful for the Board to have more Information on the shoreline Issues such as mining policies and performance standards (especially Standard # 1, 5.120), before the Shoreline permit Is con- sidered. Even though the Board Is not considering the shoreline permit at this time, Chairman Dennison stated that It Is his feeling that an In depth environmen- tal analysis Is necessary to provide the necessary Information to determine whether or not there will be an Impact to the natural geo-hydraullc process. A baseline study would not provide this Information. Chairman Dennison then asked General Construction to explain the changes to their proposed mitigation since the last meeting. Richard Elliott, Attorney for General Construction: Mr. Elliott Introduced himself and Tom Sherman, Vice President of Operations for General Construction. He reported that General Construction has had detailed conversations with Bob Leach of Jefferson County PUD # 1 about permanent and temporary, alternate water supplies for possibly effected residences. There Is an existing PUD well in the vicinity of Mats Mats Bay. This well has capacity to serve at least 100 homes. The PUD stated In a letter that they are willing to work with General Construction to provide this water supply, at General's expense, If It Is the most attractive alternative. He added that a report has been submitted by Geo Engineer stating that It Is very unlikely that the operation and construction of the graving dock would cause salt water Intrusion In private water wells. Chairman Dennison asked how this Information Is any different than what was available last week? He reiterated that the Board wants to see solid assurance vot. 1 7 r^~¡: 00 1223 l'ii' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 8 that there Is an additional water source. Mr. Elliott stated that they have more specificity In the letter from the PUD, even though there Is not an absolute commitment. A condition could be Imposed on the project that would require that an agreement be In place prior to Issuance of permits or commencement of work. They believe they have pursued these options In good faith and with the Information they now have, they are confident that they will be able to provide an alternate water supply If the need arises. Jim Pearson asked If the PUD gave any Indication of how long It may take to get the necessary State approvals for the well in the case of an emergency? Mr. Elliott stated that on an emergency basis a certificate could be issued by the State In one or two months. In terms of a temporary supply, the Company Is looking Into a certified delivery system for potable water. Chairman Dennison asked about the housing Impacts that were discussed last week? Tom Sherman stated that they do not have any new or additional Information regarding the housing concerns. He added that he doesn't feel he can control whether people move to Jefferson County. He did review the Union agreements and they do not contain a local hire provision. General Construc- tion's Intent Is to hire as many local people as possible. Chairman Dennison asked what mitigation the Company Is willing to provide to address these Impacts? Tom Sherman asked what more the County would have him do since he can't control where people choose to live. Chairman Dennison noted that this Is an Impact Identified in the SEPA review. Carl Kassebaum stated that they have made a best guess on the number of people who will move to this area and now they have to see what happens. Chairman Dennison suggested that they look at other projects which may have had similar Impacts. Mr. Kassebaum asked what the County would like General Construction to do to offset any adverse Impact? Chairman Dennison stated that he would like to see the Impact not happen. He explained that Jefferson County Is currently experiencing a tight housing market and an Influx of people would be competing for that housing which would exacerbate the housing problem. Planning Director Craig Ward suggested the construction of a temporary mobile home park, or a multi-family apartment for the workers, as alternatives to address this potential Impact. Mr. Kassebaum asked If this Is a detail that could be worked out by the environmental coordinator? Mr. Elliott stated that General Construction may be willing to look at a temporary mobile home park for workers. Commissioner Brown asked If this latest letter Is the best answer that General Construction can propose to meet the County's concerns? Tom Sherman answered that General Construction has not gone out and researched the available properties for a temporary trailer park. He stated that they have read the local newspapers (Jefferson, northern Kltsap County and Clallam County) and have found In excess of 100 homes for sale and houses for rent. Tom Sherman reported that the hourly rate of take home pay for the employees at this project Is $20.00 (not Including benefits). Chairman Dennison stated that the question Is whether or not these people will create a demand on the last available rental units which will drive up the rental rates and directly impact the availability of affordable housing to County residents. Mr. Elliott responded that this letter Is not the best General Construction can do. Regarding water they can work with PUD and on housing there are options that have not been presented yet. Commissioner Brown asked what tlmeframe would be reasonable for General Construction to provide a proposal to address these concerns? Chairman Dennison stated that the County no longer has a Development Code process to work through, which leaves only the SEP A and the Shoreline Permit processes for review of this project. He added that he feels the County must be very careful about the SEPA process because It Is the County's only line of control. He added that given the current situation, he feels that a determination of significance Is necessary. It will be difficult to judge If VOl 1 7 fAÇ,t 00 122li ~~.."":;;;~'~;';"" _ _,'i,' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 9 the Shoreline standards can be met without the Information that an EIS might provide. Commissioner Brown noted that Chairman Dennison just Indicated that there Is a possibility that a determination of significance could stili be required on this project, even If the applicant comes back with more proposed mitigation, and the Chairman's concern that the SEPA process Is the County's only method of taking care of the significant Impacts of this proposal Is valid, since the County doesn't have any other land use control at this time. Mr. Elliott stated that the mitigation they have developed assumes the worst Impact from this project and the burden Is on them to come forward with mitigation that can address the worst case scenarios. They could come back within two to three weeks. The discussion continued regarding the SEPA process, the need for more information and If and how that Information would be provided by an Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Elliott stated that the activities that are proposed are not that much different In kind from what's been going on at this site for sixty years, so there Is Information available. Chairman Dennison responded that this assumes that there are no Impacts from the activities at this site now. Numerous comments have been received since the first meeting on this project, that Indicate that there have been Impacts and complaints about the current operations at this site. With the applicant knowing that a determination of significance Is a possibility, Commissioner Brown asked if they would stili like to have time to try to put together mitigation to offset the concerns discussed? Tom Sherman Indicated that they would like more time. Mark Beaufalt, Attorney, Mats Mats Area Coalition, stated that they have no objection to the Board reviewing further mitigation. He asked that the mitigation be submitted In writing In a coherent package. The areas that need to be Included are: water quality, noise, housing, a hydrologic study should be started, Impacts to groundwater, a specific written plan for baseline studies should be presented, glare, depth of the graving docks and a reclamation plan. He also noted that this information should be provided to the Board before the day that It Is to be reviewed. A declaration of significance, Mr. Beaufalt concluded, is the appropriate action for the County to take because It would Include a review of things like the traffic, noise, and glare and would come up with a specific plan to deal with these Issues. Commissioner Brown added that the Board should have General Construction's Information submitted at least a week prior to It being on the agenda again. Mr. Elliott clarified that the Issues that need more work on are: ground water Impacts, housing, glare, and traffic. Karl Kassebaum asked If a study done at General Construction's direction by Geo Engineers would be acceptable? Commissioner Brown cautioned that If the proponent has a study developed for them by a consultant, opponents ,of the project tend to view that Information as being skewed In the proponents favor. He added that he feels that If the project proponent Is going to do such a study, It would be an ,advantage to both the proponent and the County to have the consultant be one the County selects and supervises. Chairman Dennison asked that the Planning Department staff obtain a written response from the State Department of Natural Resources on what the mining permit means especially what's In the permit and what's required outside the permit to do this project. V01. 1 7 f~G~ on 1.225 .~,:·.i.~f ·.~__I- _~({,,¡;g _,_"'11111111!' ~ . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of October 14, 1991 Page: 10 The Board scheduled time at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday November 12, 1991 to review the mitigation proposed which Is to be submitted to the Board no later than November 4, 1991. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ß. ~b:r) (Excused Absence) Richard E. Wojt, Member vat 1 7 r~r.r on 122G