HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog347
~
(PI' V,jASHII\JGTOI\J
E
r
,.,
!
.#J (y )~( 4J ~'f,fj; O(JJ ~)
98504.760(J " (206) 459-60iJO
June 14, 1993
Mr. David Cunningham
VP Land Use
Pope Resources
Post Office Box 1780
Pou1sbo, WA 98370
ot "",S
.'eO a cO~'/a(\d
- "t/ \"3\ \ (n3\ e ~e{SO(\~stage
,eel'\:\ ~t to ~~ t~ereo\'\" ~ U(\\teG
doC~~eses nste .:>pt3C\e, ~Cl'on
30t\\e~. \\1 a {e(,~' \\la.s;n'.ngt'
.en3\Q... ~! ace~"
Q' y ....<>i\ 3\. ~- ,
s\ate~<H.a , ' .
ot'
..
Mr. Jim Pearson
Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Mr. Pearson and Mr. Cunningham:
Re: Jefferson County Permit #SDP91-017
Pope Resources - Applicant
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit #1993-14647 - Conditioned
The Department of Ecology has reviewed the above referenced Conditional Use
permit to construct 36 room hotel, 5 single family residences, 53 multi-family
residences with 367 parking spaces; to add 500 cubic yards rip-rap; excavate
fill and grade 45,000 cubic yards, create artificial dunes and expand existing
pond, make marina improvements, improve public access, leave 10.5 acres to
undeveloped open space with enhancements to wildlife habitat, and other
improvements.
We concur that the proposal, as conditioned by the County, meets the intent of
the master program and the criteria s~t fcrth in WAC 173-14-140 for granting a
Conditional Use permit, provided that the following conditions are
incorporated:
A public access plan shall be tendered for review and approved by
Jefferson County and Ecology for the easement on tracts A,C, and M1.
Said plan shall detail the width and location of proposed easement, plus.
document how public use will be facilitated, including hours ~f
availability and designated public parking, plus visual screening from
adjacent private property. Public access launch site at marina for
kayaks and other small craft shall also be described in this plan.
The permit is hereby approved. This approval is given pursuant to
requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Other federal, state,
or local approvals may be required.
LOG \TEM
#!;Ltl- -
page_-1-of-
18
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Cunningham
Page 2
June 14, 1993
Construction is not authorized until thirty days from the transmittal date of
this approval letter and enclosed permit or until conclusion of any review
proceeding initiated within the thirty-day period.
If you have any questions on the above action, please contact me at
(206 459-6764 or Jeffree Stewart at (206) 438-7120.
Thomas ark, AICP
Supervisor, Management Section
Shore lands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
TM:pz
COND-CUP.WP
Enclosure
~
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CONDITIONS
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit #1993-14647 - Conditioned
Jefferson County Permit #SDP9l-017
Pope Resources - Applicant
A public access plan shall be tendered for review and approved by
Jefferson County and Ecology for the easement on tracts A,C, and
Ml. Said plan shall detail the width and location of proposed
easement, plus document how public use will be facilitated,
including hours of availability and designated public parking,
plus visual screening from adjacent private property. Public
access launch site at marina for kayaks and other small craft
shall also be described in this plan.
..
KtC ~:-:~,''''L~~''::;-:' t.CY
~
'-.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 90.58)
/4 61)
PERMITTEE:
Pope Resources
DATE ISSUED:
May 11, 1993
TYPE OF ACJI'ION:
General
TYPE OF USE:
Primary, Secondary, Conditional
CASE NUMBER:
SDP91-017
APPLICATION DATE:
August 7, 1991
PROPOSAL:
A residential, commercial, and recreational development consisting
of the following:
* A 36-room hotel;
* 5 detached single family residences and 53 attached single family
residences in 14 multi-unit structures;
* Roadways and 367 parking spaces;
* Utilities, including water, electrical power, and sanitary sewer;
* 500 cubic yards of rip rap shore defense works;
* Marina modifications including a new manager's building, new
restrooms and laundry, new fuel and propane tanks located between
the marina and the pond, and removal of an existing boat launch;
* Landscaping and recreational amenities including construction of
vegetated artificial dunes on the 'southerly portion of the spit,
trails and a pedestrian bridge, outdoor sport courts, and expansion
of the existing pond;
* Approximately 45,000 cubic yards of excavation, grading and
filling including 25,000 cubic yards for pond expansion;
* Temporary and permanent soil erosion control and storm water
management system;
* Directional and informational signs;
* Outdoor lighting; and
* 10.5 acres of undeveloped open space.
The Inn would be a three-story, wood frame structure that would
include a manager' sresidence. Its maximum height would be 52 feet.
It would have a foot print of 11,345 square feet and total square
footage of 34,171 square feet. Its design would include the
following fire and life safety features: quick-response sprinkler
heads; automatic alarm notice to Fire District #3; tamper
protection for the automatic sprinkler system; hose cabinets at
each floor; diesel generator back-Up power source; an indicator
panel for all building safety systems; smoke detection on HVAC
systems; a stairwell to the roof; and a wet-sprinkler in the.
covered drive-through. The proponent also proposes planning and
staff training in order to enable rapid respond to emergencies.
..--
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
. Pope Resources
The existing man-made pond covering 1.4 acres would be enlarged to
2.2 acres. A pump would supply with water from Ludlow Bay in order
to maintain a constant salinity.
A new 800 square foot marina manager's office would be constructed
midway between the existing office and the Inn site. The existing
office would be demolished and replaced with new restrooms and
laundry facilities on the same site.
The existing underground fuel and propane tanks would be removed
and new tanks would be located adjacent to the manager's office in
a containment bunker.
Exterior lighting fixtures would employ hoods, shades, or other
techniques to direct illumination onto the immediate area where it
is needed. Light standards in parking areas would not exceed 10
feet in height. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways would not
exceed 4 feet in height. No colored lights would be used except for
holiday occasions.
Utilities would be installed underground.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The proposal site comprises 17.5 acres adjacent to the existing
marina and resort at Port Ludlow and is described as portions of
Government Lots 1 and 2 in Section 16, Township 28 North, Range 1
East, W.M.
WATERBODY AND/OR ASSOCIATED WETLANDS: Port Ludlow Bay
SHORELINE OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE: No
SHORELINE DESIGNATION: Urban
CONDITIONS: Development pursuant to this permit shall be
undertaken subject to the applicable policies and performance
standards of the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management
Master Program and the following conditions:
1. A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan using the
best management practices set forth in the Washington
Department of Ecology'S Storm Water Manual for the Puqet Sound
Basin shall be prepared in conjunction with final site design
and a construction phasing schedule. Grading on the project
site shall not begin until the erosion control plan has been
approved by the Director of the Jefferson County Department
of Public Works or his designee. The objectives of said plan
are to (a) control dust and mud and stabilize the construction
area including entrances and roadways; (b) prevent surface
2
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
. Pope Resources
water runoff from eroding areas to be cleared and graded; (c)
prevent sedimentation from entering the waters of Port Ludlow
Bay. Erosion control techniques may include, but are not
limited to, piped slope drains, subsurface drains,
hydroseeding, surface roughening, interceptor dikes and berms,
check dams, swales, gradient terraces, rip-rap, gravel filter
berms, storm drain inlet and outlet protection, and filter
(silt.) fences. A maintenance program shall be implemented
during the course of construction to insure the proper and
effective functioning of erosion and sedimentation control
features. Inspection of erosion control features shall be
conducted daily.
2. Soil disturbance associated with, major grading activities
shall conform to the guidelines and timing restrictions set
forth in the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm
Water Management Manual (current edition). Prior to final plat
approval and prior to any clearing and grading on the site,
the proponent shall submit a construction phasing plan to the
Jefferson county Public Works Department for review and
approval. The plan shall specify how the proponent proposes
to achieve the goals of this mitigation measure.
3. During construction, to the extent practicable, existing
vegetation shall be maintained Qnthoseportions of the site
planned as permanent open space. Only during the course of
utility installation or revegetation/landscaping shall
disturbance occur.
4. Grading stockpiles shall be located on the uphill side of
excavation areas to act as runoff di versions. Any large
stockpiles shall be shaped and covered or seeded.
5. Soil, sediment, water, or debris generated during pond
enlargement shall be confined to specific areas on the site
as identified on the erosion control plan. Dredged pond
material and other site material unsuitable for project fill
shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Director
of the Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
6. Following construction, all cleared and graded areas shall be
permanently revegetated according to an overalf landscape
plan. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as practicable
after grading and construction is complete.
7. Dunes proposed for the Inn area shall be stabilized through
the use of vegetation and underlying foundations so as to
minimize sand and soil redistribution during storm events.
3
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
. Pope Resources
8. The proponent shall designate a qualified, trained, and
experienced individual or firm who shall ensure that (a)
erosion control ,devices are correctly installed; (b)
inspection and maintenance schedules are regularly kept; (c)
corrective actions are employed in the event erosion control
measures fail to perform effectively and (d) reports and
inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson Co~nty
Department of Public Works.
9. A complete geotechnical investigation shall be undertaken on
slopes steeper than 15% where buildings or infrastructure are
proposed. Particular attention will be paid to possibilities
of earthquake-induced subsidence or liquefaction. Structures
shall be designed, engineered, and constructed in conformance
with the Uniform Building Code, other adopted standards
pertaining to landslide and seismic hazard protection, and
specific construction practices recommended by the
geotechnical consultant. The consultant shall be a qualified
professional selected and paid by the project proponent. No
construction of buildings, or installation of infrastructure
on slopes steeper than 15% shall take place ,prior to
completion of the geotechnical investigation.
10. A permanent stormwater drainage system shall be installed, the
design and construction of which shall be to the satisfaction
of the Department of Public Works. System components shall
include grass-lined swales, oil/water separators, and a
detention pond to manage both water quantity and quality.
11. The project's stormwater management system shall be
incorporated into the ongoing Port Ludlow Bay "Water Quality
Monitoring Program - Nonpoint Sources".
12. A maintenance program shall be developed for oil/water
separators and biofilters and approved by the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works.
13. Eelgrass (zostra marina) shall be planted in the eastern
sector of the pond to .prevent the growth of sea lettuce
(Ulva).
14. During construction, water levels in the on-site pond shall
be lowered and sediment removed therefrom prior to the
discharge of water into the Bay.
15. Two pumps shall be installed in the pond for redundancy in
case of failure and to improve flexibility for periodic
4
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
maintenance. A standby mobile power generator shall be
provided in the event of power outages.
16. The maintenance .schedule for the pond shall avoid pump
shutdown during warmer weather, thereby lessening stagnation
of water and related water quality problems. .
17. Final infrastructure design shall minimize impervious cover
and stormwater runoff through the use of gravel surfaces as
permitted by the Department of Public Works.
18. Drainage lines shall be installed behind retaining and/or
basement walls, and around building footings to prevent build-
up of hydrostatic pressure and to intercept ground and surface
water.
19. Groundwater seepage encountered during construction in upland
areas shall be directed by sloping excavations to shallow sump
pits. Any collected water shall be discharged to the
construction-phase stormwater control system.
20. Portions of structures subject to periodic tidal inundation
shall be sited and constructed incompliance with Jefferson
County's "Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 1-89."
21. Landscape design and planting materials for the perimeter of
the pond shall minimize the need for herbicide application.
Native plant materials shall be utilized to the maximum extent
throughout the entire project site to reduce the use of
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. When the application
of such chemicals is necessary, they shall only be applied by
state-licensed personnel.
22. Buffers of grasses, low growing plants, shrubs, and trees
shall be planted along the shoreline and around the pond,
providing habitat, water quality enhancement, and protection
from human disturbance.
23. Primary landscape materials planted on the site shall be those
nati ve trees, shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous cover which
provide food and cover for wildlife, for example, Douglas
firs, Western red cedars, vine maples, wax myrtles, and wild
strawberries.
24. Enlargement of the existing pond shall make provisions for
improved aeration and circulation to discourage algae growth,
maintain consistent water quality, and improve its value as
fish habitat. .
5
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
25. Interpretive signs shall be installed at pertinent points
throughout the site to describe important habitat features and
wildlife. Pamphlets and brochures shall be distributed to
residents and guests to increase awareness and respect for
wildlife which inhabit the project site.
26. Filtration shall be provided at the pump water-intake pipes
to reduce the incidental capture of fish.
27. The weir outlet to the pond shall be designed to prevent fish
entrapment in the pond.
28. The pond shall be designed to provide some shallow area along
the south shoreline, suitable for wading birds, isolated from
public access.
29. Pond shoreline length equivalent to at least sot of the
existing shoreline length shall be provided for bird loafing
area. This shoreline area must be buffered by landscape
vegetation to discourage public disturbance.
30.
Excavation shall be minimized to reduce
encountering contaminated soil materials
development of the site.
31. Lead concentrations from previous testing in the vicinity of
Test pit 10 (TP-10) shall be reported to the Washington
Department of Ecology if encountered in quantities in excess
of 10 cubic yards.
potential for
from previous
32. Excavated soils at locations other than TP-10 shall be
monitored for presence of potentially hazardous materials.
33. In accordance with DOE Policy #101 (Site Discovery and Release
Reporting), a qualified hazardous waste specialist shall be
contacted if more than 10 cubic yards of charcoal-like
material is encountered in order to properly assess
implications for disposal.
34. Prior to initiating excavation, a qualified haza~ous waste
specialist shall orient the construction contractors and crew
regarding field identification of potentially contaminated
soil and materials.
35. The proponent shall establish legally enforceable
architectural design ' guidelines which address such matters as
roof materials, siding, exterior colors, appurtenances, and
6
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
other factors that affect the overall aesthetic character of
the project site.
36. The proponent shall comply with all regulations of the State
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), RCW 217.44.040, RCW
27.53.060 and WAC 25-489 regarding archaeological sites.
These regulations prohibit intentional disturbance of
archaeological or burial sites without prior approval and
provide protocols for actions following discovery of such
sites.
37. Prior to excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall orient
the construction contractors and crews in identification of
potential archaeological resources ,that might be uncovered,
and how to proceed in the event of an unexpected discovery.
38. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, a
qualified archaeologist shall be immediately dispatched to
systematically analyze the findings. All construction or
excavation on that portion of the project site shall
immediately cease and measures shall be taken to prevent
further disturbance prior to analysis bya qualified
archaeologist.
39.. The following above-code fire and life safety features shall
be provided in the Inn structure: quick-response sprinkler
heads; automatic alarm notice to Fire District #3; tamper
protection for the automatic sprinkler system; hose cabinets
at each floor; diesel generator back-up power source; an
indicator panel for all building safety systems; smoke
detection on HVAC systems; interior stairway to the roof; and
a wet-sprinkler in the covered drive-through.
40. The proponent shall develop a plan for the Inn which
identifies applicable emergency actions to be taken during
such unlikely events as fires or earthquakes. The staff shall
be trained in fire behavior, built-in fire and life safety
systems in the Inn structure, and proper responses to
emergencies and safety needs of all guests.
41. A maintenance schedule for fire and life safety..equipment
shall be developed. All such equipment and related systems
shall be tested at least annually in cooperation with
Jefferson County Fire District No.3. Records of all
maintenance and system tests shall be retained at the Inn and
copies transmitted to Jefferson County Fire District No.3.
42. Exit maps and instructions on emergency procedures shall be
7
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
installed on the inside of all guest room doors.
43.
A public relations videotape which
emphasizing building safety features,
guest responsibilities for safety in
shall be available in all guest rooms.
includes a prologue
exit locations, and
emergency sit':lations
44. The Inn's resident manager and all other on-site staff, as a
condition of employment, should be trained in basic first aid
and CPR.
45. Fundamental emergency aid equipment shall be provided at the
Inn for staff use.
46. In order to assess cumulative impacts from this project, the
proponent shall:
(a) Continue the existing Water Oualitv Monitorinq Proqram
which documents nonpoint source effects on the Class A
"Extraordinary" designation of Port Ludlow Bay and it's
tributaries. Sampling shall include the water column,
sediments, and shellfish as appropriate. If monitoring
indicates that acti vi ties of the, proponent are causing
reduction in the water quality of Port Ludlow Bay below the
Class AA "EXtraordinary" designation, the proponent shall
immdiately so advise Jefferson County. The "scope of work"
for each year's program shall be conducted where necessary to
obtain the most meaningful scientific data. The ensuing year's
scope of work shall be approved by Jefferson County each
autumn. Each year's monitoring results shall be reported to
Jefferson County by March 15 of the following year. The
proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified water
quality research firm at proponent's sole expense.
(b) Conduct a Water Resource Monitorinq Program which
documents the condition of several aquifers utilized as a
domestic source by the proponent. Attention should be focused
on static groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. Should
groundwater mon,itoring indicate an inadequate yield to support
development of the proponent's projects in the context of
water rights and projected water use, the propoRent shall
immediately inform the County and take necessary action to
insure an adequate supply of potable water. This action could
include, but is not limi ted to, development of additional
sources, supplementation of existing sources, and/ or
implementation of additional conservation measures.
If mutually agreeable, the proponent shall include Olympus
8
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
Beach Tracts' wells in ongoing groundwater monitoring efforts.
The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified
geohydrologist to_d~sign, direct, and conduct said monitoring
program. The expense of saidgeohydrologist shall be the
proponent's. Results of the monitoring program shall be
reported to Jefferson County and the Washington Department or
Ecology by March 15 of each year.
(c) Conduct a Sewage Treatment Plant Monitoring Proqram which
documents effects of the proponent's projects on capacity of
the secondary wastewater treatment plant. Attention shall be
focused on the number of connections; effluent flow volume;
and effluent quality. It is aclO1owledged that the sole
authority to monitor and regulate operation of the sewage
treatment plant rests with the Washington Department of
Ecology. Nothing in this condition is intended to supersede
or conflict with requirements of the proponent's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-
002120-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and
companion statutes. If any function or value monitored by the
NPDES permit is exceeded, notice shall be provided to
Jefferson County concurrently with notice to the Washington
Department of Ecology. Results of the monitoring contained in
this condition shall be transmitted to Jefferson .County and
the Washington Department of Ecology by March 15 of each year.
47. The riprap shore defense work shall be constructed in
substantial alignment with the ordinary high water mark.
48. Design of the fuel and propane tanks shall be approved by the
Chief of Fire District No.3.
49. The deed to the homeowners association from Pope Resources of
Tracts A, C, and M-1 shall be subject to an easement in favor
of the general public for access, use, and enjoyment for the
life of the project. The association will retain the right to
reasonably regulate those common areas by establishing rules
and regulations" such as those to protect lanscaping, regulate
noise, prevent nuisances.
50. Informational and directional signs shall clearly indicate the
location of public access areas. '
51. The proponent shall provide near the marina loading area an
access area and stairway to facilitate launching of small
watercraft such as dinghies, canoes, and kayaks.
9
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
NOTICE: '
1. This permit may be rescinded by the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners or the Washington State Shorelines Hearings
Board upon the finding the permittee has not complied with the
conditions herein, pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8).
2. The permittee is liable for all damages to public and private
property arising from violation of any provisions of the
permit hereby granted, including the cost of restoring the
affected area to its condition prior to violation and possible
court costs that may ensure from violation, pursuant to RCW
90.58.230.
3. Construction pursuant to this permit will not begin nor is to
authorized until thirty (30) days from the date of filing as
defined in RCW 90.58. 140(6) and WAC 173-14-090, or until all
review proceedings initiated within thirty days from the date
of such filing have terminated, except as provided in RCW
90.S8.140{S.a-c). Construction or substantial progress toward
construction of the permitted development shall begin within
two (2) years from the date of this permit and completion of
the permitted development shall be accomplished within five
(S) years from the date of this permit.
4 . Nothing in this permi t shall excuse the permi ttee from
compl ingwithaliyotherf:ederal, state, or local statutes,
~nan s, or regulations applicable to this project, but
consisten ith R 9.5
!
10
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
SDP91-017
Pope Resources
THIS SECTION IS
CONDITIONAL USE
Date received by the Department:
FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD
PERMIT OR A VARIANCE. '
/haV bU \~>
I
TOA
Approved:
"f
Denied
This conditional use permit/Ylu.J.aIP e is approved/d,.IIJ..d by the
Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be
undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and
conditions: ~~ ~.,.,.AeHb'"'C) Lel"%~.
~
Date
C:\SDP\SDP91017.Per
11
"'l'
j'
:,-=c(~,,-,:-~~'\:~ ~,-i
/ -,' ,--. -- - ~ -1 -, 4:1.
..,.;. _ _,_;_.... ,_ . ig1: - -.-J -. i~~- ~~.
fT'" f if ._ J.. j '.~' :,.::
{ ;Ail~' !I ~~ia.,.>r'~
';:-,--"--, .""'. i~ ~F"':'~C'" -<\
;-1~ ~~~,~{,.-.;;}~",:,;
': . i;:"L-ri! : ii'Hl ~ ;;, ' . 'l:T'
J ~-1''; <t:' '';:~-3- -, l1J ~ -, "oj; A-t;,
t ~".,~,-..,t~.l .. -'- .'. .~ . '),?, '
","-- .,.~ f,J.";"., ...~~ ,-'1:.1' ~ ~;J1.c:.:..'
1~~~::::7';~~~ ~;~~::-:.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
p, Q, Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Planning (206) 385-9140
Building (206) 385-9141
FAX (206) 385-9357
JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE
Craig Ward, Director
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AGENDA
May 10. 1993
ITEM: Consideration of the Shoreline Management Commission's recommendation to
approve Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application SDP91-00 1 7 Pope
Resources; Residential and commercial development at Port Ludlow
DESCRIPTION:
A residential, commercial, and recreational development consisting primarily of a 36-room
hotel 58 single family residences; roads, 367 parking spaces and utilities; Marina
modifications; and 10.5 acres of undeveloped open space.
ISSUES
An Environmental Impact Statement was adopted for the proposal. The EIS was the basis
for the recommended conditions attached to the proposal.
The proposal is also subject to plat review. A hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner
on April 19. 1993.
The applicant proposed dedication of open space related to the proposal for 50 years. The
applicant's representative argued that the site has changed use several times in the last 150
years and the 50 year limit on open space dedication was intended to allow for
unforeseeable future use changes. The Shoreline Master Program requires that open space
be permanently dedicated. The Shoreline Commission recommends a condition requiring
permanent dedication of open space.
Summary of other issues addressed in staff report and draft minutes:
* Consistency with conditional use review criteria,
* Development density,
* Soil erosion control and storm water management,
* View impacts,
* Elimination of existing boat ramp,
* Impacts on schools and fire and emergency services.
ACTION
Staff recommends that the Board review the proposal, but not take any action until after
reviewing the Hearing Examiner's report of the plat hearing. This will ensure that the Board's
actions on the Shoreline Permit and the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the plat
approval and any conditions are consistent.
If you determine to substantially modify or not to adopt the Shoreline Commission's
recommendation, you should schedule a public hearing to review the proposal. take
testimony, and develop your own findings and conclusions.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION SDP91-017
-, POPE- RESOURCES
A. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
A residential, commercial, and recreational development consisting of the following:
* A 36-room hotel; -
* 5 detached single family residences and 53 attached single family residences in 14 multi-
unit structures;
* Roadways and 367 parking spaces;
* Utilities, including water, electrical power, and sanitary sewer;
* 500 cubic yards of rip rap shore defense works;
* Marina modifications including a new manager's building, new restrooms and laundry, new
fuel and propane tanks located between the marina and the pond, and removal of an existing
boat launch;
* Landscaping and recreational amenities including construction of vegetated artificial dunes
on the southerly portion of the spit, trails and a pedestrian bridge, outdoor sport courts, and
expansion of the existing pond;
* Approximately 45,000 cubic yards of excavation, grading and filling including 25,000
cubic yards for pond expansion;
* Temporary and permanent soil erosion control and storm water management system;
* Directional and informational signs;
* Outdoor lighting; and
* 10.5 acres of undeveloped open space.
The Inn would be a three-story, wood frame structure that would include a manager's
residence. Its maximum height would be 50 feet. It would have a foot print of 11,345
square- feet and total square footage of 34,171 square feet. Its design would include the
following fire and life safety features that are beyond the requirements of the building code:
quick-response sprinkler heads; automatic alarm notice to Fire District #3; tamper protection
for the automatic sprinkler system; hose cabinets at each floor; diesel generator back-up
power source; an indicator panel for all building safety systems; smoke detection on HV AC
systems; a stairwell to the roof; and a wet-sprinkler in the covered drive-through. The
proponent also proposes planning and staff training in order to enable rapid respond to
emergencies.
The existing man-made pond contains salt water and covers 1.4 acres. It receives marine
water from Ludlow Bay and fresh water from upland runoff. It would be enlarged to 2.2
acres. A pump would supply with water from Ludlow Bay in order to maintain a constant
salinity.
A new 800 square foot marina manager's office would be constructed midway between the
existing office and the Inn site. The existing office would be demolished and replaced with
new restrooms and laundry facilities on the same site.
The existing underground fuel and propane tanks would be removed and new tanks would
be located adjacent to the manager's office in a containment bunker.
Exterior lighting fixtures would employ hoods, shades, or other techniques to direct
illumination onto the immediate area where it is needed. Light standards in parking areas
would not exceed 10 feet in height. Light fixtures along pedestrian walkways would not
exceed 4 feet in height. No colored lights would be used except for holiday occasions.
Utilities would be installed underground.
B. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings regarding this permit application have been proposed by the Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department staff for consideration by the Jefferson-Port Townsend
Shoreline Management Advisory Commission and the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners. Any of these findings may be adopted, rejected, or modified or additional
findings may be adopted by the Shoreline Commission or the Board of Commissioners based
on testimony or evidence presented during the course of review.
1.
2.
3.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposal site was developed in the past for saw mills, docks, and related
developments. This included extensive grading and filling.
The portion of the site adjacent to the shoreline is level. There are moderate to steep
slopes (up to 50%) and rolling uplands.
Native soils are glacial till. There are extensive areas particularly adjoining the
shoreline that are characterized by various types of fill including native upland material
and construction debris.
The site is characterized by moderately compressible soils, high seismic hazard, and
a moderate potential for soil erosion.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposal finds that soils on the site
would be exposed, compacted, covered with impervious surfaces, and subject to
additional loads from structures resulting in erosion, dust, increased storm water
runoff, and settling; that slope instability could be affected due to development on
slopes; and that soil erosion from storm water runoff could result in sedimentation
in marine waters. The EIS also finds that these impacts can be avoided by employing
appropriate construction and storm water management techniques as set forth in the
EIS mitigations.
Soil sampling was conducted to determine whether there were hazardous substances
on the site. A charcoal-like substance was discovered containing elevated levels of
lead and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Disposal of this material and any other
hazardous material is regulated by the Model Toxics Control Act. The EIS contains
mitigation measures intended to address hazardous materials.
Portions of the site including the marina managers building and open space areas are
within the 100 year flood plain due to potential for coastal flooding. Development
within the flood plain is subject to the requirements of the County Floodplain
Management Ordinance.
There have been discoveries of Native American archeological resources adjacent to
the shoreline of Ludlow Bay. There are no known archeological resources on the
proposal site. However, portions of the site along the historic (pre-fill) shoreline have
a high potential these resources. Procedures for responding to the unforseen
discovery of archeological resourqes are set forth in State law. The EIS sets forth
mitigating measures intended to avoid significant impacts to archeological resources.
The existing man-made pond is used by numerous species of waterfowl, including
wigeons, buffleheads, killdeer, mallards, pintails, scaups, and mergaasers.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
EXISTING USES
The site currently contains a restaurant, outdoor recreational areas, a boat launch, on-
shore marina support facilities, marina fuel tanks, a landscape maintenance shed, a
man-made pond, parking lots, and utilities. The boat launch would be removed. .
The Port Ludlow Beach Club and a condominium development adjoin the proposal site
to the north.
2.
2
3. There are existing views of Ludlow Bay from public rights-of-way and private
residences that would be altered by the proposed Inn. The closest public view point
on Oak Bay Road is approximately 850 from the Inn site. The closest residence is
approximately 1 ,000 feet northwesterly of the Inn site. Both of these view points
are ata significantly higher 'elevation than the proposal site. Residences on the south
shore of Ludlow Bay are approximately one-half mile from the Inn site. The EIS finds
that the proposal would not result in a significant impact to views.
4. The site is accessed by Oak Bay County Road. The EIS finds that the Oak Bay County
Road is adequate to handle traffic that would be generated by the development.
However, in combination with other developments proposed by the applicant, the
proposal would generate traffic that would require improvements to the State and
County Road system. The Final Programmatic EIS contains mitigation measures that
require the applicant to contribute a fair share towards these improvements. These
mitigation measures are proposed as plat conditions.
5. The surrounding area is platted and developed in suburban density residential
neighborhoods.
OTHER PERMITS
1. Jefferson County Subdivision Approval and Building Permits
2. Washington Department of Fisheries Hydraulic Project Approval
NOTICES
1. Notice of application was made by publishing legal notices in the August 28 and
September 4, 1991 editio'ns of the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader, posting
the site, and notifying by mail immediately adjacent property owners as required by
Master Program Section 6.402 Public Notice.
2. Notice of the public hearing before the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline
Management Advisory Commission on April 21 , 1993 was made by publishing a legal
notice in the April 7, 1993 edition of the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader as
required by Master Program Section 6.402 Public Notice.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT {SEPAl REVIEW
The proposal has been reviewed in accordance with the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act (WAC 197-11) by Jefferson County as lead agency. A Determination of
Significance and Request for Comments on the Scope of an Environmental Impact Statement
was issued on January 14, 1992 and the scope of the EIS and alternatives to the proposed
action were determined on February 26, 1993. Subsequently, it was determined to prepare
two EIS, one to analyze the impacts of the referenced proposal and one for the applicant's
10 year development program at Port Ludlow. The referenced proposal is subject to the
appropriate analysis of both documents. The Draft EIS were issued by Jefferson County on
October 26, 1992. The Final EIS was adopted by Jefferson County on April 5, 1993 and
sent to the Washington Department of Ecology on April 12, 1993. The EIS analysis and
mitigation measures have been incorporated into this staff report.
SITE INSPECTION
Inspection of the site was made on April 9, 1993 by a representative of the Jefferson
County Planning and Building 'Department. A video tape of the site was made at that time.
C. WRITTEN TESTIMONY
The Planning and Building Department has provided notice of the proposal to agencies and
political subdivisions, affected tribes, and the public. Written comments and oral testimony
before the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners were received prior to the SEPA
threshold determination by Jefferson County. These comments were considered in Jefferson
County's decision to require an Environmental Impact Statement and in scoping the EIS.
Written comments and oral testimony on the Draft EIS were also considered by the Jefferson
3
County Board of Commissioners and made part of the Final EIS.
D. APPLICABLE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES
1. The Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program requires that
.. a shoreline substantial'development permit be issued by Jefferson County for
development of the proposal. The following sections of the program apply in the
review of the proposal: 1.20 Purposes; 4.101 Aquatic; 4.105 Urban; 4.201 Primary
Uses; 4.402 Secondary Uses; 4.30 Conditional Uses; 4.40 Classification Table; 5.50
Commercial Development; 5.100 landfills; 5.110 Marinas; 5.140 Parking Facilities;
5.150 Recreational Facilities; 5.160 Residential Development; 5.170 Scientific and
Educational Facilities; 5.180 Shore Defense Works; 5.190 Transportation Facilities;
5.20 Utilities.
2. The proposal has been administratively classified as follows by criteria established in
the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program:
* Primary Uses in the Urban Designation: 5.50 Commercial Development (Water-
enjoyment); 5.100 landfills; 5.110 Marinas; 5.150 Recreational Facilities; 5.170
Scientific and Educational Facilities; 5.190 Transportation Facilities; 5.20 Utilities;
* Secondary Uses in the Urban Designation: 5.140 Parking Facilities; 5.180 Shore
Defense Works;
* Conditional Uses in the Urban Designation: 5.160 Residential Development.
3. Master Program Section 4.105 Urban Designation states as follows:
* Policy #1 and Performance Standards #1-3 state that development in urban areas
should be managed to enhance and maintain the shoreline for a variety of urban uses
with preference for water-oriented uses; nonwater-oriented uses may be authorized
provided that they make provision for the public's continued and enhanced access to
and enjoyment of the shoreline through measures that are commensurate with the
degree of impact caused by the development; public access shall be permanent,
dedicated, and available for the public at the time of occupancy;
* There should be efficient utilization of urban areas in order to avoid expansion into
nonurban areas;
* There should be physical and visual shoreline access; .....
* Parking facilities should be landscaped to screen them from the shoreline and
adjacent properties;
* No new developments shall be approved with a height more than 35' above
average grade level that would obstruct the view of a substantial number of
residences;
* Storm water runoff shall not be increased in rate nor decreased in quality from pre-
project conditions.
4. Master Program Section 5.50 Commercial Development states that: * Priority should
be given for water-oriented uses; nonwater-oriented uses may be authoriz'ed provided
that they make provision for the public's continued and enhanced access to and
enjoyment of the shoreline through measures that are commensurate with the degree
of impact caused by the development; public access shall be permanent, dedicated,
and available for the public at the time of occupancy;
* Parking facilities should be located inland of the proposed use, designed to
accomodate expected activity, and ensure that storm water runoff does not pollute
adjacent development;. -
* New commercial developments should be located adjacent to existing
developments; .
* Commercial developments shall be located a minimum of 15' from the Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM);
* No new developments shall be approved with a height more than 35' above
average grade level that would obstruct the view of a substantial number of
residences.
5. Master Program Section 5.100 landfills states that landfills should palced so as not
to result in erosion or damage to water quality. It sets forth requirements for
4
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
information that applicants must provide regarding source and quality of fill and
construction methods.
Master Program Section 5.110 Marinas states that marinas should make provision to
avoid and resp~:>nd to fuel spills, provide for orderly circulation of vehicles, and that
parking facilities should 'be-located away from the water's edge.
Master Program Section 5.140 Parking Facilities states that parking facilities should
be located away from the water's edge, have provision to control storm water runoff,
and be adequate to serve the projected level of demand; security lighting should not
result in glare on adjacent properties.
Master Program Section 5.150 Recreational Facilities states that recreational facilities
should make adequate provision for traffic, parking, water, sewage disposal, and fire
protection; signs should only be for information and direction.
Master Program Section 5.160 Residential Development states that residential
development should:
* Be designed at a level of density that is compatible with the site;
* Protect water and shoreline aesthetics;
* Preserve shoreline vegetation and control erosion during construction;
* Provide adequate water and sewage disposal facilities;
* Avoid geologically hazardous areas;
* Maintain waterfront areas for common use;
* Be designed and located so as not to significantly block views of adjacent
residences;
* Not be located in areas subject to tidal inundation unless flood proofing measures
are provided;
* Meet residential setbacks of 30' from the ordinary high water mark on property
with banks less than 10' in height;
* Limit residential structures to 35' in height.
Master Program Section 5.170 Scientific and Educational Facilities states that
developers should comply with all regulations regarding archaeological sites which
prohibit intentional disturbance of archaeological or burial sites without prior approval
and provide protocols for actions following discovery of such sites.
Master Program Section 5.180 Shore Defense Works states that shore defense works
should be in alignment with the ordinary high water mark and only to provide
protection to upland property.
Master Program Section 5.190 Transportation Facilities states that roads should be
constructed in such a manner and employ storm water management facilities so that
erosion, slope instability, sedimentation, and water quality degradation do not occur.
Master Program Section 5.20 Utilities states that utilities should be placed
underground where feasible.
The proposed shoreline substantial development permit application is subject to the
following review criteria:
a. Primary Use:
Primary uses are presumed to be generally consistent with the policies and definition
of the shoreline designation where they are proposed. Projects are reviewed for
consistency with the specific policies and performance standards specified for the
particular type of development being reviewed.
b. Secondary Uses:-
Secondary uses are those uses that have not been judged to be preferred
within a particular shoreline environmental designation. ApplicaQts for shoreline
substantial development permits for secondary uses will have the burden of
proof to demonstrate that:
1 . The proposal will not be contrary to the general intent of the Shoreline
Management Act, nor shall it be contrary to the goals, policies, and
performance standards of the Master Program.
2. The proposed project will not materially interfere with the public use of
public lands and waters or the private use of adjacent private lands.
5
3. The proposed project will not cause unnecessary adverse effects on the
environment or other properties and will be compatible with other
permitted uses in the area.
c. Conditional Uses
Conditional uses "are those judged to be the least preferred within a particular
shoreline environmental designation. Applicants for shoreline substantial
development permits for conditional uses will have the burden of proof to
demonstrate that:
1 . The proposed use is consistent with the policies of the Shoreline
Management Act and the policies of the Master Program.
2. The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public
shorelines.
3. The proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible
with other permitted uses within the area.
4. The proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the
shoreline environment in which it is to be located.
5. The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. In those
limited instances where a conditional use is proposed, consideration
shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for similar
actions in the area.
E. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Issuance of a shoreline substantial development permit for the proposed project requires
compliance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act and the applicable
purposes, policies and performance standards of the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline
Management Master Program. Jefferson County Planning and Building Department staff
recommend consideration of the following conditions which have been developed through
the Environmental Impact Statement process and are intended to ensure compliance with the
Shoreline Act and the Master Program:
1. A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan using the best management
practices set forth in the Washington Department of Ecology's Storm Water ManUal
for the Pucet Sound Basin shall be prepared in conjunction with final site design and
a construction phasing schedule. Grading on the project site shall not begin until the
erosion control plan has been approved by the Director of the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works or his designee. The objectives of said plan are to (a)
control dust and mud and stabilize the construction area including entrances and
roadways; (b) prevent surface water runoff from eroding areas to be cleared and
graded; (c) prevent sedimentation from entering the waters of Port Ludlow Bay.
Erosion control techniques may include, but are not limited to, piped slope drains,
subsurface drains, hydroseeding, surface roughening, interceptor dikes and berms,
check dams, swales, gradient terraces, rip-rap, gravel filter berms, storm drain inlet
and outlet protection, and filter (silt) fences. A maintenance program shall be
implemented during the course of construction to insure the proper and effective
functioning of erosion and sedimentation control features. Inspection of erosion
control features shall be conducte9 daily.
2. Soil disturbance associated with major grading activities shall be minimized during the
winter wet season extending from November 1 through March 31. _
3. During construction, to the extent practicable, existing vegetation shall be maintained
on those portions of the site planned as permanent open space. Only during the
course of utility installation or revegetation/landscaping shall disturbance occur.
4. Grading stockpiles shall be located on the uphill side of excavation areas to act as
runoff diversions. Any large stockpiles shall be shaped and covered or seeded.
6
5. Soil, sediment, water, or debris generated during pond enlargement shall be confined
to specific areas on the site as identified on the erosion control plan. Dredged pond
material and other ,site ~aterial unsuitable for project fill shall be disposed of at a
location approved by the Director of the Jefferson County Department of Public
Works. .
6. Following construction, all cleared and graded areas shall be permanently revegetated
according to an overall landscape plan. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as
practicable after grading and construction is complete.
7. Dunes proposed for the Inn area shall be stabilized through the use of vegetation and
underlying foundations so as to minimize sand and soil redistribution during storm
events.
8. The proponent shall designate a qualified, trained, and experienced individual or firm
who shall ensure that (a) erosion control devices are correctly installed; (b) inspection
and maintenance schedules are regularly kept; (c) corrective actions are employed in
the event erosion control measures fail to perform effectively and (d) reports and
inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
9. A complete geotechnical investigation shall be undertaken on slopes steeper than
15% where buildings or infrastructure are proposed. Particular attention will be paid
to possibilities of earthquake-induced subsidence or liquefaction. Structures shall be
designed, engineered, and constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building
Code, other adopted standards pertaining to landslide and seismic hazard protection,
and specific construction practices recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The
consultant shall be a qualified professional selected and paid by the project proponent.
No construction of buildings, or installation of infrastructure on slopes steeper than
1 5 % shall take place prior to completion of the geotechnical investigation.
10. A permanent stormwater drainage system shall . be. installed, the design and
construction of which shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
System components shall include grass-lined swales, oil/water separators, and a
detention pond to manage both water quantity and quality.
11. The project's stormwater management system shall be incorporated into the ongoing
Port Ludlow Bay "Water Quality Monitoring Program - Nonpoint Sources".
12. A maintenance program shall be developed for oil/water separators and biofilters and
approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
13. Eelgrass (zostra marina) shall be planted in the eastern sector of the pond to prevent
the growth of sea lettuce (Ulva).
14. During construction, water levels in the on-site pond shall be lowered and sediment
removed therefrom prior to discharge into the Bay.
15. .. Two pumps shall be installed in the pond for redundancy in case of failure and to
improve flexibility for periodic maintenance. A standby mobile power..generator shall
be provided in the event of periodic power outages.
16. The maintenance schedule for the pond shall avoid pump shutdown during warmer
weather, thereby lessening stagnation of water and related water quality problems.
17. Final infrastructure design shall minimize impervious cover and stormwater runoff
through the use of gravel surfaces as permitted by the Department of Public Works.
7
18. Drainage lines shall be installed behind retaining and/or basement walls. and around.
building footings to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressure and to intercept ground
and surface water..
19. Groundwater seepage encountered during construction in upland areas shall be
directed by sloping excavations to shallow sump pits. Any collected water shall be
discharged to the construction-phase storm water control system.
20. Portions of structures subject to periodic tidal inundation shall be sited and
constructed in compliance with Jefferson County's "Flood Plain Management
Ordinance No. 1-89."
21 . Landscape design and planting materials for the perimeter of the pond shall eliminate
the need for herbicide application. Native plant materials shall be utilized to the
maximum extent throughout the entire project site to reduce the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides. When the application of such chemicals is necessary. they
shall only be applied by state-licensed personnel.
22. Buffers of grasses, low growing plants, shrubs, and trees shall be planted along the
shoreline and around the pond, providing habitat, water quality enhancement, and
protection from human disturbance.
23. Trees. shrubs, grasses. and herbaceous cover, including Douglas firs. Western red
cedars, vine maples, wax myrtles, and wild strawberries shall be the primary
landscape materials installed on the site to provide food and cover for wildlife.
24. Enlargement of the existing pond shall make provisions for improved aeration and
circulation to discourage algae growth, maintain consistent water quality, and improve
its value as fish habitat.
25. InterprativesignsshalLbe installed at pertinent points throughout the site to describe
important habitatleatures and wildlife. Pamphlets and brochures shall be distributed
to residents and guests to increase awareness and respect for wildlife which inhabit
the project site.
26. Filtration shall be provided at the pump water-intake pipes to reduce the incidental
capture of fish.
27. The weir outlet to the pond shall be designed to prevent fish entrapment in the pond.
28. The pond shall be designed to provide some shallow area along the south shoreline.
suitable for wading birds, isolated from public access.
29. Pond shoreline length equivalent to at least 50% of the existing shoreline length shall
be provided for bird loafing area. This shoreline area must be buffered by landscape
vegetation to discourage public disturbance.
30. Excavation shall be minimized to reduce potential for encountering contaminated soil
materials from previous development of the site.
31. Lead concentrations from previous testing in the vicinity of Test Pit 10 (TP-l0) shall
be reported to the Washington Department of Ecology if encountered in quantities in
excess of 10 cubic yards.
32. Excavated soils at locations other than TP-l0 shall be monitored for presence of
potentially hazardous materials.
8
33. In accordance with DOE Policy #101 (Site Discovery and Release Reporting), a
qualified hazardous waste specialist shall be contacted if more than 10 cubic yards
of charcoal-like material, is encountered in order to properly assess implications for
disposal. .. ... .. .
34. Prior to initiating excavation, a qualified hazardous waste specialist shall orient the
construction contractors and crew regarding field identification of potentially
contaminated soil and materials.
35. The proponent shall establish legally enforceable architectural design guidelines which
address such matters as roof materials, siding, exterior colors, appurtenances, and
other factors that affect the overall aesthetic character of the project site.
36. The proponent shall comply with all regulations of the State Shoreline Management
Act (RCW 90.58), RCW 217.44.040, RCW 27.53.060 and WAC 25-489 regarding
archaeological sites. These regulations prohibit intentional disturbance of
archaeological or burial sites without prior approval and provide protocols for actions
following discovery of such sites.
37. Prior to excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall orient the construction contractors
and crews in identification of potential archaeological resources that might be
uncovered, and how to proceed in the event of an unexpected discovery.
38. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall
be immediately dispatched to systematically analyze the findings. All construction
or excavation on that portion of the project site shall immediately cease and measures
shall be taken to prevent further disturbance prior to analysis by a qualified
archaeologist.
39. < Tl1ee followil')g above-code fire and life safety features sh~Jlbe'provided in the Inn
structure: quick-response sprinkler heads; automatic alarm notice to Fire District #3;
tamper protection for the automatic sprinkler system; hose cabinets at each floor;
diesel generator back-up power source; an indicator panel for all building safety
systems; smoke detection on HV AC systems; interior stairway to the roof; and a wet-
sprinkler in the covered drive-through.
40. The proponent shall develop a plan for the Inn which identifies applicable emergency
actions to be taken during such unlikely events as fires or earthquakes. The staff
shall be trained in fire behavior, built-in fire and life safety systems in the Inn
structure, and proper responses to emergencies and safety needs of all guests.
41. A maintenance schedule for fire and life safety equipment shall be developed. All such
equipment and related systems shall be tested at least annually in cooperation with
Jefferson County Fire District No.3. Records of all maintenance and system tests
shall be retained at the Inn and copies transmitted to Jefferson County Fire District
No.3.
42. Exit maps and instructions on emergency procedures shall be installee on the inside
of all guest room doors.
43. A public relations videotape which includes a prologue emphasizing building safety
features, exit locations, and guest responsibilities for safety in emergency situations
shall be available in all guest rooms.
44. The Inn's resident manager shall be required to participate in Fire District #3's
9
Emergency Medical Technician training program. All other on-site staff, as a condition
of employment, shall be trained in basic first aid and CPR.
45. Fundamental emergency aid equipment shall be provided at the Inn for staff use.
46. In order to assess cu'mulative-impacts from this project, the proponent shall:
(a) Continue the existing Water Qualitv Monitorino Prooram which documents
nonpoint source effects on the Class A "Extraordinary" designation of Port Ludlow
Bay and it's tributaries. Sampling shall include the water column, sediments, and
shellfish as appropriate. If monitoring indicates that activities of the proponent are
causing reduction in the water quality of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA
"Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall, in its annual report, so advise
Jefferson County. The "scope of work" for each year's program shall be notified
where necessary to obtain the most meaningful scientific data. The ensuing year's
scope of work shall be approved by Jefferson County each Autumn. Each year's
monitoring results shall be reported to Jefferson County by March 15 of the following
year. The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified water quality
research firm at proponent's sole expense.
(b) Conduct a Water Resource Monitorina Proaram which documents the condition
of several aquifers utilized as a domestic source by the proponent. Attention should
be focused on static groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. Should groundwater
monitoring indicate an inadequate yield to support development of the proponent's
projects in the context of water rights and projected water use, the proponent shall
take necessary action to insure an adequate supply of potable water. This action
could include, but is not limited to, development of additional sources,
supplementation of existing sources, and/or implementation of additional conservation
measures.
If mutually agreeable, the proponent shall include Olympus Beach Tracts' wells in
ongoing groundwater monitoring.-:_eUorts....,....
The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified geohydrologist to design,
direct, and conduct said monitoring program. The expense of said geohydrologist
shall be the proponent's. Results of the monitoring program shall be reported to
Jefferson County and the Washington Department or Ecology by March 1 5 of each
year.
(c) Conduct a Sewaae Treatment Plant Monitorino Prooram which documents
effects of the proponent's projects on capacity of the secondary wastewater
treatment plant. Attention should be focused on the number of connections; effluent
flow volume; and effluent quality. It is acknowledged that the sole authority to
monitor and regulate operation of the sewage treatment plant rests with the
Washington Department of Ecology. Nothing in this SEPA mitigating measure is
intended to supersede or conflict with requirements of the proponent's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-002120-2 issued
pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and companion statutes. Results of the
monitoring contained in this SEPA mitigating measure shall be transmitted to
Jefferson County and the Washington Department of Ecology by Mar~h 15 of each
year.
47. If groundwater monitoring in the South Aquifer indicates that the Final EIS projection
of sustainable yield for the South Aquifer is found to be an overestimate, and there
is not adequate yield to support full development in the context of water rights and
projected water use, the proponent shall take actions necessary to ensure an
adequate supply of potable water. This could include measures such as: development
10
of additional sources; supplementation of existing sources; and/or implementation of
additional conservation measures.
48. The riprap shore def.ense work shall be constructed in substantial alignment with the
ordinary high water mark ,'- - -
49. Design of the fuel and propane tanks shall be approved by the Chief of Fire District
No.3.
F. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The decision to issue or deny an application for a shoreline substantial development permit
should be based on the proposal's consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and the
Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program. If the Shoreline
Management Advisory Commission recommends approval of the application and if Board of
County Commissioners decides to issue a permit for the proposal, the Planning and Building
Department recommends the adoption of the following conclusions:
1 . The conditions placed on this shoreline substantial development permit are required
in order to achieve compliance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
and the applicable purposes, policies, and performance standards .of the Jefferson-
Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program.
2. The proposal as conditioned is consistent with the purposes and goals of the
Shoreline Management Act and the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Management
Master Program.
3. The proposal as conditioned is consistent with Shoreline Master Program Section
4.105 Urban Designation.
4. The proposal as conditioned meets the approval criteria for primary uses as set forth
in Shoreline Master Program Sections 4.201 Primary Uses, 4.202 Secondary Uses,
and Section 4.203 Conditional Uses as appropriate.
5. The proposal as conditioned is consistent with Shoreline Master Program Sections
5.50 Commercial Development; 5.100 Landfills; 5.110 Marinas; 5.140 Parking
'rFacilitie.s;...p .15.0 ... Recreational Facilities; 5.160 Residential DeYeJDpm~, a.J.70 .....
Scientific and Educational Facilities; 5.180 Shore Defense Works;. 5.190
Transportation Facilities; 5.20 Utilities.
C:\SDP\SDP91 017 .RPT
11
SEPA MITIGATING CONDITIONS
FROM INN AT PORT LUDLOW "PROJECT" FINAL EIS
EARTH
1. A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan using the
best management practices set forth in the Washington
Department of Ecology's storm Water Manual for the Puqet
Sound Basin shall be prepared in conjunction with final site
design and a construction phasing schedule. Grading on the
project site shall not begin until the erosion control plan
has been approved by the Director of the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works or his designee. The objectives
of said plan are to (a) control dust and mud and stabilize
the construction area including entrances and roadways; (b)
prevent surface water runoff from erOding areas to be
cleared and graded; (c) prevent sedimentation from entering
the waters of Port Ludlow Bay. Erosion control teChniques
may include, but are not limited to, piped slope drains,
subsurface drains, hydroseedingl surface roughening,
interceptor dikes and berms, check dams, swales, gradient
terraces, rip-rap, gravel filter berms, storm drain inlet
and outlet protection, and filter (silt) fences. A
maintenance program shall be implemented during the course
of construction to insure the proper and effective
functioning of erosion and sedimentation control features.
Inspection of erosion control features shall be conducted
daily. SDP, Plat
2. Soil disturbance associated with major grading activities
shall be minimized during the winter wet season extending
from November 1 through March 31. SDP, Plat
3. During construction, to the extent practicable, existing
vegetation shall be maintained on those portions of the site
planned as permanent open space. Only during the course of
utility installation or revegetation/landscaping shall
disturbance occur. SDP, Plat
4. Grading stockpiles shall be located on the uphill side of
excavation areas to act as runoff diversions. Any large
stockpiles shall be shaped and covered or seeded. SDP, Plat
5. S9il, sediment, water, or debris generated during pond
enlargement shall be confined to specific areas op the site
as identified on the erosion control plan. Dredged pond
material and other site material unsuitable for project fill
shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Director
of the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. SDP,
Plat
6. Following construction, all cleared and graded areas shall
be permanently revegetated according to an overall landscape
plan. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as
practicable af,ter_u grading and construction is complete.
SOP, Pl.at ' '-
7. Dunes proposed for the Inn area shall be stabilized through
the use of vegetation and underlying foundations s9 as to
minimize sand and soil redistribution during storm events.
SOP, Pl.at .
8. The proponent shall designate a qualified, trained, and
experienced individual or firm who shall ensure that (a)
erosion control devices are correctly installed; (b)
inspection and maintenance schedules are regularly kept; (c)
corrective actions are employed in the event erosion control
measures fail to perform effectively and (d) reports and
inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works. SOP, Plat
9. A complete geotechnical investigation shall be undertaken on
slopes steeper than 15% where buildings or infrastructure
are proposed. Particular attention will be paid to
possibilities of earthquake-induced subsidence or
liquefaction. structures shall be designed I engineered, and
constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code,
other adopted standards pertaining to landslide and seismic
hazard protection, and specific construction practices
recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant--
shall be a qualified professional selected and paid by the
project proponent. No construction of buildings, or
installation of infrastructure on slopes steeper than 15%
shall take place prior to completion of the geotechnical
investigation. SOP, Plat, Building
WATER
1. A permanent stormwater drainage system shall be installed,
the design and construction of which shall be to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. System
components shall include grass-lined swales, oil/water
separators, and a detention pond to manage both water
quantity and quality. SOP, Plat
2. The project's stormwater management system shall Qe
incorporated into the ongoing Port Ludlow Bay "Water Quality
Monitoring Program - Nonpoint Sources". SOP, Plat
3. A maintenance program shall be developed for oil/water
separators and biofilters and approved by the Jefferson
County Department of Public Works. SOP, Pl.at
2
4. Eelgrass (zostra marina) shall be planted in the eastern
sector of the pond to prevent the growth of sea lettuce
(Ulva). SDP
..
,.
5. During construction; water levels in the on-site pond shall
be lowered and sediment removed therefrom prior to discharge
into the Bay. SDP, Plat
6. Two pumps shall be installed in the pond for redundancy in
case of failure and to improve flexibility for periodic
maintenance. A standby mobile power generator shall be
provided in the event of periodic power outages. SDP
7. The maintenance schedule for the pond shall avoid pump
shutdown during warmer weather, thereby lessening stagnation
of water and related water quality problems. SDP
8. Final infrastructure design shall minimize impervious cover
and stormwater runoff through the use of gravel surfaces as
permitted by the Department of Public Works. SDP, Plat
9 Drainage lines shall be installed behind retaining and/or
basement walls, and around building footings to prevent
build-up of hydrostatic pressure and to intercept ground and
surface water. SDP, Building, Plat
10. Groundwater seepage encountered during construction in
upland areas shall be directed by sloping excavations to
shallow: sump pits. Any collected watershall-b-eaTscnarged
to the construction-phase stormwater control system. SDP,
Plat
11. Portions of structures subject to periodic tidal inundation
shall be sited and constructed in compliance with Jefferson
County's "Flood Plain Management Ordinance No. 1-89." SDP,
Building, Plat
12. Landscape design and planting materials for the perimeter of
the pond shall eliminate the need for herbicide application.
Native plant materials shall be utilized to the maximum
extent throughout the entire project site to reduce the use
of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. When the
application of such chemicals is necessary, they shall only
be applied by state-licensed personnel. SDP
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
1. Buffers of grasses, low growing plants, shrubs, and trees
shall be planted along the shoreline and around the pond,
providing habitat, water quality enhancement, and protection
from human disturbance. SDP
3
2. Trees, shrubs, grasses I and herbaceous cover, including
Douglas firsl Western red cedars, vine maples, wax myrtles,
and wild strawberries shall be the primary landscape
materials installed,_on the site to provide food and cover
for wildlife. SOP - - -
3. Enlargement of the existing pond shall make provisions for
improved aeration and circulation to discourage algae
growth, maintain consistent water quality, and improve its
value as fish habitat. SOP
4. Interpretive signs shall be installed at pertinent points
throughout the site to describe important habitat features
and wildlife. Pamphlets and brochures shall be distributed
to residents and guests to increase awareness and respect
for wildlife which inhabit the project site. SOP
5. Filtration shall be provided at the pump water-intake pipes
to reduce the incidental capture of fish. SOP
6. The weir outlet to the pond shall be designed to prevent
fish entrapment in the pond. SOP
7. The pond shall be designed to provide some shallow area
along the south shoreline, suitable for wading birds,
isolated from public access. SOP
8. Pond shoreline length equivalent to at least 50% of the
existing shoreline length shall be provided for bird loafing
area. This shoreline area must be buffered by landscape
vegetation to discourage public disturbance. SOP
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
1 Excavation shall be minimized to reduce potential for
encountering contaminated soil materials from previous
development of the site. SOP, Building
2. Lead concentrations from previous testing in the vicinity of
Test pit 10 (TP-10) shall be reported to the Washington
Department of Ecology if encountered in quantities in excess
of 10 cubic yards. SOP, Building
3. Excavated soils at locations other than TP-10 shabl be
monitored for presence of potentially hazardous materials.
SOP, Building
4. In accordance with DOE Policy #101 (Site Discovery and
Release Reporting), a qualified hazardous waste specialist
shall be contacted if more than 10 cubic yards of charcoal-
like material is encountered in order to properly assess
4
implications for disposal. SDP, Building
5. Excavation shall be reduced through the use of pile-
supported foundat,ions as opposed to spread-footing
foundations. Buildinq' - ,
6. Prior to initiating excavation, a qualified hazardous waste
specialist shall orient the construction contractors and
crew regarding-field identification of potentially
contaminated soil and materials. SDP, Building
AESTHETICS
1. The proponent shall establish legally enforceable
architectural design guidelines which address such matters
as roof materials, siding, exterior colors, appurtenances,
and other factors that affect the overall aesthetic
character of the-project site. SDP, Building
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The proponent shall comply with all regulations of the State
Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), RCW 217.44.040, RCW
27.53.060 and WAC 25-489 regarding archaeological sites.
These regulations prohibit intentional disturbance of
archaeological or burial sites without prior approval and
provide;-..-protocols for actions following discovery-of such
sites. SDP, Building, Plat
2. Prior to excavation, a qualified archaeologist shall orient
the construction contractors and crews in identification of
potential archaeological resources that might be uncovered,
and how to proceed in the event of an unexpected discovery.
SDP, Building, Plat
3. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, a
qualified archaeologist shall be immediately dispatched to
systematically analyze the findings. All construction or
excavation on that portion of the project site shall
immediately cease and measures shall be taken to prevent
further disturbance prior to analysis by a qualified
archaeologist. SDP, Building, Plat
TRANSPORTATION
1. The proponent shall cooperate with the Jefferson County
Department of Public Works to designate construction truck
routes and to install permanent directional signage to
divert automobile traffic toward State Route 104 via Beaver
5
Valley Road (state Route 19) rather than Paradise Bay Road.
Public Works
FIRE/EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
1. The following above-code fire and life safety features shall
be provided in the Inn structure: quick-response sprinkler
heads; automatic alarm notice to Fire District #3; tamper
protection for-the automatic sprinkler system; hose cabinets
at each floor; diesel generator back-up power source; an
indicator panel for all building safety systems; smoke
detection on HVAC systems; interior stairway to the roof;
and a wet-sprinkler in the covered drive-through. SOP,
Building
2. The proponent shall develop a plan for the Inn which
identifies applicable emergency actions to be taken during
such unlikely events as fires or earthquakes. The staff
shall be trained, in fire behavior, built-in fire and life
safety systems in the Inn structure, and proper responses to
emergencies and safety needs of all guests. SOP, Building
3. A maintenance schedule for fire and life safety equipment
shall be developed. All such equipment and related systems
shall be tested at least annually in cooperation with
Jefferson County Fire District No.3. Records of all
maintenance and system tests shall be retained at the Inn
and copies transmitted to Jefferson County Fire District No.
3. SDP,Building
4. Exit maps and instructions on emergency procedures shall be
installed on the inside of all guest room doors. SOP,
Building
5. A public relations videotape which includes a prologue
emphasizing building safety features, exit locations, and
guest responsibilities for safety in emergency situations
shall be available in all guest rooms. SDP
6. The Inn's resident manager shall be required to participate
in Fire District #3's Emergency Medical Technician training
program. All other on-site staff, as a condition of
employment, shall be trained in basic first aid and CPR. SOP
7. Fundamental emergency aid equipment shall be provided at the
Inn for staff use. SDP
8. All mUlti-family dwelling units shall be provided with
automatic sprinkler systems with quick-response heads.
Building
9. Heat and smoke detectors in any structure, to the extent
6
required, shall be hard-wired to an alarm system with an
autodial alert to appropriate authorities. Building
10. . The location of fire hydrants on the project site shall be
prescribed by the. Chief of Jefferson County Fire District
No.3. Plat
SEPA MITIGATING CONDITIONS
FROM PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FINAL EIS
1. The proponent shall negotiate with the Chimacum School
District and reach a written agreement regarding school
impact mitigation, subject to approval by the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners, prior to f~nal plat approval.
In the event that the parties cannot agree, Jefferson County
shall determine appropriate mitigation. Plat
2. The proponent shall negotiate with the Fire District and
reach a written agreement regarding Fire District impact
mitigation subject to approval by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to final plat approval. Such mitigation
could include, but not be limited to, cooperation with Fire
District No. 3 in recruiting and maintaining adequate
volunteer staffing (i.e. by publicizing volunteer
opportunities to Port Ludlow and other areas if necessary);
assistance in finding solutions for station 31's sleepover
facility needs; and assistance in acquiring land for
construction of new facilities. In the event that the
parties cannot agree, Jefferson County would determine
appropriate mitigation. Plat
3. The proponent shall contribute a proportionate share towards
improvements at the SR-104/SR-19 (Beaver Valley Road)
intersection I consistent with WSDOT's preference of this
intersection over Teal Lake Road and Paradise Bay Road for
Port Ludlow traffic. The Washington State Department of
Transportation would negotiate with the proponent to
establish the amount and timing of this mitigation. Plat
4. In order to assess cumulative impacts from this project, the
proponent shall:
(a) Continue the existing Water Qualitv Monitorinq Proqram
which documents nonpoint source effects on the Class A
"Extraordinary" designation of Port Ludlow Bay and it's
tributaries. Sampling shall include the water column,
sediments, and shellfish as appropriate. If monitoring
indicates that activities of the proponent are causing
reduction in the water quality of Port Ludlow Bay below the
Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall,
in its annual report, so advise Jefferson County. The
7
"scope of work" for each year's program shall be notified
where necessary to obtain the most meaningful scientific
data. The ensuing year's scope of work shall be approved by
Jefferson Countyea~h Autumn. Each year's monitoring
results shall be reported to Jefferson County by March 15 of
the following year. The proponent shall be responsible for
employing a qualified water quality research firm at
proponent's sole expense. SDP, Plat
(b) Conduct a Water Resource Monitorinq Proqram which
documents the condition of several aquifers utilized as a
domestic source by the proponent. Attention should be
focused on static groundwater levels and saltwater
intrusion. Should groundwater monitoring indicate an
inadequate yield to support development of the proponent's
projects in the context of water rights and projected water
use, the proponent shall take necessary action to insure an
adequate supply of potable water. This action could .
include, but is not limited to, development of additional
sources, supplementation of existing sources, and/or
implementation of additional conservation measures.
If mutually agreeable, the proponent shall include Olympus
Beach Tracts' wells in ongoing groundwater monitoring
efforts.
The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified
geohydrologist to design, direct, and conduct said
menit.oring program. The expense of saidgeohydr6l:ogist
shall be the proponent's. Results of the monitoring program
shall be reported to Jefferson County and the Washington
Department or Ecology by March 15 of each year. SDP, Plat
(c) Conduct a Traffic Monitorinq Program in cooperation
with Jefferson County Department of Public Works and the
Washington Department of Transportation a Traffic Monitorinq
Proqram to assess effects of proponent's projects on the
roadway system in the immediate area. Attention should be
focused on trip generation, traffic counts along selected
roadways, and Level-of-Service conditions at selected
intersections. The proponent shall contribute it's fair,
pro-rata share toward roadway improvements necessitated by
any adverse impacts from 'its projects and/or take steps to
reduce traffic volumes.
The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified
traffic engineer to design and direct the Traffic Monitorinq
Proqram in cooperation with other appropriate public
agencies. The cost of retaining the traffic engineer shall
be at the proponent's sole expense. Results of the
monitoring shall be submitted to Jefferson County by March
15 of each year. Plat
8
r
MINUTES FOR APRILl21, 1993
JEFFERSON-PORT TOWNSEND
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION
A. OPENING BUSINESS
B. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
(Public Hearings)
1. Pope Resources (SDP91-017)
C. ADJOURNMENT
~
~
A.
OPENING BUSINESS
i'
\
\.
\ .
~ ~
The regular meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. in the
Superior Court room of the Jefferson County Courthouse by
Chairman Lowell Bogart. Commission members present were Jennifer
Stankus, Linda Clifton, Cedric Lindsay, Mike Fleming, Judith
Walls, Phil Andrus, and Dave Phinizy.
Planning and Building Department staff present were Jim Pearson
and Cheryl Halvorson, secretary.
Dave Cunningham, Vice President for Land Use, was present
representing Pope Resources. Also present for Pope Resources
were Tony Puma, project manager for the project; Craig Jones,
attorney; and Dr. Marty Harper, water quality researcher.
Members of the public present were Barry Graham, Greg McCarry, H.
Wm. Shamhant, Ralph Campbell, S. B. Slocum, George Randolph,
Rowana Koch, Arnold Koch, Al Lazzar,~ill Reiss, o. H. Gardner,
Bob Bradley, Stan Kadesh, David G. Dotiglas, Bruce Halbertson,
Capt. P. Kievit, Sue Kievit, Wendi Wrinkle, Bill Wootton, Rae and
Bernie Belkin, Frank Siler, W. Foust, Dan Youra, Pete Thompson,
James M. Brannaman, Greg Mueller, Tom Zbaren, and Dale Whitt.
Lowell Bogart announced that nominations for Chairman and Vice
Chairman should be taken at thisme~ting and elections held in
accordance with the By Laws. The commission agreed to ho1dthe
elections at the end of the meeting.
Jim Pearson announced that there will be a special meeting on
Wednesday, May 5, for public hearings on two proposals.
B. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
(Public Hearings)
1. Pope Resources (SDP91-017)
Jim Pearson presented a summary of the staff report on the
proposal. The proposal was for a residential, commercial, and-
recreational development including a hotel, single family
residences in both detached and multi-unit structures, roadways
and parking, utilities, shore defense works, marina
modifications, landscaping and recreational amenities, excavation
including pond expansion, soil erosion and storm water management
systems, signs, outdoor lighting, and undeveloped open space.
Jim Pearson stated that there were two environmental impact
statements required by the county. One EIS was solely for this
project. The other EIS was for the ten-year development program
of Pope Resources in the Port Ludlow area. Mr. Pearson pointed
out that certain sections of those EIS's were included in parts
of the staff report to the commission. Jim Pearson stated that
the mitigating measures from the final EIS's, which affected the
shoreline permit, had been included in the staff report. In
Page - 2
addition, several of the included mitigating measures from the
EIS's were for other than the shor~line permit, such as the Plat
and Building permits.
In reply to Lowell Bogart's question, Jim Pearson stated that ~
some of the mitigation measures which were not specifically
listed for the shoreline permit could be added as conditions to
the shoreline permit if the commission thought they were
warranted.
Jim Pearson gave an example of how the EIS's were used in
preparing the staff report.
Under D.2. on Page 4 of the staff report, Jim Pearson pointed out
the primary uses in the urban designation. Mr. Pearson stated
that the resort could be characterized as both a recreational
facility and water enjoyment commercial development. In reply to
Phil Andrus' question, Jim Pearson stated that the proximity of
the marina and the golf course, as well as the nature and amount
of open space, could be the criteria for classifying the hotel as
a resort. Phil Andrus asked if a Finding could be written to
that effect. Jim Pearson replied that it would be possible.
In reference to the residential development, Jim Pearson stated
that the residences would be a conditional use because they would
not be a water enjoyment use.
Lowell Bogart asked for clarification of the land use designation
of the spit. Mr. Bogart pointed out that it appeared on the map
he had that the spit was in a suburban designation and that the
designation line appeared to bisect the area where the hotel
would be situated. Mr. Bogart stated that the hotel would be an
inappropriate use in a suburban designation. Jim Pearson stated
that the legal description would be the determining factor. Mr.
Pearson produced a larger scale map which showed that the area in
question was, in fact, in an urban designation, making the use
appropriate.
Jim Pearson read from the Master Program concerning the
conditional use of the residential development maintaining SOmB
form of public enjoyment of the water area. Mr. Pearson
displayed a proposed site plan which showed proposed open space
areas along the shoreline.
Judith Walls asked if the boat launch proposed for obliteration
would be replaced at another location. Jim Pearson replied that
the boat launch would not be replaced.
Jim Pearson showed the proposed changes and additions on an
enlarged aerial photo of the area.
Lowell Bogart invited the proponent to make a presentation.
Page - 3
Dave Cunningham presented a slide presentation on the area,
showing the history of the site and the effects of the proposal.
Mr. Cunningham presented excerpts from the original Port Ludlow
town plan which specifically addressed the spit, which was the
site of the mill burner. I& addition, Mr. Cunningham pointed out
that a site plan and shoreline permit had been issued in 1989 for
a 125-unit hotel and conference center.
Dave Cunningham explained the reasons for the larger Programmatic
EIS as well as the site specific EIS for the inn project. Mr.
Cunningham entered copies of both EIS's into the record.
Dave Cunningham stated that several minor archaeological sites
had been found in the past, and that two significant
archaeological sites had also been found.
Mr. Cunningham spoke about the comments that had been received on
the EIS's and that those comments had been addressed in the final
EIS's. Mr. Cunningham stated that views was one major concern.
Mr. Cunningham entered into the record some photos taken from a
private site above the project site which were computer enhanced
to depict the proposed project buildings. Mr. Cunningham stated
that the photos would show the view after project completion.
Dave Cunningham spoke about the changes, all reductions in the
original project proposal, made to address the concerns expressed
by the public. Mr. Cunningham stated that the only increase in
the proposal was the amount of public open space and access to
the waterfront.
Dave Cunningham stated that the boat launch is proposed for
replacement with a residential area and that the boat launch is
not proposed for replacement. Mr. Cunningham stated that steps
to the water could be included in the project to allow for
dinghies and kayaks to be carried to the water, but no boats with
trailers would be accommodated.
Dave Cunningham showed slides of similar inns to the one proposed
for the project.
Dave Cunningham stated that the proposal met the County
Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act guidelines.
Dave Cunningham provided several specific comments on lhe staff
report. Mr. Cunningham pointed out that (on Page 1) the maximum
height of the hotel would be 52 feet rather than 50 feet.
Mr. Cunningham requested that an additional Finding of Fact (Page
2) be included stating that a previous substantial development
permit was issued on a portion of the site for a 125-room hotel
and conference center.
On Page 3, Other Permits, Mr. Cunningham stated that two
additional permits will be required: a Jefferson County Flood
Page - 4
Plain Management Certificate and a U. S. Army Corp of Engineers
permit.
Dave Cunningham questioned the inclusion of Aquatic in D.1. on
Page 4. Mr. Cunningham stated that his understanding was that
the Aquatic designation went from ordinary high water seaward,
and that there was nothing in the proposal which did that, unless
it was the edge of the proposed riprap.
"
Mr. Cunningham questioned the inclusion of Condition #44 on Page
9 as a requirement of the permit and the need for the inn manager
to be an EMT. Mr. Cunningham stated that extensive discussions
had been held with the fire department, and he did not believe
the fire department itself would require the inn manager to be an
EMT.
Regarding Condition #46 on Page 10, Mr'. Cunningham suggested
deleting the groundwater monitoring of'the Olympus Beach Tracts'
wells because it was too specific at this point in time. Mr.
Cunningham suggested that the geohydrologist shquld decide which
wells besides Pope Resources' wells should be included in a
monitoring program.
Mr. Cunningham stated that Condition #47 on Page 10 was redundant
to Condition #46(b) and suggested that it be deleted. Jim
Pearson stated that he thought that might have been an editing
error on. his part. Mr. Cunningham stated thatCondition~46(b)
would require the monitoring of all of the aquifers supporting
the project.
Phil Andrus asked if marina expansion was part of the project.
Mr. Cunningham replied that it was not. Mr. Cunningham stated
that marina expansion might not occur for several years. Mr.
Cunningham stated that proposals for changes to the marina in the
earlier proposal had been deleted from this proposal.
Phil Andrus asked for clarification regarding the fuel storage
facilities. Tony Puma explained that because of the underground
storage tank regulations, changes must be made to comply with -
those regulations. The storage facility would be underground~
with landscaping over the top of the facility to resemble a small
dune. Mr. Andrus suggested that the project description .should
include the detail provided by Mr. Puma. Dave Cunningham stated
that there was a Condition addressing the concern which required
a design to be submitted for approval to the fire chief.
Lowell Bogart asked if the additional riprap would be above mean
high water. Dave Cunningham replied that all of the riprap would
be at high water and above and that it was an extension of the
riprap that currently exists along the marina. Mr. Cunningham
stated that because the riprap was at the ordinary high water, a
Corp of Engineers permit and a hydraulic permit from the
Department of Fisheries would be required.
Page - 5
Mike Fleming asked about the number of people that would be
generated by the project. Dave Cunningham stated that there
could be a total of about 180 people at any given time. Mr.
Cunningham pointed out that the issue was addressed in the EIS.
~
Jennifer Stankus asked about the location of the Beach Club and
the users of the Beach Club. Dave Cunningham pointed out the
area on the aerial photo and stated that the Beach Club was owned
by the homeowners association.
In reply to Jennifer Stankus' question regarding the location of
the proposed new residences, Dave Cunningham pointed out the
location on the aerial photo and stated that the difference in
elevations between the two sites would not impede the views.
Jennifer Stankus asked for clarification of the reasons for and
the location of the proposed dunes. Dave Cunningham replied that
the dunes were, proposed along the shoreline of the spit and were
to attempt to recreate some natural Qondition of an accretion
spit. Mr. Cunningham stated that there is 3800 feet of trail
system planned in the dunes area for public access.
In reply to Jennifer Stankus' question, Dave Cunningham stated
that public access would end at the Beach Club property.
Dave Phinizy asked if there were reputable sources of supply to
provide the indigenous plants for the dune site. Dave Cunningham
stated that there were very reputable nurseries to provide the
plants needed without having to get them from natural sites.
Dave Phinizy asked if there were any covenants on titles in
previous property sales regarding the boat ramp. Dave Cunningham
replied that none of the proposal site had been dedicated to the
homeowners previously. Tony Puma commented that the boat ramp
was never included specifically in any of the previous permits
for the site. Dave Cunningham stated that there are three other
public boat ramps within ten minutes of the marina.
Phil Andrus asked if flexibility had been designed into the plan
to allow for further expansion or infil1 in the future. Dave~
Cunningham replied that the current plan, after 25 years, was
intended to be the final plan for the proposal pro'perty. Mr.
Cunningham explained the different ownerships that will be
involved on the site.
Dave Cunningham stated that the public access area would be owned
by a land owners association with a public easement covenant
attached to it to provide general public access for a minimum of
fifty years.
Mike Fleming asked for clarification of the type of use of the
marina and how full it is. Dave Cunningham replied that the
marina is currently about 85% to 90% full with residents'
moorage. Tony Puma commented that eventually resident moorage
Page - 6
will occupy enough marina space that transient moorage will
become limited. If additional demand for resident moorage
becomes evident, a marina expansion may become necessary. That
issue would be addressed at that time.
s..
Judith Walls asked for clarification of the formula used in
determining the number of parking sites within the proposal. Ms.
Walls was concerned that enough parking sites were available to
alleviate the congestion that currently occurs. Dave Cunningham
stated that the proposal was at the same parking standards as
required by the County zoning code. Mr. Cunningham stated that
the marina parking area was roughly double the current number of
parking sites.
Jennifer Stankus asked for clarification of the area that will be
owned in common. Dave Cunningham explained the areas that will
be owned in common and pointed them out on the aerial photo.
Lowell Bogart opened the discussion for public comment.
George Randolph spoke about the amenities that Pope Resources had
provided in their development over the years. He urged the
commission to approve the permit.
Bill Reiss expressed his appreciation to the Planning Department
for the thorough job they did in preparing the permit
application. Mr. Reiss stated that Pope Resources had done a
good job of addressing the concerns and desires of the community
in their planning process. Mr. Reiss urged the approval of the
permit. Mr. Reiss also urged that Pope Resources develop the
proposal in accordance with the plan and not to attempt any
changes, because that would precipitate more controversy.
Oliver Gardner spoke on behalf of the Greater Port Ludlow
Community Council. Mr. Gardner explained the purposes of the
G.P.L.C.C. and the history of the formation of the organization.
Mr. Gardner stated that the G.P.L.C.C. was not against
development, but was against uncontrolled development. Mr.
Gardner read a statement from the G.P.L.C.C. which dealt with ~he
enforcement and monitoring of the permit and alleged past non-
compliance by the developer. Mr. Gardner provided a copy of the
statement to the commission.
Bill Wootton stated that he had studied the EIS, the Shoreline
Master Program, and Pope Resources plans. Mr. Wootton stated
that he saw no conflict with the Shoreline management plan. Mr.
Wootton stated that he thought the mitigative measures in the EIS
adequately addressed the issues of the shoreline permit.
Frank Siler stated that he thought the project met the
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program.
W. "Frosty" Foust stated that he was keenly interested in the inn
project because he was interested in what happened to the bay.
Page - 7
Mr. Foust stated that he found no fault with the project and
urged the commission to give a positive recommendation for the
project.
Dan Youra urged the commission to give a positi~e endorsement to
the project. Mr. Youra stated that the research required for the
project was very extensive and that he thought it met the
necessary requirements.
ft,.
James Brannaman stated that he was pleased with the modified
project proposal. Mr. Brannaman spoke about being gratified to
see the proposed conditions from the EIS being applied to the
permit. Mr. Brannaman recommended a condition to the permit to
delineate the exterior appearance of the buildings and the
materials to be used. Mr. Brannaman stated that the project had
his endorsement.
Wendi Wrinkle spoke about the EIS not.adequatelyaddressing the
impacts to ground water. Ms. Wrinkl~ spoke about public
discussions between Pope Resources and the PUD concerning the PUD
taking over the sewage and water systems of Port Ludlow. Ms.
Wrinkle was concerned that the public and existing community not
be required to assume the costs associated with the proposal,
particularly the costs of the monitoring and the hydrologist and
any costs associated with mitigating the overuse of the south
aquifer. Ms. Wrinkle stated that stich costs were related to the
project and should be borne.. by- the.proponent.
Barry Graham had questions pertaining to the underground fuel
storage tanks and the size of the trucks expected to serve those
tanks. Mr. Graham's concern was whether adequate turning space
had been allowed for such trucks in the road design.
Dale Whitt spoke about the proposed change in the biodiversity of
the spit affecting the wintering water fowl.
Bruce Halbertson spoke about the Greater Port Ludlow Community
Council not being representative of the majority of the people in
Port Ludlow, but only a minority.
Oliver Gardner was allowed to rebut Mr. Halbertson's statements.
Mr. Gardner agreed that the G.P.L.C.C. did not represent all of
the residents of Port Ludlow, but did represent those people who
had become members of the organization and supported €he agenda
of the G.P.L.C.C. In reply to Phil Andrus' question, Mr. Gardner
stated that there were about two hundred members of the
G.P.L.C.C.
Lowell Bogart gave the proponent the opportunity to answer the
questions presented.
Tony Puma stated that the current fuel tank capacity was about
12,000 to 14,000 gallons, combined diesel and gasoline. Mr. Puma
stated that the current proposal was for three 6,000 gallon tanks
Page - 8
in a concrete containment box. Mr. Puma stated the method of
delivery would be by truck. Mr. Puma stated that all of the
roads were designed to accommodate a Greyhound bus. Mr. Puma
stated that the fire district had requested that the fuel
unloading area be modified so that fuel trucks would not be
allowed to drive through the hotel area. Mr. Puma stated that
the proponent had agreed to do that.
;;",
Lowell Bogart polled the commissioners for their issues and
concerns.
Jennifer Stankus stated that public access and parking and the
possible transfer of the utilities to the PUD were her concerns.
Mike Fleming had a concern about monitoring of ,the ground water
and bay water, as well as the possible transfer of the utilities
to the PUD. Judith Walls listed several concerns: for,
environmental reasons, the altering o~the spit with dunes; the
loss of the boat ramp; the water quality issue; the possible
transfer of the utilities; and trafPi~patterns and volume.
Phil Andrus stated that one matter that should be made
specifically clear was the public access issue, either as a
condition to the permit or in the project description. Mr.
Andrus stated that the location of the access, the ownership of
the public areas, and the duration of the public access should be
made specific. Jim Pearson suggested that the plat map could be
.utilized to satisfy that concern. Lowell Bogartsuggested-.that
the plat map should become part of the permit application. Dave
Cunningham stated that they could provide a depiction of the
public access on the plat map and could suggest language for a
condition to be added to the permit to address the issue.
Dave Phinizy stated that his concerns had been expressed already
with the public access issue being the most important.
Jim Pearson stated that some of the concerns had been addressed
in the first chapter of the EIS.
In response to Dave Phinizy's question about the PUD acquiring-
the utilities, Jim Pearson stated that such acquisition would~e
a responsibility of the PUD and they should be aware of the
monitoring requirements and should address the funding needs of
those requirements.
Mike Fleming expressed the concern that the conditions on water
quality monitoring required the proponent to report their
findings on March 15 of each year. Mr. Fleming's concern was
that if water quality were deteriorating, it should be reported
to the county immediately. Jim Pearson stated that some of the
monitoring would not be done continuously, but at certain times
of the year on an annual basis.
In reply to Mike Fleming's question, Dave Cunningham stated that
the programmatic EIS addressed the adequacy of the ground water
Page - 9
sources. Mr. Cunningham stated that the monitoring condition was
designed to identify trend lines in quality and quantity. Dave
Cunningham stated that he thought it would be appropriate to add
a condition to address any sudden anomalies that might occur.
Craig Jones suggested two changes to Condition #46(a) and (b) to
address that concern. The suggestion was to delete "in its
annual report" on Line 6 of #46(a) and replace it with the word
"immediately". In Condition #46(b), it was suggested to insert,
within Line 5, "immediately notify the county and" between "the
proponent shall" and "take necessary action to insure. "The
suggestion was acceptable, by consensus, to the commissioners.
Dave Cunningham suggested some language for a condition to
address the public access concern to be included with the
depiction on the plat map by reference. The suggested language
included, "To deed to the homeowners association from Pope
';
Resources Tracts A, C and M-1. The de~d will be subject to an
easement in favor of the general public for access, use and
enjoyment. The association will retain the right to reasonably
regulate those common areas by establishing rules and
regulations, ,such as those to protect landscaping, regulate
noise, prevent nuisances, etc." In reply to Phil Andrus'
question, Dave Cunningham stated the easement would run for a
minimum of fifty years. Phil Andrus suggested that the easement
instead run in perpetuity, and suggested discussion on that point
be held.
Regarding signage to indicate the location of the public access,
Dave Cunningham stated that it would be reasonable to include
signage in a condition. Jim Pearson suggested that there are
standard shoreline access signs that could be used. Jennifer
Stankus suggested that the public access signage could be
included in the condition already proposed. Dave Cunningham
stated that they were attempting to keep the signage to a
~inimum. Jennifer Stankus stated that the public access signage
should be at the entrances so the public would know that it was
permissible to enter the Port Ludlow area.
Jim Pearson suggested the wording for a condition regarding
signage. The suggested condition was "Informational and
directional signs shall clearly indicate the location of public
access areas."
Dave Cunningham pointed out the areas that will be open to public
access and that there are private tidelands to the rtorth of the
public access area. Mr. Cunningham stated that signage would
have to be placed to prevent public access onto the private
areas.
The commission discussed adding to the public access condition
the words "in perpetuity" as suggested by Phil Andrus, rather
than the 50-year easement suggested.
Page - 10
Phil Andrus moved for the adoption of the condition suggested by
Dave Cunningham and Craig Jones with the words "in perpetuity"
added in the proper place. Jennifer Stankus seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-3 with Mike Fleming abstaining.
The commission moved on to discuss the possible acquisition by
the PUD of the utilities systems. ,Phil Andrus suggested that
Condition #46 might be utilized to address that concern. Also,
Mr. Andrus pointed out~that Dave Cunningham had suggested
deleting the reference in Condition #46 to the Olympus Beach
Tracts' wells. Dave Cunningham clarified that the Olympus Beach
Tracts were to the north between Port Ludlow and Mats Mats. Mr.
Canningham stated that, in the EIS's, there was a general
suggestion about monitoring. Mr. Cunningham stated that the
condition became much more specific. Mr. Cunningham stated that
the next step would be even more specific and detailed when a
geohydrologist designs the monitoring 'program. However, Mr.
Cunningham suggested that the geohydrQlogist should not be
constrained in that design, when in fact other wells not
belonging to Pope Resources may require inclusion in the
monitoring program besides the Olympus Beach Tracts wells. Jim
Pearson stated that the reference was included because it was a
mitigating condition that was in the Programmatic EIS.
Phil Andrus moved that Condition #46(a) and (b) be modified as
suggested by the proponent with regard to immediate notification
anct. to leave the reference to Olympus Beach Tracts in the
condition. Judith Walls seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
The commission moved on to a discussion of the loss of the boat
ramp. Judith Walls stated that the boat launch was used by the
public and it would be a loss of public use. Dave Cunningham
stated that the launch was not a public boat launch, it is a
private launch, and the public use had been allowed only because
it was not policed. Mr. Cunningham stated that the proponent had
attempted to address some of the concern of users with small
boats, such as dinghies and kayaks, with the steps proposed. Mr.
Cunningham stated that the number of comments received concer~ing
the boat launch were in a great minority, and Pope Resources did
not intend to continue the use of the launch. Tony Puma stated
that the proponent did not intend to create every possible
opportunity for every possible activity. Mr. Puma stated that
the most important factor was to create a good pedestrian and
residential environment, and he did not believe a boat launch for
trailered boats would be compatible. Dave Cunningham reiterated
that. there are three public boat launches within ten minutes of
the site.
Judith Walls stated that the step-down launch proposal was not
included as part of the project. Dave Cunningham asked if the
commission could accept a condition adding a step-down launch and
the proponent would have to adjust its permits with the Corp of
Engineers and Fisheries. Judith Walls agreed it would satisfy
Page - 11
~
her concern. The proponent agreed to propose language for such a
condition.
The commission moved on to the proposed dune construction on the
spit. Judith Walls was concerned that the constructed dunes
would have movement into the water of the bay. Jim Pearson read
from the EIS, Page 1-3, the discussion concerning the
construction of the dunes. In part, it stated, ". . on the
southern low-lying pari of the spit. Without proper
stabilization, minor amounts of sand and other dune materials
would be distributed onsite and into Ludlow Bay during storm
events." Under mitigating conditions, Page 1-5, Mr. Pearson read
the section which provided for the stabilization of the dunes.
Mr. Pearson stated that he thought the issue could be
sufficiently managed through the construction and stabilization
phases.
Dave Cunningham stated that the proposed dune construction was
for above ordinary high water, and that the spit was an accretion
spit and is building and not eroding. The commission discussed
the possibility of wave erosion to the spit.
Judith Walls moved that the excavated fill not be placed on the
spit as dunes. The motion died for lack of a second.
Dave Cunningham read a proposed condition for small boat
launching: "The proponent shall provide, near the marina loading
area, an access area and stairway to facilitate launching of
small watercraft such as dinghies, canoes, and kayaks." Phil
Andrus moved for adoption of the condition. Cedric Lindsay
seconded the motion.
Mike Fleming asked if there were any future plans to include boat
launching at this site or another site in the development. Dave
Cunningham replied that there were no such plans. Mr. Cunningham
stated that the only water related future planning that had been
done had to do with future expansion of the marina itself. Tony
Puma stated that the future need indicated was for larger
watercraft rather than smaller craft.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
Phil Andrus suggested, on Page 4 under Applicable Shoreline
Management Master Program Policies, a new #3 and renumber the
other policies, or as a final sentence in #2: "The inn is a
water oriented (water enjoyment) commercial development because
it is being developed in conjunction with the marina, designated
open space, and other recreational facilities." Lowell Bogart
asked for the rationale for adding the sentence. Mr. Andrus
explained that not every hotel would be considered a water
enjoyment use; only those which are part of a resort facility
which offered other amenities would qualify. Mr. Andrus
explained that he was trying to avoid setting a precedent for any
Page - 12
hotel which may wish to locate along the shoreline. The
commissioners agreed to make the suggestion a new #3 and to
renumber the other policies.
Phil Andrus moved to add the language suggested as a new #3.
Mike Fleming seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
The commission briefly"discussed the one audience member's
suggestion regarding the architecture of the buildings. It was
agreed that the commission should not attempt to legislate the
taste in the architecture utilized on the site.
Jim Pearson commented that the proponent had suggested an
additional Finding that a previous shoreline permit had been
issued in 1989. In reply to Judith Walls' question, Dave
Cunningham commented that it was a mat'ter of Fact that another
permit was issued for a larger hotel .~d should be included in
the Findings of Fact.
Dave Phinizy moved that an additional Finding of Fact be added
about the previous, existing shoreline permit being issued and
directing staff to add the language necessary. Judith Walls
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
The commission discussed some editorial changes to the
conditions. It was suggested, for claritYl to change the wording
of Condition #14 to read, "During construction, water levels in
the on-site pond shall be lowered and sediment removed therefrom
prior to the discharge of water into the Bay." In Condition #15,
the word "periodic" in the last line was suggested for deletion
as being unnecessary. In Condition #21, it was suggested to
replace the word "eliminate" with the word "minimize" in the
first sentence. A change in wording for Condition #23 was
suggested: "Primary landscape materials planted on the site
shall be those native trees, shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous
cover which provide food and cover for wildlife. For example,
Douglas-firs, Western red cedars, etc. "It was suggested
that in Condition #29 the word "pond" should be'inserted betwe-en
"existing" and "shoreline" on the first line. It was suggested
that the wording of Condition #38 be changed by deleting "a
qualified archaeologist shall be immediately dispatched to
systematically analyze the findings. All". All of the editorial
changes suggested were agreed upon by consensus. -
.
Condition #44 regarding the inn's manager being an EMT was
discussed. Tony Puma stated that the fire district had agreed
that the manager could be a first responder rather than an EMT.
Phil Andrus stated that he thought it was reaching a bit to put
such a condition on a shoreline permit. Mr. Andrus suggested
that the fire district should address the issue in their
discussions with the proponent.
Page - 13
Jim Pearson suggested a change in wording for Condition #44 to
read, "The inn's resident manager and all other on-site staff, as
a condition of employment, shall be trained in basic first aid
and CPR." Judith Walls moved to change the wording of Condition
#44 to that suggested by Jim Pearson. Cedric Lindsay seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Cedric Lindsay moved that Condition #47 be deleted as redundant.
Phil Andrus seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Judith Walls commented on the traffic flow and the road widths.
Jim Pearson stated that the roads must be approved by the Public
Works Department. Cedric Lindsay stated that if the roads will
accommodate Greyhound busses and will satisfy the fire district,
then the roads should be adequate.
Linda Clifton stated that the permit was for a massive
conditional use. Ms. Clifton wanted tb make clear for the record
that it was for a particularly uniqu~urban designation, even
though there was residential development involved also. Ms.
Clifton stated that the project was not the typical urban mix of
items. Ms. Clifton wanted to make clear that the commission did
not go through the conditional use criteria as would be the usual
case, nor did the commission scrutinize the permit with that care
for two reasons: (1) because of the public access that comes
along with the project, and (2) because the area is already a
residential development. Therefore, the permit application is
not at all the typical type of proposal in the conditional use
criteria; it was an anomaly. Lowell Bogart stated that he
thought it met the criteria for a conditional use. Phil Andrus
stated that either directly or indirectly, the discussion of
public access had addressed the conditional use concern.
Dave Cunningham stated that is was important to the proponent
that the commission feel comfortable with the conditional use
when the commission voted; and that if the commission made the
finding that the application met the conditional use criteria of
the Master Program, that the commission state something
affirmative to that effect.
Linda Clifton suggested that it was appropriate for the
commission to discuss and then vote whether the permit met the
conditional use criteria. The commissioners discussed the
criteria on Page 6 of the staff report regarding conditional
uses.
Phil Andrus moved that the five conditional use criteria had been
satisfied, most notably by the provision for public access on the
project. Mike Fleming seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
Phil Andrus moved that the commission adopt the Findings of Fact
as amended and find that it is consistent with the recommended
Page - 14
~
. '
conditions and by reference Section F, Conclusions of Law. Mike
Fleming seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Cedric Lindsay moved that the project be approved as conditioned.
Jennifer Stankus seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
C. ADJOURNMENT
Lowell Bogart opened nominations for commission officers. Cedric
Lindsay moved that Lowell Bogart and Linda Clifton be retained as
Chairman and Vice Chair. Phil Andrus seconded the nomination.
Jennifer Stankus suggested that the commission wait until the
next regular meeting to give time for consideration. Lowell
Bogart stated that the commission had been lax in the past about
electing its officers in March, which is called for in the By
Laws.
Mike Fleming stated that he would like to see staff begin
following the motions passed at the last meeting regarding staff
updates to the commission.
Lowell Bogart stated that his term ends in March, 1994, in any
case and a new Chairman would have to be elected at that time.
Judith Walls nominated Linda Clifton for Chair and Lowell Bogart
as..Vice Chair to assist in the "passing of the torch-~" Phil
Andrus seconded the nomination.
After further discussion, Phil Andrus moved that until September,
1993, Lowell Bogart be Chair and Linda Clifton be Vice Chair, and
in September they switch. Judith Walls seconded the motion.
The commission voted on the third motion. The motion carried 5-0
with Lowell Bogart and Linda Clifton abstaining.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
These minutes are approved this
day of May, 1993.
Lowell Bogart, Chairman
Cheryl Halvorson, Secretary
J ~/0~ ~ ~~~
Page _ 15 r'l~ -?7/:z3