Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReel_0079C MISC. ITEMS The INVOICE EDITS. STATEMENT POSTINGS. AGED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE REPORTS. ADJUSTMENT POSTINGS, CASH RECEIPTS POSTINGS. etc. are filed In the Solid Waste hanging file. The ADJUSTMENT EDIT is attached to the Statement thai was adjusted. The Receipts BookslCa$h, Register Tapes. that Skookum drops off with the Charges, are sent over the Mark Bumfield (Records). After the statements are completed. from the STATEMENT POSTING, enler the infonnallon Into the .Solld Waste Averages. spreadsheet (p:\PUBLlC\KAR!~JtSWAVG96.XLS) solid Waste Tonnages 1994 SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES - DECEmber 1994 Tip Fe. $110.00ITon TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE ERINNON STATION COYLE CLEARWATER TOTAL TONS DROP BOXES TOTALS Solid Waste 1994 REVENUE AND TONNAGES. NOVEMBER ,_ TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE STATION BRINNON COYLE CLEARWATER ]- . .. " .... f ,..;.: ~'. ",':' ., oJ . ..... ~ 5 :z: ~ :z:: f- :z: < :z:: f- er; , < , ~~j (..)~! ~~I SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES - OCTOBER 1994 TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE STATION BRINNON COYLE CLEARWATER TOTAL TONS DROP BOXES SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES- SEPTEMBER 1994 TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE BRINNON COYLE CLEARWATER TOTAL TONS: NO FEE TONS ;- STATION DROP BOXES RECYCLING PARKS/ROADS OTHER SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES-AUGUST 1994 TRANSFER HAllLOCK QUILCENE BRINNON STATION Solid Waste 1994 TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE DRINNON COYLE CLEARWATER TOTAL TONS: NO FEE TONS :- STATION DROP BOXES RECYCLING PARKSlROADS OTHER SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES- JUNE 1994 TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE BRINNON COYLE CLEARWATER TOTAL TONS :_ NO FEE TONS :_ STATION CROP BOXES RECYCL'NG PARKSlROAOS OTHER Solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES-MAY 1994 Solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES- April 1994 solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGED- MARCH 1994 TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE BRINNON COYLE CLEARWATER TOTAL TONS: NO FEE TONS :- STATION DROPBOXEB RECYCUNG PARKSIROADS OTHER solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES ~ FEBRUARY 1994 solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES - JANUARY 1994 TRANSFER HADLOCK QUILCENE BRINNON COYI.E CI.EARWATER TOTAL TONS :- NO FEE TONS :- STATION DROPBOXES RECYCUNG PARK ROADS OTHER 1994 Tpmmage Analysis JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 Total JEFFERSON COUNTY SOUD WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 VEHICLE COUNT 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 Landflll 8.018 7.1lll1 8.200 7.635 Hadlock 1.282 1.071 2.287 1._ Oullcene 788 1.017 1.062 714 Brlnnon - - 831 611 Coyle 164 180 233 161 Clearwater TOTAL e.811 11.814 13.813 10.678 1994 BOXES HAULED 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 Hadlock 13 12 12 11 Oullcene 8 18 14 8 Brlnnon 6 8 0 8 Coyle 2 2 2 1 Clearwat'llr 11 12 0 f4 TOTAL 38 150 4S "v;,'S' 1994 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED (OCC) (OP) Commercial (OOP) OlflC8 Sleel Alum. Cardboard NllWllPrlnt Aluminum TIn PETE Paper Glass Magazlnea Scrap Scrap 112 Milk Tetra MW Paper TOTAL Jan. 21:0 41.97 4,68 8.38 0.31 10.00 20.13 2.85 1.10 0.40 0,00 0.00 0.00 117.09 Fob. 30.59 38.20 3.27 6.63 0.31 5.76 21.68 11,46 0.20 0.37 0.25 0.00 0.00 115.69 Mar. 34.40 52,81 5.32 0.19 0.62 5.04 26.05 5.70 1.75 1.03 0,50 0.00 0.00 141.50 Apr. 2&,59 54.52 4.98 6.44 0,62 9.38 22.47 8.85 0,87 1.44 0.50 0.00 0.00 136.44 May 38.87 48.72 5.09 7.09 0.62 4.32 37.18 026.21 1.67 1.05 0.25 0,00 0.00 189.25 June 36.47 189.20 5,80 6.85 0.82 3.69 32.58 3.81 0.44 1.87 0.50 0.67 0.75 162.02 July 36,40 59.75 5.16 8.72 0.93 9,94 ~.35 - 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.50 (0,01) 23,38 178.41 ~.!l' 48.47 43.90 8,15 8.96 0.62 11,01 35.04 0.00 5.39 (0.33) 0.511 0,00 16.08 175.79 Sept. 51.81 68.03 8.00 8.40 1.24 (0.01) 42.84 9.27 0.00 0.17 0.50 0,68 14.45 201.18 Oct. 29,15 85.72 4,18 10.48> 0.31 10.13 24.07 18,411 0.00 0.11 D.26 0.00 1.27 1110,18 Nov. 38.02 88.115 8,58 ?l18 0.93 10,20 30.28 18.53 0.00 1.20 0.50 0.00 11.88 192.15 Dec. 32.50 72,02 3.98 9.96 0.62 9.13 31.17 16,00 3.83 1.00 0,76 0.68 9.49 189.91 TOTAL 430.63 675.48 81.29 82,04 7.75 88.57 35ll.58 114,72 15,2& 8.60 5.00 1.98 79.08 1,929.57 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 VEHICLE COUNT 0-1 0-2 0-3 landfill 8.018 7.8111 0.200 Hadlock 1.282 1,;71 2.287 OullclIne 7;8 1.017 1.062 Sr/nnon 459 840 831 Coyle 164 lS8 233 Clearwater TOTAL 0,011 11.814 13,013 1994 BOXES HAULED 0-1 0-2 0-3 Hadlock 13 12 12 Oullcene I 15 14 Srlnnon 5 I 0 Coyle 2 2 2 Clsarwater 11 12 0 TOTAL 30 50 4S 1994 RECYCCABLES COLLECTED Jefferson County Solid Waste Activity summary 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY Solid Waste ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 VEHICLE COUNT Q-1 Q-2 landfill 8,018 7.001 Hadlock 1.212 1.871 Qullcene 7Il8 1,017 Brlnnon 45ll ll48 Coyle 164 188 Clearwater TOTAL 0.011 11.814 1994 BOXES HAULED Q-l 0-2 Hadlock 13 12 Qullcene a 18 Brlnnon 5 8 Coylo 2 2 Clearwater 11 12 TOTAL 30 60 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED Jefferson COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 REVISED Jefferson COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 REVISED 1994 VEHICLE COUNT 0-1 0-2 landfill 0.818 7,0111 Hadlock 1,2&2 1,&71 Oullcene 798 1.017 Brlnnon 450 840 Coyle 184 18S Clearwaler TOTAL 0,811 11,814 1994 BOXES HAULED 0-1 0-2 Hadlock 13 12 Qullcene I 18 Brlnnon 6 8 Coyle 2 2 Clearwater 11 12 TOTAL 3lI 60 1994 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED JeFFERSON COUNTY SOLID Waste ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1994 Jefferson County Solid Waste Activity Summary 1994 .1994 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 ,JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASte ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID Waste ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 ... JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 Jefferson County Solid Waste Activity Summary 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WaSTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 , JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1994 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES 1996 TONNAGE ANALYSIS TONS ACROSS SCALE TONS NO. OF TONS NO. OF LOADS 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES SOLID WASTE REVENUE~ TRANSFER STATION 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES WASTE REVENUE ANO TONNAGES. October 1996 TRANSFER STATION HADLOCK QUIl.CENE BRINNON COYLE ClEARWATER TOTAL TONS DROP BOXES 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES TRANSFER STATION TOTAL TONS DROP BOXES Solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES .AUGUST1996 'TRANSFER STATION Solid WASTE REVENUE ANO TONNAGES JULY 1996 TRANSFER STATION SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES. JUNE 1996 TRANSFER STATION Solid WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES. MAY 1996 TRANSFER STATION SOUD WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES. APRIL 1996 TRANSFER STATION 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES. FEBRUARY 1996 SOLID WASTE REVENUE AND TONNAGES - JANUARY 1996 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES JEFFERSON COUNTY WASTE. ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 VEHICLE COUNT BOXES HAULED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES . JEFFERSON COUNTY WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 VEHICLE COUNT BOXES HAULED 1996 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED JEFFERSON COUNTY ~, WASTE. ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 Total REVENUE $ Transfer Staticn Hadlock aullcene Brinnon Coyle Clearwater Revenue Jan. l05,8n .88 2,595.56 1.887.01 1.311.31 319.77 0.00 111.99153 Feb. 08.007.38 2.814.15 1.630.14 1.608.32 319.00 0.00 105.278.99 Mar. 104.659.73 3.234.17 2.115.23 1.860.76 396.00 0.00 112.265.89 Apr. 108.353.46 2.409,12 1.751.31 1.916.08 412.88 0.00 114.842.85 May 119.61~.90 2.708.50 2.477.31 1.893.25 42724 . 0.00 127.119.20 June 118.311.35 3.724.57 2.741.73 2.397.75 529,64 0.00 127.705,D4 July 137.501.59 3.666.61 3.069.50 2.0<05.58 717.98 0.00 147.001.26 Aug. 139.061.57 3,524.37 2.sn.30 2.593.37 679.08 0.00 148,430.6g Sept. 119,763.30 3.302.69 2,120,81 2.269.42 477.22 0.00 127.93324 Oct. 122,174.76 2.850.35 1,487.00 1.796.n 44027 0.00 128,749.10 Nov. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dec. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,174.223.112 30,830.09 21,852.14 19.692.56 .tI,119.08 0.00 1,251.317.79 Total revenue for first quarter 199G 329,536.41 (01.95) 350,129.57 Total revenue fet second querter 199G 389.8157.09 (02.95) 384.964.43 Total revenue for third qu.rte, 1996 423.365.19 (03-95) 407.659.79 Totolrevenue for fourth quarto, 199G 128,749.10 (04.95) 348.164,46 Tol., Revenue Vee,'. O"el996 1.251.317.79 (Total.ri'S) 1,4110.918.25 >> 1996 Trona!e' TONS Slatlcn Hadlock Qullcene Brlnnon Coyle Clearwater Total Tons Jan. 057.13 10.45 11.59 12,18 0.00 15.37 1.015.72 Feb. 804.34 15.48 7.12 14.45 0.00 19.!lO 950.99 Mo,. 045.85 18.10 14.91 8.57 5.15 13.20 1.003.59 Apr. 982.58 17.00l 10.39 9.81 0.00 22.00 1.00l1.B2 May 1,085.02 12.82 2'.17 18.00 590 24.05 1,lM.97 Juno 1.073.33 18.38 13.22 7.98 0.00 11.28 1,122.20 July 1.241.30 12.80 21.09 '.,gg 595 19.12 1.315.34 Aug. 1,285.17 17.78 13.01 7.31 5.17 20.51 1.319.03 !l.!e!: 1.080.93 15.18 12.39 18.78 000 18.04 1,148.23 Oct. 1,103.77 10.14 11.40 8.81 8.03 28.15 1,181.80 Noy. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dec. 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 0.00 Total 10,810.22 114.21 10.30 11888 27.21 190.03 11,253.69 JEFFERSON COUNTY l WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 VEHICLE COUNT 1996 BOXES HAULED 1996 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED Solid Waste ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 REVENUE Jefferson County Activity Summary ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 VEHICLE COUNT 1996 BOXES HAULED 1996 RECYCLABLES COLlECTED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES . JEFFERSON COUNTY Solid Waste ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 VEHICLE COUNT BOXES HAULED 1998 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID Waste 1996 ACTIVITY SUMMARY JEFFERSON COUNTY Solid Waste - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES 1996 RECYCLABLEs COLLECTED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES JEFFERSON COUNTY Solid WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 RECyCLABLES COLLECTED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES .JEFFERSON COUNTY Solid WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES 1996 VEHICLE COUNT 1996 BOXES HAULED 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES 1996 RECYCLABLES COLLECTED .1996 REVENUE 1996 SOLID WASTE TONNAGES JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE . ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 VEHICLE COUNT 1996 BOXES HAULED 1996 RECYCLABLES Collected ~ JEFFERSON COUNTY Solid WASTE - ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 JEFFERSON COUNTY solid WASTE- ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1996 1996 VEHICLE COUNT 1996 BOXES HAULED 1996 RECYCLABLES Collected Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System Easement Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System United States Department of Agricu1ture Pacific Northwest Region P.O. Box 3623 Port1and, OR 97208-3623 333 S.W. First Avenue Port1and, OR 97204 Forest Service Rep1y To, 3610/1580 WAEC-94-026 Ext 2 DAte' October 17, 1996 Ms. Mary Baldridge Jefferson County Community Services P.O. Box 1220 ., Port Townsend, Washington 9B368 Dear Ms. Baldridge, We have received your request to extend the Community Water System Plan grant. number WAEC-94-026. It is understood the extension is needed due to unexpecr.ed delays in the bidding process. Dave Johnson, of the Quilcene Ranger Diotrict, has reviewed the request and recommends an extension until March 1, 1997. Your request has been approved and a revised grant application reflecting the new ending date is enclosed. Be aware that all other requirements and conditions of the original grant remain in full effect. Please closely monitor the grant since you are ultimately responsible for initiating extensions or any other revisions. To date, $9,570.73 has been requested of the original $25,000 grant award. Remember that payments are made on a reimbursable basis of actual incurred costs up to BO percent ($20,000). The final 20 percent ($5,000) will be reimbursed after all match requirements have been met and this office receives a final accomplishment report of the project and a completed Financial Status Report (SF-269n). Please continue to work with Dave Johnson on this grant. He can be reached at (360) 765-2221. The Cooperative Programs Staff in this office are also available if you need further assistance. Blank forms Blank forms OMU Approval No. 0348.01144 BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction Programs Blank forms Quilcene Water System Reimbursement Budget Worksheet Grant 10 REOUEST FOR ADVANCE OR REIMBURSEMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DETAILED EXPENDITURE REPORT BY BARS # & ELEMENT 12/31/76 Quilcene Water System United States Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 3623 Portland. OR 97208-3623 333 S.W. First Avanua Portland. OR 97204 Date: December 5, 1996 Dear Forest Service Grant Recipient: Please find enclosed a new regulation from the Treasury Department that states "all Federal payments made by an agency to a recipient...shall be made by electronic funds transfer." Federal Agency Disbursements Treasury Department Regulations Implementing the Debt Collection Imp'i'ovement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) . DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY . Fiscal Service 31 CFR. Part 208 PART 208 - FEDERAL AGENCY DISBURSEMENTS Monday, December 02, 1996 Chairman, Board of Comm P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 APPLICATION FOR . APPLICANT INFORMATION' JEFFERSON COUNTY SERVICES JEFFERSON COUNTY OF COMMISSIONERS FOR WEEK OF: September 23,1996 Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System Pump Service Quilcene Water System Ouilcene CommuniTy Well Quilcene Water System Quilcene Community Well 1996 Quilcene Water System Ouilcene Community Well Project. 1996 Quilcene Water System BID BOND Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System TELEPHONE QUOTATION Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System JEFFERSON COUNTY OF PUBLIC WORKS Att'n Mr, Dave Johnson United state & Forest Service P.O. Box 280 Quilcene, WA 98376 September 6, 1996 Dear Dave; Following up on our recent telephone conversation I am requesting a time extension of at least two monthi> on existing Grant WAEC-94-026. ihis Grant currently explre& on September 22, 1996. We have been workln(J on the proce!:>& and preparing the Project Manual (bid documents) which were relea&ed for blddln(J throuGh the Small Work& Biddln(J Proces&. Bid& are due on September 17. 1996 with the Intent to award on September 2:3. Our current work plan: ^ iran&fer of Water Right Permit ha& been applied for and letter of amendment Is attached for your U&e. ihl& Permit to drill and test a well has been extended untll Oct.ober 28. 1997. B. Bid Documents have been prepared and are out for bid with bids due on September 17, 1996. A copy of the bid document Is attached for your use. C. Bids are to be presented to the Board of County Comml&sioners with our recommendation for award on September 23. 1996. D. Contractor will then prepare !-he contract document&. Contract, Bond & Retalnage documenu. within ten days of n01;lce of Intent to award. Contract documents are propo&ed to be &Iened by Board of County Commlseloners on October 6,1996. Eo F. Contractor 1& to etart:. project With completion scheduled on or before October 25. 1996. Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System Prepare well log and as built. Coordinate drilling and testing. Set -up, start, check on pump test. Prepare well log and as built. Coordinate drilling and testing. 2. HydrogeologicCharacterization Review well logs Construct Cross Section Analyze pumping test data 3. Assess well yield and pumping impacts Review Neighboring Water Rights Perform Yield Analysis Assess Interference drawdowns Assess saltwater intrusion potential Draft, In -house review and final. . We. thank you for your time and consideration toward the requested time extension on Sincerely, Frank Hall Project Manager c.c: David Goldsmith Mary Daldridge QUlLCENE WATER SYSTEM STATUS REPORT AS OF JULY 9, 1996 FOREST SERVICE GRANT: This project has a $25,000 grant from the United States Forest Service, issued September 22, 1994. The grant has been re-defmed and extended once since its inception. It will expire on September 22, 1996, and we have been informed that it cannot be extended again. To date we have received $7,338.64 of grant funds, and have recently requested reimbursement of $2,232.09. This leaves available a balance of $15,430 (rounded). WATER RIGHT APPLICATION: On October 28, 1994 Jefferson County was granted a Preliminary Permit to Drill and Test a Well on property in Quilcene owned by Janet Reeves. We have been granted a one year extension of that permit. The permit will expire October 28, 1996. WELL SITE: In August 1994 this project was originated with the impetous of an emergency situation in Quilcene when benzene was found in several of the water wells in the community. However, the Quilcene Economic Strategy Plan had previously cited a community water system as vital to the economic growth of the community. Washington State Department of Health has determined that a good, reliable source of water for Quileene businesses would best be assured by a community system rather than additional individual wells. Therefore when the wells no longer tested positive for benzene, community leaders continued to work (through the County) to obtain a community water system. It was determined that a well site OUT of Quilcene. and not on private property. would be a better location. Since that decision, a location on County owned land in the area has been considered the most viable option. It is now in the hands of Public Works to identify a site that can be used to dig a test well. ADDITIONAL FUNDING: Because of its timber and fishin~ industry impacted status, Quilcene is a prime target for Federal Economic Recovery fundmg. Application has been made by the County through the W A-CERT process for grants (and/or loans) for a phased community water supply and distribution system. That application is presently on hold, awaiting the outcome of the project we now have in progress, The benchmarks that arc l'Cqulred in order to have a chance at additional funding are that 1) a well must be dug and the testing done as required to finalize the Water Right, and 2) all of the Forest Service Grant must be used before Its September 22 ending date. CURRENT CONCERN: We have only about 9 weeks remaining in which to finalize locating a site for the well; obtain a transfer of the Water Right to the new location; "SpeC". advertise, contract for, and have a well dug; and. have the required testing of water quality and quantity done. In order to accomplish our goals, we must have immediate approval by the County 011 a site, and a determination to step up the priority of all phases of the project. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAl. HISTORIC PORT TOWNSEND. ROBERT H. HINTON. DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTlNGFORD. DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOlT. DISTRICT 3 July 16. 1996 Sheri Carroll Wa State Dept of Ecology PO Box 47775 Olympia W A 98SQ4. 7775 RE: Water Right Application No. G2.2912O Dear Ms. Carroll: Jefferson County is hereby requesting permission to change the location of the well for the Preliminary Permit to Drill and Test a Well in conjunction with the above referenced Water Right Application. It has been determined by the participants in this project tllat a site owned by Jefferson County, and outside the developed area of Quilcene, would enable better well head protection than the parcel inside Quilcene proper. The replacement site being requested is identified as Tax Lot #702 231 010, Tax 3 (2.06 acres), Section 23, Township 27N, Range 2W in Jefferson County. The lejllll description of property on which water is to be used is .Community of Quilcene, involving Sections 11, 13, 14,23 and 24, of Township 27N, Range 2W In Jefferson County'. Jefferson County's interest In the property on which the water is to be used Is that it owns the well site and other parcels in the service area, Including a community center and a park. Because the US Forest Service grant to Jeffenon County that Is provldill& the funding for this project expires on September 22, 1996, It Is imperative that the well be dug before that date. We will sincerely appreciate anything you can do to expedite pennisslon to start drilling. It is my understanding that we will need to publish another notice In a qualified lepl newspaper in Jefferson County. Please FAX the required nutlce to my attention lit (360) 3859382. We respectfully ask that if you need anything more from the County In order to process this request, that you immediately call me at (360) :\85 7402, or David Goldsmith at (360) 385 9383. We thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Shirley Van Hoover Special Projects Coordinator o Recvcled Paper Summer Board Meetings August School Board Meet- ings will be held August 8 and 29. The publlc Is welr.ome at Chlmacum's School Board Meetings. Meetings will reGume their regular meeting schedule in September. Board meetings are nonnally held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month In the Elementary Li. brary. District Awarded $900,000 Grant Kevin Burke, natural resources teacher at Chimacum High School, facilitated a National5cience Foun- dation grant titled: "Enhanced Learning 1hrough Electronic Com- munities." Jefferson County, with Chimacum Schools as the lead agency, was one of five proposals awarded funding this summer to complete development of an imple- mentation plan. Planning activities will begin in August and wiU be directed at ex- panding student learning by estab- lishing electronic communication links between schools, public agen- cies and interested community groups. Water supply. watershed management. water quality monitor- ing. wastewater management and public policy on water issues are the targeted areas for the proposal. The plan for Jefferson County implementation needs 10 be com. pleted by January. Successful completion of this activity will bring a three-yesr, $900,000 grant to Jefferson County to make the vision a reality. "Our reading team was quite impressed with your proposal," stated Den- nis Small. educational telecommunications supervisor for the Officey o the Superintendent of Public Instruction. "We sre excited to see your vision ca ried out in the project." Thanks. Kevin, for facilitating a vision of enhanced student leamin an our community working togetherl We support your hard work to bnn~hese~ new resources to our schools and our county. The grant benefits II on County students and provides a new opportunity for our d wor together. Quilcene Water System JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend. Washington 98388 Phone (360) 385-9100' 1..s00.B31-2678' Fa (360) :JBS.93lI2 ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTlNGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 NOTICE MEETING CHANGE The Quilcene Community Well Project Status Meeting has been postponed until AUGUST 17, AT 2:00 PM. This is the meeting that was previously scheduled for August 3. We will meet in the large conference room on the basement level of the Courthouse. See you then (and there) ! I From: Shirley Van Hoover, 385-9143 Distribution: Linda Atkins Kurt Beckett Larry Fay Davkt Goldamith Frank Hall Colette Kostelec Dave Johnson Jim Olson Gary Phillips Gary Rowe CH2M HILL Port Townsend Office 617 Tyler Street Port Townsend, vilA 96366 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM Quilcene Water System FROM : # CH2M-PORT TOWNSEND Jun. 09 1995 09:58AM P2 Quilcene Community Well Water System Infrastructure A community well in Quilcenc wl11 involve several components. These include: a new well. water storage facUities. water tratlsmisslon facilities and water distribution facilities. TIle costs as&ocillted with such a water system are summarized on the attached table. The assumptions used in this cost analysis arc dcSCS'ibcd below. WRter nemAnd Water needs for the community of Quilcene have been calculated based on the zoning included in the Draft Quilcene Community Development Plan dated August 19,1994. For this analysis it is assumed that the community system will serve the followq zones: C-2, C- 3, M-2 and MC. Since Zones C-2 and C-3 allow residential development as well lllJ commercial development. it is assumed that one half of these zones will be commercial developmen1 and one half residential development at the maximum deusity a1lowod. A , maximum water use of 800 gallons per day for residential development was used based on the State Depal1ment of Health requirements. Water needs for commercial and manufacturing dCvelopmenlB are based on an analysis for Jefferson County on the Glen Cove Study Area (updated June I, 1995). WATER DEMAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Quilcene Water System MEMORANDUM Date: December 16, 1994 Colette Kostelec, CH2M Hill To: Gary Rowe Frank Hall Shirley Van Hoover Larry Fay Subject: Quilcene Community Test Well This is my update on the project for the week of December 12. DEc 19 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS On Tuesday December 13, we met with the State Department of Health, the Department of Ecology, the Economic Development Council and Jim Olson and Gary Phillips representing Quilcene. We went over the status of the project and issues to be resolved by the end of January 1995 as follows: CWSP Compliance - Larry Fay Fire Flow - David Goldsmith GMA Compliance - Gary Rowe/Larry Fay System Management - Larry Fay/BOCC/Gary Rowe/PUD Water System Plan - CH2M Hill Well Location - Frank Hall Wellhead Easement - Frank Hall/Larry Fay PDA/DOE Grant - Shirley Van Hoover/David Goldsmith Optional Well Location - CH2M Hill/Gary Phillips/Frank Hall On Friday, December 16, Frank Hall and I met Gary Phillips in Quilcene to discuss the project funher and look at alternative well locations. Frank and I also drove by the proposed well site which belongs to Janet Reeves. The issues regarding well location which we discussed can be summarized as follows: The Reeves site is good from a standpoint of being close to the sites which have been impacted by the contamination. However, as a condition to making her propeny available, she has said tllat she would like to hook up to the system later when she expands her trailer park. The state Depanment of Health requires all Group A water systems to implement a wellhead . protection program which includes identification of "time of travel" (TOT) zones around the welL The water purveyor is then required to inventory and notify potential contaminant sources within these zones. The County is currently evaluating a draft Critical Areas Ordinance which would regulate land uses within these TOT zones. One of the land uses regulated would be septic system density. If this ordinance is approved, it may prohibit Ms. Reeves expanding her trailer park with conventional septic systems. Therefore. I don't believe it is feasible to put a Group A system on her property under a lease agreement or easement. The problem with installing a Group A well somewhere else is essentially the same. The Quilcene Community Plan anticipates growth in the core section of town which would make wellhead protection areas similarly problematic. However. the County owns property south and west of the town which may be more appropriate to use from a wellhead protection standpoint. After discussions with Frank Hall and Gary Phillips. we agreed that we should proceed in the following manner: I will talk to DOE to try to get them to agree to let us set up a Group B system on Ms. Reeves property to serve only those connections impacted by the contamination (must be less than 10 connections). I will suggest that we would like to retain the 250 gpm water right by installing one or more wells on the County property to use as a Group A system to serve the Quilcene community. We would use the Group B well until such time as the Group A infrastructure is in place (within 3 years). I will argue that by installing the Group A well(s) now, it is appropriate to retain full water rights. If DOE agrees with this plan. an agreement will be set up between the County and Ms. Reeves whereby she will have first option on the Group B well after the Group A system is in place: otherwise. the well will be abandoned. The County and Quilcene will also need to negotiate an agreement regarding use of the County property for the Group A well site. However. the County will not be I'esponsible for the infrastructure to link the Group A well(s) to the community. The County will be responsible for managing the Group B system (possibly through an arrangement with the PUD) until the Group A system is in place or until a Quilcene Water District is set up or until an as yet undetermined time has elapsed. Quilcene will pursue formation of a Water District with the understanding that either a Water District or the PUD will manage the system. not the County. The benefits of pursuing this course are that: Quilcene retains their full requested water rights (from my understanding of what DOH said in our meeting on Tuesday they would support this position) the costs to set up the connections impacted by the contamination are reduced and the system can most likely be set up more quickly Ms. Reeves is more likely to agree to this arrangement than a Group P: well the Group A well(s) would be in a more protected environment tht: County does not make any conunitment to be responsible for running a Group A system DOH's concern about who would manage the system should be alleviated. The downside to this course of action is that the infrastructure for the Group A system will be significantly higher. However. additional funding can be pursued over the course of3 years which will allow more time to set up the Water District if that is the direction the Quilcene community decides to go. It may also be worth pursuing whether the value of the County property could be used towards matching funds from DOE. I have initiated talks witl1 DOE by leaving a detailed message with Jill Van Hulle in Olympia. Hopefully I will be able to discuss this more thoroughly with her next week. If DOE does not agree to this arrangement. the County could try to purchase the Reeves property and not make any commitment to Ms. Reeves regarding expansion of her trailer park. Alternatively. we could proceed with the Group B system on her property and give up claim on the 250 gpm water right and have Quilcene pursue a separate water right for a Group A system somewhere else. This process may be quite lengthy. but it may take Quilcene longer to set up their Water District and get the additional funding necessary to construct the required infrastructure than they think. The County could offer to help them pursue additional grants during that time. Please let me know if you have any comments on this plan. Apri~ 24, 1995 TO: FILE BY: VAN HOOVER QUILCENE WELL PROJEct This date talked to: Frank Hall: He will attempt to have the Agreement with Ms. Reeves signed by the time of our meeting on April 27. Colette: She will have a draft Water system Design ready for our April 27 meeting. Jim Olson: He will check with Gary P. about assistance in getting Ms. Reeves' signature on Agreement. April 25, 1995 TO: FILE BY: SHIRLEY VAN HOOVER QUILCENE WELL PROJECT I talked to: Steve Loftness, DOE: In re our request to have the DOE Remedial Action Grant signed so that we would have funding with which to continue preparing for the possibility of having to act quickly in August if contamination is again detected, steve acknowledged receiving Karl Johnson'S letter that supported our request, however, he said that DOE has decided to not do so. I asked for that decision in writing and that we have it by Thursday. He said he would FAX it to us. Karl Johnson, DOH: Karl returned my call of yesterday (placed before I received the copy of his letter to Steve Loftness), and J: told him of my call from Steve. Karl was dismayed at DOE decision and we discussed what the county might do to appeal that decision. When J: suggested that Ii visit to Olympia by a representative of the County might be an appropriate next step, Karl suggest that at least one County commissioner and our State Representative be included in the delegation. He gave me the name of Julia Woods all being Steve Loftness' superior, and possibly the person we would contact if we choose to appeal. Karl made the statement that DOE is likely to "have eqg on its face" regarding their decision when the probable reoccurance of contamination happens. lie recommended good documentation be maintained. cc: David G. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SOUTHWEST DRINKING WATER OPERATIONS 2411 Pacific Ave. . P.O. 80K 47823 . Oiympia. Washington 98504-7823 . (360) 664-0768 April 20. 1995 Mr. Steve Loftness Waste Management Grants Washington Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 Subject: Remedial Action Grant for Gasoline Contaminated Wells In Quilcene, Jefferson County Steve: As you are aware. Jefferson County has been working with DOE to develop a small community water system to serve several homes on private wells contaminated by gasoline in the community of Qullcene. After finding substantial contamination in several private wells on East Columbia Street in Quilcene last summer DOE committed toxics cleanup and explored using remedial action grant funds to getting impacted residents a clean water supply. Last fall a temporary water supply was set up for the area using a tank truck to haul water from the nearby US Forest Service water supply, I, I Recently two rounds of samples from the private wells have failed to detect gasoline contamination In any wells, The county is now concerned that funding for the water supply for these homes may be jeopardized by these results. Given the nature of ground water flow and hydrocarbon movement In ground water It Is very unlikely the gasoline contamination Is gone for good, It Is more likely that. with heavy winter rains and decreased use of the wells due to avallabllltv of clean water from the temporary supply, the contamination plume has simply shifted away from the wells, It is likely that with coming warmer weather and resumed use of the private wells the gasoline contamination will return. Without significant ground water Investigation it Is Impossible to know for sure where the contamination is now, but It Is unlikely that it Is gone. Steve Loftness April 20, 1995 Page Two The recent lack of contamination in the private wells should not be a cause to hesitate in funding this remediation project. The contamination is likely to return and when it does it would be prudent to be prepared to respond with a ready alternative water supply for the impacted parties. If you have any questions call me at (360) 753-2452. cc: Shirley Van Hoover, Jefferson County Department of Community Services Larry Fay, Jefferson County Environmental Health Mike Blum, DOE Toxlcs Quilcene Water System JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (206) 385-9160 Gary Rowe. RE.. Director/County Engineer Mre. Reeves P.O. Box 348 Qullcene. WA 98376 . March 14.1995 Sub; Qullcene Well Ref: Letter of agreement In exchan{le for the ri{jht to place the well on your property Jeffer60n County will a{jree to allow you as many as nine (9) residential hook-ups to this sYSten1 at the end of five (5) years. These hook-ups are to be allowed with no connection fa. Hook-up shall be in accordance with systen1 standards and all work 15 to be performed at your cost. These hook-up are no for resale and cannot; be sold to anyone else without the specific approval of the water system mana{lement. QUILCENE COMMUNITY WELL PROJECT SCHEDULE Auqust 1994 Quilcene Water System Mn:.. Reeves Subj: Qullcene Well Quilcene Water System Frank Hall c.c: David Goldsmith Shirley Van Hoover Gary Rowe: Quilcene Water System DATE: TO: FROM: SVBJ: March 3, 1995 Frank Hall Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98388 Phone (208) 3S5-81 00 . 1-800-&31-287S ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTlNGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 MEMORANDUM Shirley Van Hoover Quilcene Well Project Timeline Per our discussion yesterday, my understanding is that you will have a signed agreement with the Reeves' for the siting of the well by the end of next week (March 10) and that the specs for the well also will be substantially ready to send out for quoteslbids by that date. This will allow the drilling of th.e well to have a t2rget timing of the end of March, If this is not your understanding of our t:Onversation, or if delays occur that make this time1ine impossible, please inform me in writing so that we can all know what to tell interested parties. As I mentioned to you, the DCTED workshop I attended on March I, revealed the probable source of more funding for this project. However to be in a position to apply for other grants we should know how far our current funds will get us and what the next phase needs are. This requires getting further down the road of Implementation than we are now. Thank you, Frank, for your cooperation on this projectl MEMORANDUM Date: January 6, 1995 Colette Kostelec, CH2M Hill~ Gary Rowe Frank Hall Shirley Van Hoover ~.itly Larry Fay/Linda Atkins Subject Quilcene Community Test Well This is my update on the project for the week ending January 6. On Thursday January 5, Linda Atkins (Jefferson County Environmental Health Department) and I met Mark Henderson (DOE) in Quilcene. We discllssed the field investigations which have been done to date (soil gas investigation, groundwater sampling and testing) and walked around the areas which have been the focus of the investigations. The source of the contamination has not been confirmed, partly because there have been so many gasoline underground storage tanks in this area in the past. Also, there are probably several tanks which have not been identified that may still be in-place or have been removed sometime in the past. However, based on the current understanding of groundwater movement and the location of residences impacted by contamination, it appears that the likely source is the old Flying A station on the corner of Highway 101 and Columbia Street. Last week Linda visited the resident who called her because they thought they smelled gasoline in their well. Linda and the resident smelled the water and agreed that it smelled "musty" but not really like gasoline. Since the recent flooding with rising groundwater, it is likely that material was dislodged from the well and affected the smell of the water. Linda's next round of groundwater sampling is scheduled for the second week of February. Mark Henderson thought that DOE money would be available to expand the sampling to include the residences which have detected the contamination in the past. Mark will be coordinating with Belle Fuchs (DOE) and Linda regarding the sampling and analysis. After we have tile results of the sampling, it may be appropriate to hold a community meeting to present the results and to discuss the proposed approach. This meeting would probably be held in mid- to late-February. The proposed approach presented in the meeting will depend on the results of the sampling and the discussions with Ms. Reeves regarding use of her property. If the results of the sampling indicate that there is still contamination and that the number of houses impacted is still less than ten, we should propose a Group B well to serve just the residences with contamination. If the results indicate no contamination present, we have to reevaluate the need to move forward with a well; in that case, it may be more appropriate to continue groundwater monitoring and not spend the money on a well immediately. Discussions with Ms. Reeves (which I understand from Frank Hall are being dealt with by Gary Phillips) should ensure that she understands that a Group B well on her site would not currently allow her to hook up to it - the well would be reserved for contaminated residences. However, in the future, if the well were no longer needed, she would have an option for taking over the well. Alternatively, if the well were to be converted to a Group A system due to number of connections which need to be hooked up to it she would then have the option of hooking up to it also. In this case, she would have to be clear on the implications for a Group A well on her property. If Ms. Reeves is not comfortable with her property being used for a Group B well with these limitations, we ~ed to immediately begin to look for a new well site. Hopefully we will be able to present a plan at the community meeting, either with Ms. Reeves property still used or another site identified. I have requested more Group B guidelines from Washington DOH, and will be pursuing design of the well based on Group B requirements. Please call me if you have any questions (385-2413). cc: Jim Olson, Gary Phillips MEMORANDUM From: December 30, 1994 Colette Kostelec, CH2M Hill~ Gary Rowe Frank Hall Shirley Van Hoover Subject: Quilcene Community Test Well This is my update on the project for the week ending December 30. On Tuesday, December 27, I received a call from Linda Atkins of the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department. She said that she had just received a call from a resident of Quilcene who lives across Highway 101 from the other residences which have groundwater contamination; I don't know this person's name or address. He told her that he can now smell gasoline in the water coming out of his well. This is a location that to-date has been considered upgradient of the contamination. Linda told me that she has been doing quarterly monitoring of downgradient wells since the problem was discovered; however. she has never detected anything. She has set up a meeting with Mark Henderson of DOE for Thursday, January 5 in Quilcene to visit this residence and to try to visit some of the residences which were previously identified as having contamination. Linda said that she has talked to Belle Fuchs of DOE regarding further groundwater sampling and testing but that Belle seemed to think we should go ahead with well installation and do more sampling later. I think this conversation took place prior to Linda receiving the call from the Qullcene resident. It is my strong belief that more sampling and testing Is needed to more accurately identify tbe source and extent of the contamination and the direction of groundwater movement prior to installation of any groundwater wells. I will be joining Linda and Mark Henderson for their field trip to Quilcene on January 5. MEMORANDUM Date: December 23, 1994 Colette Kostelec, CH2M Hill ~~ Gary Rowe Frank Hall Shirley Van Hoover DlividGoldsmith Larry Fay From: To: Subject: Quilcene Community Test Well This is my update on the project for the week of December 23. On Monday, December 19 I spoke with Jill Van Hulle from the Department of Ecology. I explained the issues which have been discussed recently regarding a Group A vs. Group B well at the site proposed in the water right application to DOE. I brought up the idea which has come up recently (see last week's memo), i.e. installing a Group B well at the Reeves property (only for the residences impacted by the contamination) and a Group A (community well) on property outside of the area identified for future development by the community. Ms. Van Hulle said that she thought the idea made a lot of sense and that DOE always assumed that there would be phased development of a water right. She said that a second application should be filed for the community well. . , I told her that one of the concerns was that the community would be losing a 250 gpm water right if they went with the Group B system initially and that their application for another water right would put them at the bottom of the water right application pile. Ms. Van Hulle explained that Quilcene will not be giving up anything by following this approach. A water right has not been formally issued by DOE. In ternls of priority of water rights applications, she explained that priority is given as follow (from highest to lowest priority): I) public health emergencies 2) shon-term uses 3) changed applications 4) new appropriations a: implement regulatory plan b: publicly financed projects c: drought-related d: beneficial, non-consumptive e: major regional economic development f: all others She said that an application by Quilcene for a community well would most likely fall within category 4a (based on implementation of the Dungeness/Quilcene Plan). Therefore it would be given some higher level of priority. Of course, she was unable to commit to any tirneframe for issuance of a water right. Based on our meeting with DOH two weeks ago, it is my understanding that DOH would support a community well for Quilcene. A letter of support from DOH should be attached to an application to DOE; hopefully this would help to speed up the process. Ms. Van Hulle also said that although DOE doesn't look at things in terms of Group A/Group B systems, if we wanted to make amendments to the proposed testing requirements for the new well (since it would be serving a smaller group of people) I should discuss any changes with Kirk Sinclair of DOE and then send them a letter proposing such changes. ' DOE would then re-issue the preliminary permit. I believe that the most important matter to resolve at this point is whether the area impacted by the contamination results in 10 connections or less needing to be hooked up to the emergency well. If there are more than 10 connections, we are looking at a Group A well and therefore need to decide whether to go ahead with the Reeves property for that system. D My understanding was that Larry Fay was going to try to arrange another round of groundwater sampling and analysis. Based on the results of that testing, we should be able to confinn whether a Group B system is feasible. Meanwhile, I will be reviewing DOH requirements for Group B wells and discussing with Kirk Sinclair a reduced testing schedule. On Thursday evening I attended the Open House in Quilcene that was arranged by the Jefferson County Planning Department at which the Board of County Commissioners heard comments by the Quilcene community. I was surprised that the issues of water and a community system and the groundwater contamination were not raised during the two hour meeting except once when Richard Wojt said that you only have to look up the road a mile to see why we need to protect our groundwater [through an aquifer protection ordinance). I had expected the water issue to be more on the minds of the community than it was. Please call me if you have any questions (38S-2413). cc: Jim Olson Gary Phillips Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System TO: Qui~ Water Group FROM: David Goldsmith, Director of community services SUBJECT: Meeting Agenda December ~3, 1994 Update on Emergency System ~ Larger System Components III. Funding options IV. Management options V. Next steps (who, what, when) Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System December 13, 1994 TO: Quil Water Group FROM: David Goldsmith, Director of community Services SUBJECT: Meeting Agenda Update on Emergency System 15 min II. Larger System components ~......... 15 min III. Funding options . 30 min IV. Management options 15 min v. Next Steps (who, what, when) August 1994 QUILCENE COMMUNITY WELL PROJECT SCHEDULE October 1994 1 Quil Well Gr(FS) Prelim-Applicati- on Prep , 11:30am Quil Well Gr(FS) Applicat- , ion Appr/BOCC 2 Quil Well Gr(FS) Prelim-Applicati- on Prep 3 Quil Well,EDA money avail for Fire 3 Quil Well Gr(FS) Prelim-Applicati-Flowstudy on Prep ~ Quil, Well site Applic (HD) needed Quil Well Gr(FS) Prelim-App FAXed ~~Quil Well CWSP compliance resolut- 5 Quil.Well Gr(FS) Prelim-App Deadl~-~~ ion needed 1ne ,~ 1:30pm Quil Well Mtg(Olson,DavG, 8 Quil Well Gr(FS) Application V Rowe,SVH) :":unsideration .. ':)'.11J Wp1, 'i Hyclr..geolocrist r.onsult/ 9 Quil Well Gr(FS) Tentative Approv- GaryR al 15 2:00pm Quil Well Mtg w/CH2MHill 11 10:00am Quil Well Gr(FS) Mtg w/K 16 Quil Well Wtr Rgts Notice publish- Denison ed 15 Quil Well Briefing to DavG 23 Quil Well Wtr Rgts Notice Publish- 17 Quil Well (DOE)Letter/lnstruct ed Received 28 2:00pm Quil Well Mtg w/CH2MHill Quil Well Water Rights Applic(DOE) Needed Quil Well Gr(DOE) Application Needed 3:00pm Quil Well Discussion w/ BOCC 24 Quil Well Gr(FS) App mailed to K Denison 30 Quil Well Gr(FS) Application DEADLINE 22 28 Quil Well Wtr Rgts for test well approved November 1994 December 1994 13 10:00am Quil Well Mtg w/DOH,CTED, FHA,HD,etal' January 1995 4 Quil Well EDA money applneeded September 1994 6 Quil Well Water Rights(DOE) Applic Appr by BOCC Quil Well Gr(DOE) Application Appr by BOCC 8 Quil Well Gr(DOE) App mailed 19 Quil Well wtr Rgts Appl to Olson for Reeves Sign Quil Well Gr(FS) Award signed 21 Quil Well Wtr Rgts Support Letter fr WSDOH Rec'd Quil Well Agreement w/Reeve. ne.ded 27 Quil Well Wtr Rgts Appl returned I. fr Reeves . . 28 Quil Well Wtr Rgts Application mailed/DOE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 . Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 . (206) 407-6300 November 29, 1994 Ms Colette Kostelec CH2MHiIl 617 Tyler Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 JEFfERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RE: Quilcene Ground Water Contamination and Miscellaneous Ecology Documents Dear Ms Kostelec: This letter is to transmit to you various Department of Ecology documents regarding gasoline contaminated ground water in Quilcene. I selected these items to give you some background on the area/problem and to get you some of the data and inspection report.'1, even though some of them are still draft documents. 1 also wanted to let you know that Mark Henderson, who works with me, will be taking over as the site manager. Mark's telephone number is (206) 407-6263. Enclosed with this letter are the following: I. An Ecology fact sheet from March 1994, which was hand delivered to area residents and posted on the bulletin board outside the post office. (The contamination was first reported to Ecology March I, 1994.) 2. Hand drawn map showing appro,omate location of homes, USTs, homes sampled by the Washington State Department ofHea1th (WDOH) and Jefferson County Health, Department (ICHD), well depthi, etc. there were five homes exceeding the drinking water standard for benzene (the black boxes on the enclosed map). 1 do not have a copy of the sample results. You will need to contact either BeDe Fuchs with WDOH at (206) 586-5179 or Linda AtIcins with ICHD at (206) 385- 9444 and ask them for a copy of the private weD samplings that have been done. 1 will briefly describe the USTs in the key to enclosure #1 S. Site Assessment report by Harold's Petroleum for the L&L Village Store. I personally suspect the Village Store as the source of the gasoline, but I currently do not have enough credible evidence to be sure. The site assessment report certainly shows otherwise (i.e. the site is almost spotless), if one believes the report. Colette Kostelec November 29,1994 Page 2 4. A "Health Consult" done by WDOH. As stated in the Health Consult, the benzene concentrations at that time ranged from 1.1 ppb to 1,630 ppb. In two of the domestic wells, the tap water smelled like gasoline. I will point those out on enclosure #15. 5. A "working draft" map of the soil gas survey results. The soil gas survey was done by Ecology's Environmental Investigations and Lab Services Program. The field analytical work was done by Pam Marti who can be reached at (206) 407- 6768. We used a hand driven probe to a depth of about 4.5 feet, collected soil gas samples in tedlar bags, and analyzed the gas samples using a Photovac Portable Gas Chromatograph, which was set up in our field trailer. Forty (40) locations were sampled over a four day period. At locations # 17 and #31, the chromatograph looked the most like gasoline; however, location #18 had the highest concentration (40,000 ppm) with most of the contaminants "showing up early" on the chromatogram. 6. Survey results, top of pipe and depth to water, for 4 of6 piezometers installed in the area. The piezometers were installed by me with the assistance of lefFMonroe and his brother. lefflives in one of the houses whose' weD was heavily contaminated. We used his Bobcat machine which had a post hole auguring attachment on it. We could drill to a maximum depth of about 10 feet below grade, ifwe first dug a small trench into which he drove the Bobcat. These temporary piezometers were constructed with scrap PVC pipe, hacksaw cut slots in the bottom four feet, and the holes backfilled with the soil removed during the auguring. leffMonroe did the surveying with his laser level and used Ecology's e- tape to measure the depth to ground water from the top of pipe. (leffis a great person who has done a lot of work to assist Ecology and his neighbors in tenns of temporary water supplies, water lines, etc. He also has a house moving business and has lots of heavy equipment as well as the laser level. On the back of enclosure #6 are the piezometer locations. Soil types varied at each location: Piezo #1 - few rocks, mostly sand and silts, very strong gasoline odol'S Piezo #2 - No rocks, all sand and silts, no odors Piezo #3 -like #1, however no odors Piezo #4 - lots of small gravels, no odon Pieza #5 .Iilce #1, including very strong gasoline odors Piezo #6 -lots of gravel (cobbles), no discernible odors The piezometers were not installed by a licensed well driller and they went dry about one month after they were installed, due to dropping water levels. Ground water samples were collected from the open holes at Piezo locations #1 and NS, prior to the installation of the PVC pipe. See enclosures 7,8.9, and 14 for lab results. Visual observation showed droplets of product at both locations. #7. Lab results for lead analyses. No lead detected above 20 ppb. . c' - - · 'J - :> I. I .. . . ."", Ii .-. W I I Colette Kostelec November 29,1994 Page 3 #8. Lab results for gasoline analysis (WTPH-G). About 160 ppm of gasoline in the two ground water samples. #9. Lab results for BETX analyses. Sample # 94258001 is from piezometer location # 5, same vicinity as soil gas sample location #21. Sample # 94258000 is from piezometer location #1, same vicinity as soil gas sample location # 18. High soil gas concentrations along with high WTPH-G and BETX concentrations as well as visual and olfactory confinnation of same. #10. Letter to Karl Denison with the USFS. Some background #11. A water table contour map drawn/interpreted using four data points . (piezometers). The water level data was gathered in 1uly 1994.. The "pink" highlighted lines are the accurate ones. The "green" lines were drawn using an incorrect piezometer location. The location marked as "well siter' was where we thought we might locate a community well, large enough to serve only the immediate area, not a large volume production well. That location was later . rejected because a well in the middle could not meet the required 100 foot setback from roads, adjacent buildings, etc. A 200-foot diameter circle would not fit on that triangular piece ofpropeny. 1#12. The same water table map as #11, but prior to it being corrected. As noted on the bottom comer, this map was handed out at a public meeting and the overhead used was corrected at the same meeting and was presented. Ed DuPont owns two properties in the immediate area, which have rentals houses on them. See enclosure I#IS for more details. 1# I J, Community newsletter mailed to area residents and interested individuals. The distribution list for the newsletter is on the back page. I had agreed at a community meeting to send out newsletters a., a way to keep the neighbors Infolmed, 1#14. The corrected lab data sheet for WTPH.G, changing the ground water results from ulJ/l to msll. 1# 15. The .area map with an attached key to all the numbers and letters. Hope all lthese enelo.ures are helplUl to you. If! come across other useful infonnation, I will certainly pall It on to you. I felt these enclosures and the explanations would be more useful than the standard inspection report. As we discussed, the piezometers are not useful II "quality" manilorina stations (I.e" for pump test data gathering, etc. ), due to their method of construction, Ecology might installlOme other piezometers (replacement and/or new onos) In the near future, II well u possibly monitor wells. We will discuss it with you prior to Initiating that type of work. Colette Kostelec November29,1994 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures. please give me a telephone call at (206) 407-6262. I am in the process oftransitioning this project to Mark Henderson, as it deserves more time than 1 am able to give it, due to ~ther workload. Mark's telephone number is '(206).407-6263. Sincerely, Mike Blum Southwest Regional Office Toxics Cleanup Program. Enclosures cc: Shirley Van Hoover, Jeft"erson County (w/o Cl!Ic1osurea) Larry Fay, Jefferson County Health Department (w/o enclosures) Km:1 Johnson, Wuhington State Department ofHea1th (w/o encloisures) MarIe Henderson, Ecology FROM =-.~--~ _._--_._-~---------_.- JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. BOX 1220 PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON 98368 (20&) 385-11100 Quilcene Water System PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION NORTHWEST ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT INITIATIVE PROGRAM PROPOSAL JUNE I, 1994 - MAY 31,1995 BACKGROUND The timber communities of the North Olympic Peninsula in Clallam and Jefferson counties are'some of the most heavily impacted in the western state. Clallam County as a whole has been designated timber impacted, as have the communities of Quilcene, Queets and Clearwater in Jefferson County.. The regional economy is heavily dependent upon the forest products industry including logging, primary products manufacturing (lumber, shingles, etc.), log exports, and pulp and paper production. These industries have been negatively impacted by the reduction in timber supply due to resource depletion and restrictions on logging to protect the endangered spotted owl. The harvest from the four tributary counties has declined from 861 million board feet (mmbf) to 621 mmbf during the period 1990 to 1992. Over 16,000 primary jobs have been lost throughout Washington. Secondary impacts have been felt throughout the economy. Business closures in support industries such as machinery repair and supply are frequent. Retail sales have lagged and governmental revenues declined. In recognition of the impacts of timber supply restrictions, the federal government designated the North Olympic Peninsula as timber impacted under the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAl). This allowed access to timber relief programs through a variety of federal agencies such as the Department of Commerce, U.S. Forest Service, and Department of Labor, among others. Programs can be used for infrastructure development, worker retraining, and technical assistance. . The communities and local governments of the North Olympic Peninsula have been involved "with planning efforts aimed at economic diversification for the past decade. These activities were re-doubled with the downturn in the forest products indUStry. Local governments focused on infrastructure development to support value-added industries and diversification beyond natural resource based businesses. The rural communities and smaller unincorporated communities conducted strategic assessments and economic development strategies with the support of the Peninsula Development Association (PDA), the bi-county lIt should be noted that while Queets and Clearwater are specific communities in western Jefferson County, it is assumed that the designation applies to the entire westernmost coastal region of the county. peninsula Development Association Northwest Economic Adjustment Inili~tive April 28, 1994 Page I federally recognized Economic Development District (EDD) that includes Clallam and Jefferson counties. Critical assistance was also provided by the Washington Department of Community Development. This preplanning enabled the District to apply for a large amount of assistance during the first round of the NEAl with over 25 projects requesting in excess of $69 million in federal assistance. Requests ranged from infrastructure development at the Forks Industrial Park to worker retraining. Over 15 jurisdiction requested assistance, including local government, educational institutions and Tribes. NEED FOR CONTINUED PLANNING While most of the funding requests are for worthwhile projects supporting true economic diversification, the applications demonstrated weaknesses. These included: 1) a lack of inter-jurisdictional coordination and prioritization of projects 2) projects that were not fully developed and lacked basic feasibility studies 3) a lack of participation by all jurisdictions due to a lack of basic economic development and conununity planning. A portion of these weaknesses are due to the short time frame for the initial requests for assistance. Some projects were prematurely proposed or proposed in advance of necessary technical studies. Second, many jurisdictions lack the internal capacity to properly plan and implement diversification strategies. The resources of bodies such as the PDA, local governments, and the state were inadequate to meet the spike in demand for services. Third, the tight time frame prevented local jurisdictions from completing a prioritization of projects from the District. It is recognized that there is a necessary step that needs to be completed if the beneficial impacts of the NEAl are to be achieved. The NEAl is a three year effott. Projects are still being developed to diversify the economy . of the region. Local jurisdictions will need continued assistance if these projects are to, be 'successful. Last, jurisdictions often lack the support and expertise to guide tbe implementation of projects using federal funds with accompanying their complex regulations. If the NEAl is to be truly successful, support and assistance will have to be available. Peninsula Development Association Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative April 28, 1994 Page 2 PROGRAM PROPOSAL The PDA proposes to assist the eligible jurisdictions of the Clallam and Jefferson counties with the implementation of the NEAL Service to be provided include coordination, direct technical assistance, technical analysis of proposals and proposal/project development. Specifically, the PDA proposes to provide the following services: 1) Coordination, including prioritization of all proposals submitted by jurisdictions within the District; 2) Direct technical assistance to jurisdictions with refining and further development of proposals previously submitted through the NEAl; 3) Direct technical assistance to jurisdictions with the development of programs and proposals for potential submission through the NEAl; 4) Direct technical assistance :ind support with the implementation of projects that have received funding through the NEAl; 5) Planning support to communities preparing strategic plans and assessments in preparation for the NEAl assistance. To undertake these efforts, the PDA requires additional capacity beyond that fully employed in the nonnal economic development planning efforts. The PDA has a current staff of three professional and two support staff providing direct services to Clallam and Jefferson counties. The PDA proposes to add the following staff and support services to undertake the above effort: NEAl Program Manager: The Program Manager would be responsible for undertaking all of the outlined program elements including direct technical assistance. The Program Manager would be assisted by the Executive Directors of the Clallam and Jefferson Counties' Economic Development Councils, who also serve as staff to the PDA. . Administrative Assistant: An Administrative Assistant (112 time) would be responsible for administration of grants and contracts associated with the NEAl and directly support the activities of the Program Manager. Program planning, meeting scheduling, and project coordination services would be provided. The proposed would expand an existing 1/2 time position within the PDA. FEDSC SUlmort: The PDA would contract for part-time administrative support for the Forks Economic Development Steering Committee (FEDSC). FEDSC is administering for the City of Forks the construction contracting for a major industrial park funded by the NEAL The organization currently lacks the capacity to oversee project implementation and conduct planning activities to ensure full development of the Park, The administrative support would free staff resources to fully realize the Park's potential. Peninsula Development Association Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative April 28, 1994 Page 3 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The PDA will contract for specific project development services in support of new initiatives and to further plan exi~ting NEAl proposals. Such planning will include market analyses. business planning and brief feasibility analyses. . It is projected that assistance will be provided to the City of Port Angeles for a target market analysis of industrial land use and marketing and to Quilcene for completion of their strategic assessment. Secretarial SUDDort: The PDA will require additional part-time temporary secretarial support servi~es for the preparation of reports and documents involved with this effort. The PDA proposes that project oversight will be by the FDA Executive Director and the PDA Board of Directors. The program period would be from June 1. 1994 to May 31. 1995. Peninsula Development Association Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative April 28. 1994 Page 4 Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System MEMORANDUM DATE; November 18, 1994 Shirley Quilcene Well Protection Attached is the requested information for preparation of docu- ment to protect a well site. Linda A. tells me that in this case we need the Restrictive Covenant from Janet Reeves (and any other properties that may fall within the 100' radius). We need the specific location of the well determined and MAPPED. That is needed to ascertain whether anybody else's property is affected as well as to be incorporated into the Covenant. The "well location map" is also required as an attachment to the Health Department's Site Inspection Application. It appears to me, that along with the Covenant, we need an agreement with Ms. Reeves that formalizes the verbal understand- ing of water hook-up for her (delayed to appropriate time) in exchange for the Covenant and for an easement for ingress and egress to well. Well location map (from CH2M Hill?) Legal description for easement (" ") .' Agreement w/J. Reeves Restrictive Covenant Easement Site Inspection Application COVENANTS FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION Office Of Environmental Health Programs 11-87 COVEHAHTS USBD FOR PUBLiC WATeR SUPPLY PROTeCTiON Washington State Drinkinq Water Regulations include requirements to protect public drinkinq water sources (WAC 248-54-125). The regulations require that wells and sprinqs be surrounded by an area of sanitary control. The area of sanitary control is the area in which activities that could contaminate the drinkinq water source are not allowed. Accordinq to the regulations, a purveyor (the person owninq or operating a public water system) must provide an area of sanitary control for a radius of 100 feet for wells and 200 feet for springs. These distances may be modified by the Department of Social and Health Services CDSHS) based on an evaluation of qeological conditions and other factors. Covenants are the leqal tools used by purveyors to assure that no source of contamination will be constructed, stored, disposed ot, or applied within the sanitary control area. The purpose of this handout is to: * Explain what covenants are. * Explain the types of covenants used to protect pUblic water sources. * Help purveyors complete the leqal forms to record covenants. WHAT :rS A COVEHMIT? A covenant is a written promise, aqreement, or restriction. When applied to public water systems, a covenant i. a recorded agreement which states that certain activities and/or practice. will not be allowed to occur near a particular water source. A. explained previously, limitinq the.e activities ia intended to prevent the water source from becominq contaminatod. It is the responsibility of the purveyor to: Declare or obtain a covenantsCs). Record the covenant in the recorda office in tho county where the property is located. Purveyors cannot rely upon the authority of .tate or local agencie. to exclUde potential .ource. of contamination in the sanitary control area. TYPES OF COVENANTS USED TO PROTECT PUBLIC WATER SOURCES Two types of covenants are used to protect public water sources. A DECLARATION OF COVENANT is used when the purveyor owns property within the sanitary control area. A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT is used when all or part of the property in the sanitary control area is owned by someone other than the purveyor. In some cases, both types of covenants may be'necessary to protect the water source. INSTRUCTIONS The instructions provided below should be used in conjunction with the attached sample covenants. The "sections" refer to the various portions of the covenants that need to be completed. The sections are noted on the attached example covenants. DECLARATION OF COVENANT IF YOU, THE PURVEYOR, OWN ALL OR PART OF THE AREA TO BE PROTECTED, you should fill out the enclosed form entitled Declaration of Covenant. The completed form should be recorded in the county where the property is located. See Attachment #1 for an example of a completed Declaration of Covenant. Sections A and B shown on Attachment #1 are explained below. aECTION A. In Section A, fill in the legal description of the property on which the water source is located. The description should be specific. Long or complex legal descriptions can be provided as an attachment filed with the covenant (see Attachment A). However, any attachments should be referenced in Section A of the Declaration of Covenant (example shown on Attachment #1). SECTION B. This section refers to the precise location of the drinking water source on the property described in Section A. We recommend that you prepare a map showing the location of the well or spring on the property. This map should be attached to the Doclaration of Covenant when it is recorded. Attachment A is an example of a map Showing the location of a well on a property. WHEN PORTIONS OF THE SANITARY. CONTROL AREA ARE OWNED AND CON"rROLLED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PURVEYOR,. the purveyor must obtain a Restrictive Covenant from that landowner. The purveyor mUse record the Restrictive Covenant 1n the county where the property i. located. The purveyor should have the owner of the adjacent property fill out the enclosed Restrictive Covenant form. See Attacmnent #2 for an example. sections C and D shown on Attachment #2 are explained below. SECTION C. This section refers to the property that is granting the restrictive covenant, i.e. the property neighboring or adjacent to the parcel where the water source is located. The legal description of the neighboring parcel should be written here. . SECTION D_ This section references the property where the water source is actually located. Both the description of the property and the water source's location on the property should be written here. The description should be specific. We recommend that a map be used to show the location of the source on the purveyor's property relative to the adjacent property. The map should be attached to the Restrictive Covenant when it is recorded. See Attachment A for an example. If you have any questions, please contact your DSHS drinking water operations office: Southwest Drinking Water Operations Kail Stop LO-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 753-5090 Northwest Drinking Water Operations 217 Pine, Suite 220 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 464-7670 Eastern Drinking Water Operations West 924 Sinto Spokane, Washington 99201 (509) 456-3115 This information was adapted from a handout developed by the Thurston county Health Department. November, 1987 Attachments Quilcene Water System ATTACHMENT "A" . JOHN DOE'S WATER SYSTEM LOCATION MAP Legal Description Lots 1 and 2 of Short Plat number 1234 as recorded in Volume 15 of Short Plat at pages 12 through 14, Auditors File No. 1234567, Records of ANY County, Washington. Quilcene Water System SECTION A SECTION B Quilcene Water System SECTION C SECTION 0 ATTACHMENT Quilcene Water System WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: EASEMENT THE GRANTOR(S), , for and in consideration of benefits to accrue, conveys and warrants to the GRANTEE(S) a perpetual easement for the following purposes: . The said easement covers the following described real property, shown on attached Exhibit A, situated in Jefferson County, State of Washington: LEGAL DESCRIPTION The easement granted herein shall be a covenant. running with the land, and shall be binding upon and the benefits shall inure to the heirs and assigns of the parties hereto. Witness my hand and official seal herelo affixed the day and year first above written.. Printed or Typed Name: Notary Public in and Cor the State of residing at MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Engineers Planners Economists Scientists November 21, 1994 Jefferson County Public Works Department 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 l'un Townsend. W A 98368 Attention: Gary Rowe Subject: Quilcene Water System You have requested that we develop a scope of work and estimate for assisting the county with installing a test well to provide water to the Quilcene residents who have contaminated wells. We have made several initial contacts with people who have been involved with this project and have begun gathering background infonnation, including well logs. There are several unknowns that make it difficult to fully scope this project at this time. For example, Larry Fay has suggested that there is no longer a gasoline smell in the existing wells and additional contamination testing should be done. Our investigations of existing well logs indicate that there are no ex:isting deep wells in the area; therefore, one or two monitoring wells would be needed to properly assess the perfonnance of the proposed test well. It has also been reported to us that a deep well at the proposed location would be expected to be high in chlorides. This factor also suggests that the existing well location should be assessed before we proceed fumer. Because of the uncertainties around this project, I propose that we work on a time and materials basis under an initial authorization of 55,000. Colette's time will be billed at $40 per hour. Other labor will be invoiced at CH2M HILL's standard billing rates, with expenses billed at cost. The terms of the contract wil\ be the same as those signed for the transfer station fire flow analysis. Tbe tasks Colette will undertake include: I. Make contacts with the DOH, DOE, County Health Department. 2. Collect and review project information, including well logs, site investigation reports, arid agency data. CH2M HILL JefferSon COUnty Public Works Department Page 2 November 21, 1994 Meet with Larry Fay, Gary Phillips, and other parties to confIrm the J!...~ect. ~ approach and get "buy-in" from all agencies. Visit the site to review the areas of contamination and the proposed location of the welL 4 Develop a work plan and approach for installing the test well, evaluation of the location. Determine the need for monitoring wells and propose a location. 6. Obtain preliminary costs for the installation. 7. Assist county staff in making agency contacts and preparing grant 'applications as may be needed. At the end of this initial effort we will have a fmal plan for proceeding with the installation of the test well and the estimated cost to do the work, including installation and engineering. We will then meet with you to review a scope of work before proceeding to the next step. We expect we can have this initial work completed within a couple of weeks. We realize there is an expectation that a well could be installed by the first of the year. Given the project unknowns this may be difficult to achieve; however, we are committed to expediting this as best we can. Given the short time frame for this project and the need to get water to the residents as soon as possible, we are 20m2 ahead and proceedinll: with this work___ Please conf'um that this is acceptable given the emergency nature of this situation, TItank you for considering us for this project. We look forward to again working with you. September 2, 1994 FOR: DAVID GOLDSMITH BY: SHIRLEY VAN HOOVER RE: REVIEW OF COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN: Satellite System Management Program 1. "PUD. . .has ability to provide services required by SSMA." The SSMA services could also be provided by a private ,corporation (if they meet certain criteria) 2. SSMA responsibility includes the prov1s10n of assistance to. . . newly formed utilities. The level of assistance will depend on the needs of the individual utilities and the ability of the SSMA to provide service in a cost effective manner. Direct Service. .. . assumption of responsibilities for development and operation of new systems located outside of the established service areas of existing utilities. The Direct Service element will integrate the design, approval, and review of ownership and operation responsibility for all new water systems into the pre-design phase of the new system, ~ SSMA will evaluate the incorDorati on of the orooosed svstems into its future construction and/or ooerations oroaram if the new svstem is not located within the desianated service area of an existina utilitv. 3. 4. THE DECISION BETWEEN THE PROVISION OF SATELLITE WATER SERVICE TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT BY THE SSMA, OR THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A NEI'l INDEPENDENT WATER UTILITY WILL BE PREDICATED ON THE ABILITY OF THE SSMA TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER, IF THE SSMA DETERMINES THAT PROVISION OF SATELLITE SERVICES IS COST- EFFECTIVE, THE APPROPRIATE SYSTEM DESIGN WOULD BE SPECIFIED AND THE SSMA WOULD ASSUME OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION RESPONSIBILITIES, IF THE SSMA DETERMINES THAT PROVISION OF SATELLITE SERVICES IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE, A NEW UTILITY COULD BE FORMED." Conclusion: It appears to me that the, requirement is that POD should be requested to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of their providing Direct Service assistance to the Quilcene Community Water System, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY August 11, 1994 Mr. Karl Denison United State Forest Service 1835 Black Lake Blvd SW Olympia, Washington 98502 RE: Proposed Public Water Supply Well in Quilcene, Jefferson County Dear Karl: This letter is to let you know a few facts about the Department of Ecology matching funds to the USFS grant funds and about the issue of a water right permit and that process. I realize that you (USFS) are riot applying for the Ecology grant or the water right, however I wanted you to know the process and the issues, In terms of Ecology grant funds, the money comes from the Local To,ocs Account. That account is a percentage of the tax collected on hazardous materials produced in Washington State, based on the Model Toxics Control Act, The money is not federal pass through monies, The Local Toxics Account is used to assist local governments in investigating and cleaning up hazardous waste sites where they have liability, such as landfills, port facilities, maintenance shops, etc. Those grant rcgulations havc bcen amendcd rcccntly expanding thc usc of the moncy to now spccifically include water supply systems. Thc Ecology contact pcrson regarding those grants and thc application proccss is Stcvc LoRness. Stcvc works in the Rcmcdial Action Grants office and I have spokcn with him recently about thc Quilccnc si~ation, so he is somewhat up to speed. Stcvc's tclcphonc numbcr in Olympia is 407-6060, I have also included a copy of the Remcdial Action Grant Guidclincs: 1993-1995 for your information, The drinking water scction can bc found on pages 15-19 and a grant application form is at thc back of thc guidelincs booklet. In terms ofthc water right permit, I spoke this morning with Jill Van HU,lIe with Ecology's Watcr Rights Program, Shc is the last remaining person in Ecology's Southwest Regional Watcr Resourccs Program who writcs pcrmits any more. Thc othcr permit staff wcre laid off due to lack of funding from the lcgislature, Anyhow, fan said that thc County should submit an application for a watcr right and at thc samc time also requcst a prcliminary permit to drin and tcst a . production wcll, Therc is a 30 day commcnt/protcst pcriod prior to issuing thc prcliminary pcrmit, The County should also gct a Ictter from Washington Statc Departmcnt of Hcalth stating that thcre is a public hcalth cmcrgcncy and that public watcr is crucial in that arca, espccially an immcdiatc need for the 12 or so homes who's wells are impacted or threatened by the gasoline contamination, Jill could thcn begin to process their permit application and if appropriate, give Karl Denison August 11, 1994 Page 2 them a temporllIY use permit, When it comes time for the full scale public water supply system, , then the water right permit would need to be acted upon, rill can give you or someone 'from . Jefferson County all the details. rill's telephone number in Olympia is 407-0274. I have included with this letter a water right permit application. Jill strongly recommended a cover letter along with the permit application exp1aining the public health threat and the need to act quickly, as that would help to move this permit towards the top of the pile. If you or anyone from Jefferson County have any questions regarding this letter, please give me. or Steve Loftness or rtll Van Hulle a call. My telephone number is 407-6262. Hope this is of help to you. Sincerely, Mike Blum Southwest Regional Office Toxies Cleanup Program To: "GOldsmith, From: Van_HoOver Subject: QUILCENE COMMUNITY WELL GRANT Date: 8/11/1994 Time: 3:29p David,~on your return, I would like a few minutes of your time to brief ~ubject grant and related project(s). My assistance was requested two weeks ago and things have progressed rapidly. I believe that you could very soon be caught up in some maneuvering and negotiation. I would like to provide you with a little heads-up info. Feel free to call me at home (385-7402) if you read this outside of my working hours. QUILCENE COMMUNITY WELL GRANT SCHEDULE August :1994 :1 Quil Well Gr Prelim-Application Prep 11:3 OamQuiJ,WeU' Gr, >AppHcatiOn , " "'~ppr/BOCC 2 Quil Well Gr Prelim-Application Prep 3 Quil Well Gr Prelim-Application Prep Quil Well Gr Prelim-App FAXed 5 Quil Well Gr Prelim-App Deadline 8 Quil Well Gr Application Consider- ation "'.i9 ;,QuHWen> Gr Tentative Approval, :1:1 :10:00am Quil Well Gr Mtg w/K Denison,Forest Serv :12 Quil Well Gr Water Rights Applic/ DOE Needed Quil Well Gr App to DOE Needed :15 Quil Well Gr Briefing to DavG 26 Quil Well Gr App to K Denison 30 Quil Well Gr Application DEADLINE MEMOR.ANDUM DATE : September 21, 1994 David PROM: shirley SUBJ: Quilcene Community Well Jim Olson raised a question today that r beleive is of legal nature and may need to be referred to Mark. Your opinion and/or referral is requested. Janet Reeves owns the property on which the proposed well will be located. The understanding (verbal at this point) with Janet Reeves is that she can hook into and be provided .water from the well. Jim's question is mUlti-pronged: Whether, when and how can this verbal agreement be formalized. Same day note: Per our verbal discussion of this matter it is .y understanding you will call Jim to discuss an MOU and the specifias of it. Thanks for your help. AGENDA QUILCENE COMMUNITY WELL PROJECT March 23, 1995 1. Introductions Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System AGENDA QUILCENE CoMMUNITY WELL PROJECT June 29, 1995 1.. Status reports: ~chedule for "August" testing Preparedness for emergency well (if needed) "Re-write of original Forest Service Grant pre-app to WA_Cert/prioritizationof Projects PDA Grant 2. Other Business Quilcene Community Well Water System Infrastructure A community well in Quilcene will involve several components. These include: a new well, water storage facilities, water transmission facilities and water distribution facilities. The costs associated with such a water system are summarized on the attached table. The assumptions used in this cost analysis are described below. Water Demand Water needs for the community of Quilcene have been calculated based on the zoning included in the Draft Quilcene Community Development Plan dated August 19. 1994. For this analysis it is assumed that the community system will serve the following zones: C-Z. C- 3, M-Z and MC. Since Zones C-2 and C-3 allow residential development as well as commercial development. it is assumed that three quaners of these zones will be commercial development and one quaner residential development at the maximum density allowed. A maximum water use of 800 gallons per day for residential d.:velopment was used based on the State Deparunent of Health requirements. Water needs for commercial and manufacturing developments are based on an analysis for Jefferson County on the Glen Cove Study Area (updated June I, 1995). Infrastructure Costs Costs for infrastructure have been split into three phases. Phase 1 will be development of a water supply (drilling a well), construction of water storage facilities, and placement of a transmission pipeline. Phase Z will be placement of distribution pipeline and fITe hydranu, Phase 3 will ultimately be extension of distribution pipelines in the outlying residential areas although costs have not been determined for this phase, The unit costs for these components were derived from "Tri-Area Water and Wastewater Systems Capital Facilities Requirements Analysis for Jefferson County", March 19. 1995 by Henderson, Young & Company. The proposed well site is assumed to be on the County propeny designated M2 on the western edge of the water system area (see attached map). Water storage needs arc based on Maximum Day Demand (MDD) plus fire flow plus Z5 % MDD for equalizing storage, Fire flow is based on 1500 gallons per minute for 2 hours based on the proposed changes to the county Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP). Water distribution pipeline is based on the assumption that 8" diameter' distribution pipes are spaced every 1000 feet along the transmission pipeline and are 1000 feet long. Fire hydrants are assumed every 600 feet along the distribution pipeline. A contingency of 20%. mobilization/demobilization of 15 %, sales tax of 8 % and engineering/design/legal! administrative markup of 30% are included. WATER DEMAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Quilcene Study Area ZONE TOTAL A V AILADLE UNITS/ACRE # UNITS # UNITS Average Day Maximum Day ACREAGE ACREAGE WATER-NEED AssumDtions: 30% unavailable-for roads 800 gallons/day/residential connection 1,400 gallons/day/acre commercial (average day) 4,200 gallons/day/acre commercial (maximum day) 400 gallons/day/acre manufacluring unit (average day) 1,200 gallons/day/acre manufacluring unit (maximum dayL- Zones C-2 and C-3 are one quarter residential/lItree quarters commercial Quilcene Water System INFRASTRUCTURE - PHASE 2 - Distribution within Service Area WATER DEMAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Quilcene Study Area Quilcene Water System Implementation Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Financial Assistance Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) Contact The Community Economic Revitalization Board provides loans or grants to fund public facilities projects that will result in specific private sector investment and permanent job opportunities, Available to: Municipal governments, port districts and special purpose utility districts, Traditional CERB Loan Parameters Uses Public Facilities including but not limited to sewer, water, access roads, bridges and improvements to state highways, Matching Requirements Maximum Amount No maximum Minimum Amount No minimum Interest Rate State Bond Rate Loan Parameters Uses Timber CERB Public infrastNcture which supports industrial or tourism development in 'timber dependent communities Matching Requirement. At least 1()oA, of the CERB loan request Maximum Loan Amount 5250,000 tourism projects 5500,000 industrial development projects Quilcene Water System Interest Rate State bond rate Applications Period Financial Assistance CERB Grants Economic impact or feasibility study grants can be made up to a maximum of$25,000. A minimum local matching of one doUar to one is required. Half of this match must be in cash. Rural Economic and CommunitY Development Financial Assistance Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants Contact John Brueger 509 664-2427 P.O. Box 2427 Wenatchee WA 98807 Grants or loans to provide financial assistance to construct, repair, improve, expand, or modifY water and waste disposal facilities in rural areas and towns up to 10,000 people. Also, pay necessary fees such as legal and engineering costs associated to development of facilities, Available to: Counties, Non-profit corporations, special purpose districts, tribes Loan Parameters Uses Funds provided to Counties for water and waste water disposal facilities, Priority is given to joint funding of projects. Matching Requirements None Required Maximum Loan Amount 40 year maximum loan, up to $16 million for loans and $8 mitlion for grants with up to 75% grant depending upon income, Minimum Loan Amount No minimum Interest Rate Interest rates depend upon ability to repay loan. Poverty rate is act at 4.5%, intennediate and market rate loans depend upon market rate at time of loan, Application Period Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development Financial Assistance Block Grant - General Purpose Contact Charmaine Stouder 360586-1243 906 Columbia Street SW P.Q, Box 48300 .olympia W A 98504 Available to: Cities (non entitlement) and counties(non entitlement), Grants and technical assistance for: water pollution control (domestic waste water and stonnwater), drinking water, roads, streets, and bridge projects Loan Parameters Uses Funds to cities (non-entitlement) and counties (non entitlement) for water and water pollution control projects, Matching Requirements Maximum Grant Amount 5500,000 per grant, Approximately 58 million available each year, Minimum Grant Amount ??????????/ Application Period Due December each year, .one application per funding cycle Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development Financial Assistance Community Economic Strategies Fund Contact Tina Cohen Provides resources to local and regional organizations for high priority economic development projects. Quilcene Water System Available to: Counties, cities, tribes, non-profit economic development organizations, ports, regional planning agencies, Loan Parameters Uses Feasibility studies and implementation of projects that have been identified in community action plans, Matching Requirements 25% in kind or cash. Maximum Amount Planning projects: Maximum $24,000 each or $40,000 for multiple jurisdictions, Implementation, start-up, or pilot projects: Maximum $75,000 each, Minimum Amount None Application Period Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development Financial Assistance Public Works Trust Fund Low interest loans to eligible communities to support local economic diversification lItrategies. Industrial, commercial, and tourism projects that will that will result in the broadening ofthe local tax base and creation of jobs for displaced timber workers are eligible, Available to: Counties, cities and districts, Loan Parameters Uses New or expanded infrastructure, Matching Requirements Non required Maximum Amount Up to $1.5 million Minimum Amount Quilcene Water System Interest Rate 0-3% with 5 year deferral on principal payments, 20 year term. Application Period 5 cycles during 1993-1995 biennium ($6.8 million pool) NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to access complementary funding (Timber CERB, EDA) as leverage. Technical Assistance Washington State Energy Office Assistance Energy Efficient Pumps and Motors Contact: Virginia Haas 360-956-2171 P,O. Box 43165 Olympia WA 98504.3165 Available to: All public entities Parameters Uses Technical Assistance only, Provide techica1 assistance and training throughout the year for energy efficient motors and pumping applications, as well as photovoltaic and wind applications, Evergreen Rural Water of Washington Quilcene Water System field sites, Education, operations and maintenance, rate structures, conservation and leak detection, assistance with financial applications, compliance issues, operator certification, state and federal regulations, dispute resolution. Unconditional and free of charge, Army Corps of Engineers Financial Assistance Partners for Environmental Progress Contact Steven Foster 206-764-3600 P.O, Box 3755 Seattle WA 98124-2255 Available to: Counties, Cities, Service Agencies, PUDs, Ports, Tribes LOan Parameters Uses Technical planning assistance to local governments to evaluate whether privatization of a perticular water related infrastructure is desireable and ecomomically feasible, Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System federal assistance for project construction. Matching Requirements Matching requirement varies, Federal cost sharing for planning; loans/grants for Congressionally authorized construction, 50% local cost share goal for study phase; federal study funds subject to Congressional authorization; federal construction funds subject to results of study and congressional authorization. Application Period Continuous Army Corps of Engineen Financial Assistance Planning Assistance to States Contact Paul Cooke 206-764-3600 P,O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 Available to: Counties, Cities, Service Agencies, PUDs, Ports, Tribes Loan Parameters Uses Financial and technical support for local jurisdictions in their comprehensive planning for the development, utiliZation and conservation of water and related land resources, Matching Requirements 50% cost sharing with a maximum $600,000 per study. Application Period Continuous, Funding period begins in September until funds are allocated, Rural Community Anl.tance Corp Financial Assistance Technical Assistance and Training Contact Udaya Patnaik 4305 Lacey Blvd. SE Lacey W A 98503 360-493-2260 Available to: Cities, Rural Communities, PUDs, Tribes Uses Training on: financial management, hiring consultants, board training, planning and rate setting, Information materials on: state and federal requirements for rural water/waste water systems, financing, operations, maintenance and management. On site assistance in the fonn of: evaluations of water/waste water problems associated with design, financing, operations, maintenance and management of small systems and limited design review and feasibility analysis, Quilcene Water System WATER SYSTEM PLAN QUlLCENE COMMUNITY WELL Quilcene Water System Quilcene, Washington Back~round In February 1994, the Department of Ecology ("DOE"), the Department of Health ("DOH") and the Jefferson County Health Department ("JCHD") were notified by two Quilcene residents that benzene was detected in their drinking water wells, The residents had been detecting gasoline-like odors in their water for a few months and had their water tested at a laboratory, Additional testing by DOE/DOH/JCHD showed that five homes in the area (see map) exceeded the drinking water standard for benzene. In March 1994 bottled water was supplied to the impacted residences and a tanker truck was set up with water for other uses. JCHD initiated quarterly monitoring of the downgradient wells, No benzene was ever detected in these wells. In September 1994, the US Forest Service approved a grant (WAEC-94-026) of $25.000'for Jefferson County, The grant funds were to be used "to develop a small well that would provide. water to homes and businesses whose water supply is contaminated." In October 1994. DOE gave Jefferson County a Preliminary Permit to drill and test a well in conjunction with the County's water right application (No. G2-29120), In February 1995 JCHD and DOE conducted another round of sampling in all of the wells in the area of contamination, All of the samples were non-detect for benzene, Another round of sampling of the wells took place in March 1995 of the houses that had originally had the benzene detections. These samples all came back non-detect also. Although it seems as though t11ere is not currently a public health threat from the benzene contamination. it is the County's intention to proceed with installation of a community well. Initially, the well will serve those homes in the vicinity of the contamination, It is the intention of the community of Quilcene to set up a Local Utility District and manage a community (Group A) well in the near future. System Management and Ownership Utility Service Review procedures as defined in the Coordinated Water System Plan for Jefferson County have been followed. The Jefferson County PUD has expressed its willingness to own the system or provide one-time assistance. They do not want to provide a management service (see attached Utility Service Checklist), Initially, Jefferson County will own and maintain the water system. As mentioned above, the Qullcene community is investigating the possibility of setting up a Local Utility District which, if fonned, would take over the water system from the County. If the LUD is not formed within 5 years of the approval of this water system plan, the PUD will take ownership of the system. Quilcene Water System The contact person at Jefferson County responsible for this system is: Mr. Gary Rowe Public Services Director Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 (360) 385-9160 A statement of responsibility for future costs incurred or maintenance required in the continuing operation of the system is attached. ' Service Area The initial service area of the water system is shown on the enclosed map. The well will be located on property owned by Ms. Janet Reeves, also shown on map, The distribution pipeline from the well will cross Highway 101 and will extend down East Columbia Street for approximately 800 feet. Number of Connections The water system is intended to serve the homes which have had detections of contamination in the past and which are threatened due to their proximity to the contaminated homes, This results in an initial six (6) connections. The owners of the propel'tyanticipated to be tied to the system are: . Ed DuPont - 956100037, Lot 13 and Tax 44 . Mark Pomarinke - 956100038, Lot 13 . Robert E. Worthington. 9561??oo2, Lot 5 . Clifford Shafer - Tax 43 . Jeff Monroe - 956100003, Lot 5 . Mary Pederson - Tax 44/84 Water Conservation Since the system will be serving only a very small group of people, a water conservation program wil1 be developed for the community system when it Is installed sometime in the near future. Relationship and Compatihllity with Other Plans All other homes and businesses in the Qullcene community use Individual groundwater wells for a source of water. Therefore. there are no other water system plans in effect for this area. Quilcene Water System Water Source Information The source of water for the system will be a groundwater well. approximately 60 feet deep. The well will be located on property owned by Ms. Janet Reeves. The well will be located approximately 55 feet east of a private domestic well owned by Ms. Reeves and a minimum of 100 feet east of the nearest residence. Since the well is approximately 600 feet upgradient of the nearest home affected by the contamination, it is believed to be relatively safe froln the benzene contamination. The well will not be drilled deeper than 60 feet in order to minimize the potential for sea water intrusion into the well. The well site is located approximately 4000 feet from Quilcene Bay, and is at an elevation of approximately 40 feet msl (based on USGS topographic map), The Preliminary Permit from DOE includes requirements for testing the well which include an aquifer test and water quality sampling and testing and reporting the results of the testing to DOE. A copy of the final report will be submitted to DOH also and will include information regarding aquifer transmissivity, storage coefficient or specific yield, distance and time drawdown response, the affect of the pumping on existing groundwater users, potential impact on surface water bodies within the drainage basin and results of testing for total coliform, inorganics. volatile organic compounds and radionuclides. A geologic log and an as-built drawing of the well will also be included in the report. Source Protection A copy of the signed Restrictive Covenant between Jefferson County and Ms. Reeves is attached. The covenant restricts land uses within the 100-foot sanitary control zone. Financial Viability A Financial Viability Worksheet is attached to this plan. Property Title Notification The following will be included with the title of all property hooked onto the water system: Notice that property is served by a public water system A copy of the initial water system plan Notice that the system is subject to state and local rules Recommendation to check with the jurisdictional regulatory authority on the current system status Notice that fees may be assessed by the department for providing information on a public water system Requirement for satellite management Notice of any waivers granted to the system Quilcene Water System PART E. Financial (Viability) Worksheet Through the development of a projected budget, the goal of the Financial Viability Worksheet is to set in place plans, policies, and procedures that will enable the system owner(s) to have the ability to obtain sufficient funds, on a continuing basis, to cover the iotal cost of developing, constructing, operating and maintaining the system in compliance with State and Local drinking water regulations. Proposed rates must be adequate to cover any budget deficits identified in line 16. For more information refer to Appendix II, Part E. Initial After Full Development ANNUAL EXPENSES Development or Build-out L Wages & Benefits $ /000 $ 2. Electricity & other utilities ~--.r2.. S 3. Chemicals & Treatment $ 1'2.00 . $ " " I 4. Monitoring Costs $ 1000. S 5. Materials, Supplies, & Repairs $ 1000, S 6. Taxes/ Assessments $ $ 7. Insurance/Misc. Expenses $ S 8. Subtotal - Operating Expenses $~C S 9. 10% Contingency ~ $ 10. Principal and Interest Payments $ $ 11. System Replacement $ $ 12. Total Revenue Required $ '5'1-1-0 $ ANNUAL REVENUE FROM SOURCES OTHER mAN WATER RATES ," 13. Hook Up/Other User Fees $ $' 14. Other Revenue $ S IS. Total Non Water Rate Revenue $ S ANNUAL WATER RATE CALCULATIONS Quilcene Water System Quilcene Water System 1998 Quilcene Water System 1998 Quilcene Water System 1998 DATE: December 13, 1994 Jefferson County Health & Human Services CASTLE HILL CENTER. 615 SHERIDAN. PORT TOWNSEND, WA . WEe E J V TO: JIM PARKER JEFFERSON COUNTY PUD #1 LARRY. FAY JEFFERSON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR Certificate of Water Supply Utility Serv~ce Quilcene Community Well project - Phase X Enclosed for your review is a utility service checklist for the above project. As you know, the project is being proposed in order to provide water to the area in Quilcene that was affected by the gasoline contamination. The area is roughly bounded by Highway 101, East Columbia Road and Center Valley Road. Attachment "A" describes a best guess at the service area although some lots may drop out and others may be included as final plans develop. CUrrently the proposal is for the County to own and manage the utility. If a larger district is established in Quilcene, the expectation is that the system would be incorporated into the district. In the interim, I understand that the county may be interested in sorne kind of con=ract with the POD for operation of the system. The county essentially needs the PUD to buy off on the development of this system in order to be consistent with the coordinated water syscem plan. Please recognize, at this point the primary focus in getting a small water systernbuilt that will provide reliable safe water in place of the contaminated individual wells. The issue of compliance with the fire flow requirements of the CWSP is being negotiated with the fire district. If you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Quilcene Water System 1994 CERTIFICATE OF WATER SUPPLY UTILITY SERVICE JEFFERSON COUNTY Application Number OUILCENE COMMUNITY WELL PROJECT pHASE I Project Name Approved Water Plan JEFFERSON COUNTY PUD #1 Water Utility Jefferson County Public Works 12-15 Connection Community Water Supply Ouilcene - see Attachment "A" project preliminary Plan Indicate the number of units of each category: Residential ~ Multi-Family Industrial Agricultural commercial other I, the undersigned, certify that I, or my appointed representative have discussed this proposed project and its impacts with the Water Utility shown above. I acknowledge that this proposed project may require improvements to the water system shown above which would incur my financial obligation. pr.ior to Final Plat approval. or a~~~ovai of Water System Plan or Enaineers Report. it is understood t a e;a1 contract between myself and the Water Utility must be submitted to Jefferson County which specifies the terms of water service. operational responsibility. and financial ob1iaation. Furthermore, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the following material. Xf individual well is proposed then procedure is not required. Xndi vidual well proposal is forwarded onto County Health Department for review and approval. priority 1: wi thin service Area priority 2: Jefferson County will determine who's service area water supply request is located in and then will direct applicant to that purveyor or water utility with a certificate for water supply utility service in hand. Xf utility declines service, a letter stating 'Justification of Denial' will be required. Xf purveyor declines service then go to Priority 2. satellite system Management Agency (SSHA) Designated SSMA for County will be allowed to respond to service request and provide conditions of service to applicant. If SSMA declines service, a letter stating 'Justification of Denial' will be required, Xf SSMA declines service then go to priority 3, Adjacent utility Applicant must approach adjacent utilities to determine if service can be provided, If adjacent utility declines service, a letter stating 'Justification of Denial' will be required. If adjacent utility declines service then go to Priority 4. Create new Public Water SY8tem (PWS) After first 3 priorities are ruled out, a new PWS may be considered through the required review proceOB of the state. Applicant is directed to have an Engineer contact tho DOH Regional Engineer for specific requirements (Water System Plan, project report, construction documents. etc.). priority 3: priority": Note: Once service is determined.' Jefferson'County wili sign off on certificate for water supply utility sarvice and adjust service area ~aps as necessary, sign off will occur only after consultation with DOH to determine if the proposed system is adequate to serve, Quilcene Water System 1998 circle the appropriate action(s) and/or in the appropriate blanks. Quilcene Water System 1998 Quilcene Water System 1998 I, the undersigned, certify that I, or another authorized representative of the utility, have discussed this proposed project and its imparts with the applicant. I acknowledge that the water system has the capacity in installed fac1l1ties and water rights to serve the proposed development with the improvements identified above and that the service to the proposed project is consistent with this utility's water~ystem~tan. WATER UTILITY REPRESENTATIVE Quilcene Water System 1998 Jefferson county Development Review Division (Reviews for consistency with county land use pOlicies.) Quilcene Water System 1998 Quilcene Water System 1998 Ludlow Plats Pope Resources November 30.1995 Mr. David Goldsmith Deputy Director of Public SeIVices Jefferson County Courthouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend WA 98368 Dear Mr. Goldsmith: In correspondence earlier this year. and in several conversations since. you have requested that Pope Resources address how the evolution of our development program at Port Ludlow coincides wit.h that portrayed in the Final EIS adopted by Jefferson County ill April of 1993. "Table A" attached provides a comparison by "development area" as well as a cumulative perspective. The map which follows portrays geographically where development has actually occurred versus the EIS projection. You will recall that the 1993 EIS was "programmatic" and was focused on "cumulative" impacts projected to occur from our overall, conceptual development plan. That plan portrayed a mosaic of development pods allocating 700 future residential units over approximately 1.200 acres. An alternative scheme was analyzed whereby the same 700 units were dispersed over only 800 acres. The purpose of the EIS was to predict impacts to public selVices (schools. emergency services, etc.): natural systems (nsh & wildllfe habitat, groundwater. wetlands, etc): and Infrastructure (roads. sewage treatment facilities. water systems, etc.). Annual monitoring requirements imposed on Pope Resources are verifying real cumulative impact trend lines. Since the County fonnally invoked "phased review" pursuant to the SEPA Rules, , each individual development project has been required to address its own potentlal site-specific impacts and prospective mitigation measures. It Is important to note that. within each of those site-specific environmental reviews. key topics such as trafilc have been addressed in a cumulative framework. We have nQt treated each separate project as though It and Its envtronmentallmpacts are occurring in a vacuum. Mr. David Goldsmith November 30. 1995 Page 2 As one reviews -rable A." several conclusions begin to appear. First, actual individual project acreage varies from those portrayed in the EIS. Second. the actual number of dwelling units also varies. no doubt a function of site size. but equally related to precise physical characteIistlcs unavailable at the time of EIS production. 'Ib1rd, as you view the array of sites. gross densities are both higher and lower than contemplated by the EIS. The most obvious difference, however, is that total "bulldout" will now encompass less than 500 acres with an overall density of roughly 1.5 dwelling units per acre. This is more akin to "Alternate 1" discussed in the EIS. Indeed. some corresponding environmentallmpacts will be noticeably less than anticipated in the programmatic EIS. Whlle Items such as tra1f1c. sewage treatment, and water supply will probably be s1ml1ar. potential adverse effects from clearing. grading, and stormwater runoff will be less. Likewise, wildlife and its habitat. wetlands, etc.. will benefit from the more compact development pattern that has emerged. From a publlc polley vIewpoint. clearly the reduced footprint of urbanization is consistent with the Growth Management Act and its interpretation by various appeals boards. We trust this fnfonnation adequately addresses your inquiIy and that its impllcations for individual SEPA TI1reshold Detennfnations Is constructive. We would be happy to meet and discuss this matter at a mutually convenient time should you so desire, Gary Rowe, Director of PubUc Services AI Scalf, Director of Planning Greg McCany, Pope Resources Craig Jones, Attorney At Law David Skeen JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING AlTORNEY Courthouse -- P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend. Washington 98368 Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385.0013 Paul McIlrath. Chief Deputy Waller H, Peny, Deputy Iuelie Dalzell. Deputy Richard Suryan. Deputy THIS DOCUMENT COVERED BY ATTORNEY /CUENT PRIVILEGE MEMORANDUM TO: Board of county Commissioners ~ FROM: Paul E, McIlrath, Deputy prosecuting Attorney~ DATE: November 20, 1995 preliminary Plat Approval: Teal Lake proposal SUB 95-0004 RE: Last week, the Board continued a public hearing on the preliminary plat application of Pope Resources until the following Monday, November 20, 1995, to further review recent decisions by the Growth Management Hearings Board relevant to the county's authority to allow urban-style development outside of a GMA designated Urban Growth Area, Our office has not previously been asked to review pope's proposal, but planning staff has advised us that the proposed development would create approximately 54 lots on 110-acres, with an average gross density of ,5 d~elling units per acre. The development's location is within the area which had formerly been designated as the Port Ludlow IUGA, That designation was recently rescinded by the county, which adopted the ordinance revoking IUGA designation pursuant to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board ("WWGMHB") Order in this matter. In goneral, the majority of the decisions from the three growth management hearings boards supports the proposition that urban types of development should only occur with areas designated as urban growth areas. certainly, most relevant to Jefferson county are the decisions from the WWGMHB, especially the 01\eS in which the county was a party. The following analysis will concentrate upon three such WWGMHB cases: (1) The final order in '-1tv of Port Townsend, at al, v. Jefferson Count v , WWGMHB Cause No,194-2-0006; (2) the compliance hearing order dated December 1994 in the aforesaid matter and under the slime cause number; and (3) the final decision and order in the matter of Friends of Skagit Skaqit County. et al. v. Skaqit County. et al. WWGMHB No. 95-2-00065, dated August 30, 1995, The Board is well aware of the factual situation behind the Jefferson county cases and thus I will not once again review it with the Board at this time. In its initial final order, dated August 10, 1994, the WWGMGB stated the following on page 5681 of its order: The primary purpose of the Act is that growth is to be directed, in so far as possible, to places that have existing "public facilities and services" and then, only after an analysis of the need of, the cost of, and the ability to pay for greater public facilities and services is growth to be directed or even allowed elsewhere, In this decision, the hearings board made the interesting statement that in 1993 the state legislature, concerned about urban style development proceeding in rural areas during the pendency of the comprehensive plan process, adopted ESHB 1761 to extend the deadline for fixing urban growth areas, The WWGMHB further stated that the term "interim" was added after governmental lobbying groups asked that it be included so as to allow further refinement of the urban growth areas as pa~t of comprehensive plan adoption, ~ at 569. Finally, in this first decision reviewing Jefferson county's IUGA designations, the WWGMHB concluded that "the consequences of existing urbanized areas outside cities not being included in an IUGA is simply that new urban development will not be permitted," ~ at page 572, The WWGMHB continues on this page of the decision to define rural lands as everything else that is not urban, calling rural lands "...the meatloaf in the GHA refrigerator." In its subsequent compliance hearing Order, dated December 1994, the WWGMHB re-stated its position in the context of reviewing the county's compliance ordinance, where it held that the attempted vesting of "lots of record" was not in compliance with the Act's prOhibition against new urban development outside an IUGA." ~, page 641. This provision would have allowed the in- filling of existing platted areas lying outside the IUGA, with only sanitation and water service criteria, The most recent decision providing quidance on the question of urban development outside of an IUGA i. from the case of Friends of Skaait Vallev v. Skaait Countv, et a1,. Citing to the above referenced Jefferson county cases a. authority, the WWGMHB held I All citations are to Cod. Publiabing Co.paDY's compilation of hearings board decisions, that Skagit County"... failed to comply with the goals and requirements of the Act by failing to expressly prohibit new commercial/industrial development outside an IUGA," Id. at pages 1048-1.049. Additionally, the board found that ".,. growth outside the urban boundary shall be rural in nature, not requiring urban governmental services." !JL. at 1.050. In conflict with this body of decisional law are the statutory doctrines regarding the vesting of development applications. Specifically, RCW 58.1.7.1.70 (and by interpretation, RCW. 58.1.7,060) appear to "vest" plats for five years from the date that a determination of substantial completion is made by the county. It is because of this inherent conflict that our county has filed a declaratory action in the Superior Court seeking guidance on a number of issues, including (1.) how the county is to process pending applications; (2) which one of the IUGA ordinances is the "triggering" ordinance; (3) whether the hearings board decision is in conflict with statutory provisions, and if so, which one should the county follow; and (4), whether pope's pending urban residential developments should be allowed outside of areas designated urban, The proposed Teal Lake development falls within the category of development which is the basis of the county's declaratory action. Pending resolution of our declaratory action the county should not grant preliminary plat approval. otherwise, the county may face a risk of liability for development which proceeds prior to the judicial determination on our declaratory action, Jefferson County continues to encourage Pope Resources to participate in this action and we consistently have invited them to facilitate the rapid resolution of the matter. Such rapid resolution is certainly important to Pope, and will aid us in our continuing efforts to comply with the Act and adopt a qualifying comprehensive plan. Additionally, Pope is a large property owner who is both knowledgeable and experienced in working with the county on its GHA issues, Its participation in the declaratory action will be of great assistance to the county, and will further the pursuit of certainty necessary to Pope and other development interest, In conclusion, the county is left in limbo by the recent WWGMHB decision finding Port Ludlow's IUGA designation out of compliance with the Act. until such time as the county has judicial guidance provided pursuant to our declaratory aotion we should not give approval for urban residential, commeroial or industrial developments outsidG of current IUGAs. PEM/mm Encl. STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND. OLYMPIC ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL. 1000 FRIENDS OF WASHINGTON. Petitioners. vs, JEFFERSON COUNTY. Respondent, CASE NO. 94-2-0006 FINAL ORDER The relentless waves of the Pacific Ocean crash endlessly onto the western shores of Jefferson County. A newly designated National Marine Sanctuary highlights the beauty and serenity of Jefferson County's coastline which includes places like Ruby beach and Kalaloch. A portion of the Olympic mountain range bisects the county. The westerly 3/4 of the county consists of state and federal forest land and a portion of the Olympic National Park. At the confluence of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound lies the county's only incorpOrated city, Port Townsend. In thl: northeast corner of Jefferson County, this munici. pality has a population of 7,740, less now than a century ago. Discovery Bay, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, Port Townsend Bay, Oak Bay, Puget Sound and Dabob Bay provide an aquatic panorama for the northeast and southern boundaries of the county. It is within this backdrop that the twenty thousand or so people in Jefferson County struggle to attain compliance with the Growth Management Act. On January 10, 1994 the Board of County Com. missioners (BOCC) adopted an Interim Urban Growth ArelIJ (IUGA) Ordinance and later amended the same on FebNary 7, 1994, On March 10, 1994 a petition for review of that Ordinance was filed with the Western Wuhington Growth Management Hearillgs Board (Board) by the City of Port Townsend (City). Similar petitions were fiied March 11, 1994 by 1000 Friends of Washing. ton (1000 Friends) and the Olympic Environmen. tal Council (DEC). The petitions were consolidated by an order dated April 13, 1994. A prehearing conference was held at the Jefferson County Courthouse on May 4. 1994. Prior to the prehearing conference the OEC challenge to Jef- ferson County's failure to designate and adopt nat- ural resource lands and critical area development regulations by September I. 1991 as required by RCW 36.70A.06O, .170 WllS settled by agreement of the parties and a schedule for adoption of the ordinances was specified, A Prehearing Order WllS entered May 16, 1994 listing four issues common to all parties. one issue unique to OEe and one issue unique to Port Townsend. The hearing on the merits wu held July 7, 1994 at Fort Worden State Park. The afternoon prior to the hearing the Board and a representative of each party toured the arcllS in dispute. The Ordinance adopted 68 "findings. which recite the historical background of Jeffenon County (County), the Growth Management Act (GMA, Act) goals and requirements, the procedural crite- ria requirements, WAC 365-195, and the County- Wide Planning Policies (CPPa). some of which the BOCC found did apply to the ruGA and some of which they found did not. The findinss reviewed the public participation process and State Environ- mental Policy Act (SEPA) proces_ that hid taken place and also included finding 65: August 1994 detined as a "governmental subdivision or unit thereof. or public or private organization or entity of any character", It is hard to envision how a city would not tit under the type of expansive delini- tion provided in that subsection, It is undeniable that the City participated at all stages both through its staff and elected officials as well as by partici- pation in the City/County Ioint Growth Manage- ment Steering Committee. The County's reliance on RCW 36.70A,IIO(2) as restricting the City's ability to petition under these facts is misplaced, Two other clarifying matters need to be addressed, With the agreement and cooperation of the repre- sentatives of the parties in this matter we spent the afternoon prior to the date of the hearing on the merits on a "guided tour" of the areas of eastern Iefferson County that were the subject matter of this appeal. The purpose of that tour was to help us more clearly understand the issues as presented by the petitions and the record, We found the tour to be exceptionally helpful to aid us in understanding the case and commend the representatives of the parties who arranged for and participated in the tour for their very high degree of professionalism, We did not take any evidence during the tour and did not consider the view of the areas as evidence. At the parties' request, we modified the prepara- tion of the record by allowing exhibits to be deter- mined by use in the respective party's memorandum for the hearing on the merits. Some 150 different exhibits, including maps and tapes, were submitted. We recognize that the parties spent considerable time OlJlanizing and submitting these exhibits. There was a limited objection to a few of the last submitted exhibits. Because of the modified procedure we felt constrained to admit all exhibits. After posl.heanng review we decided not to use or refer to the following exhibilJ; 78, 79, 81, 134,136, 137, 138,139,140and 141. Exhibits 25. 26, 28 and 8S were not submitted. Our deci. sion is bued lolely on the record developed prior to the conclusion of the BOCC hearing of Febru- ary 7, 1994. The OMA challenges brought by petitioners involve alleged violations of the OMA and CPPs because of the failure of the County to mopt des. ignations and development regulations for NO, 94-2-0006 resource land and critical areas (RUCA) prior to the IUGA designation; the County's failure to pre- pare necessary information concerning land capacity. liscal impacts and public facilities and services; the inappropriate designation of Port Ludlow and the Tri-Area; the continued availabil- ity of new urban residential, commercial and industrial development outside the IUGAs; and the rural density requirement of I dwelling unit per acre (I: I), The City also alleged that the lUGA designation should have included a study area of southerly and westerly areas adjacent to the city that were already characterized by urban growth, Finally, OEe alleged that the failure to provide adequate analysis and information violated the public participation requirements of the Act, We review the record in this case in accordance with our 4 question analysis, (I) IS THE ORDINANCE A RESULT. OF A CONSIDERED APPLICATION OF APPROPRI- ATE GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS OF TIlE Acr1 In Clark Coun!y Natural Resources Council et al. v, Clark County, WWOPfffi #92-2-0001 while dis- cussing this question we said: "In reviewing this question we determine whether the County took into account the proper sections of the Act and whether rea- soned interpretations of those sections were made." From the very beginning of the process leading up to the adoption of the Ordinance senior members of the county planning staff adopted three funda- mental tenets conceming the requirement to adopt an interim urban growth area by October I, 1993: I, Under the provisions of ESHB 1761 (now codified u RCW 36.70A.110(4)) a new, very short time fTame existed for denomit\Ating the areas, and therefore; 2, Because of the sbort time flame and the denomination of the areas u "interim" (a term that has caused more problems in the OMA than any other) a prior analysis necessary to determine where population ought to be August 1994 I, Adopt designations and development reg- ulations for critical areas and resource lands within one year of qualification under ,040, 2, Adopt county-wide planning policies within fourteen months of the time the criteria of .040 is met. RCW 36,70A.21O(2)(3). 3, Adopt interim urban growth areas within three years and three months of the time of qualification under ,040. RCW 36, 70A,II 0(4), 4, Adopt a comprehensive plan within four years of the time of qualification under .040. 5. Adopt development regulations at that same time or within six months after adoption of the comprehensive plan. The Act requires that all these steps be completed and the clear legislative direction is they be com. pleted sequentially. We do not go as far as peti. tioners request in holdiug that the sequence is absolutely mandatory but agree that it would be very difficult to find compliance outside that sequence. Any city or county using a different pro- gression would have a difficult hurdle to leap to show that good planning allowed such a deviation, The record here does not support Jefferson Coun- ty's adoption of an JUGA without first completing the RUCA process. The faulty premises adopted by the County led to further erroneous conclusions. The legislative scheme of ESHB 1761, the Iapes of the floor debates (which we reviewed) and the discussions OCCUlTing at the committee meetings (which were attended by Board member Henriksen) show a clear legislative intent. The then Department of Community Development Issued a memorandum dated August 16, 1993 (ex, 29) whleh contains the department's Interpretation of ESHB 1761 with which we agree. The Issue of fixing an urban growth area had been before the County for some three years. It is likely the Legislature believed most of the foundational planning documents were already in plsce or very close to completion, The extension of the deadline for adopting comprehen. sive plans with urban growth arcu caused concern In the legislature about the type of growth that NO, 94-2-0006 could occur during the extension period, The solu- tion arrived at was to have counties fix urban growth area boundaries within the three month extension provided. and thus prohibit new urban growth outside the IUGA. The term "interim" was added after lobbying groups for cities and counties asked that it be included so that further refine- ments could take place at the time the comprehen- sive plan was adopted, There appears to be no other reasonable reading of the statute, Jefferson County's unwillingness to understand or accept ESHB 1761 led the BOCe to also conclude that none or only a portion of the previously adopted CPPs applied to the IUGA Ordinance, Many of the 68 "findings" adopted by the Com- missioners in the Ordinance took portions of the CPPs that appeared to side with their predestined determination and rejected other portions which were inconsistent with the decision reached. We find this to be an exttemely questionable practice and urge that it not be repealed. During this appeal the County has adopted the position that the CPPs do not apply to an JUGA ordinance because of the language in RCW 36.70A.210(1) which Slates that the CPPs are to be "used solely for l:litablishing a county-wide frame. work from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed Md adopted punuant to this chapter". The County points out that the provi. sions of ESHB 1761 require adoption of "develop- ment regulations". Petitioners contend that we should follow the decision of the Central Puget Sound Board in City 0/ Black Diamond el al. v. King County el aI, CPSGMHD 1f94-3..()()()4 Dis- positive Order dated June ,9. 1994 at page 8. 'The difficulty with using that decision Is that King County acknowledged the CPPs applied to interim growth areas. The language of ESHB 1761 shows that the requirement of RCW 36.70A.1I0 applying CPPs to urban growth areas did not change. 1be slatute stales that the IUGA must comply with RCW 36.70A, 110. the requlremenlll for comprehensive plan urbsn growth area designations. RCW 36,70A.210(3) requires that the county-wide plan- ning pollciea address urban growth areas. We see mueh indication that the legislature intended CPPs August 1994 5, Our ultimate reason for eltistence is to make decisions that further the "planning" con- cepts. directions, goals and requirements of the GMA and. to a lesser elttent. make determina- tions as to legal interpretations of the Act, We should not allow the flash of legal interpreta- tion to blind us to the impact and realities of good planning decisions, 6, We do not believe that the Legislature ever intended OFM projections which are known to be incorrect, to nonetheless be used to develop comprehensive plans that would then either be incorrect or gerrymandered to the point of being meaningless at or shortly after adoption. We hold that OFM projections must be exclu- sively uGCd except when a local government can clearly show that the projections are inaccurate and that a different set of figures needs to be used to accomplish the goals and requirements of the Act. Furthermore, if the county-wide planning policies require a jointly developed forecast then that requirement must also be fulfilled. Two further matters in this case concerning the analysis necessary prior to designating an urban growth area outside a municipal boundary need to be addressed. Much of this record reflects a grow- ing crisis and concern with regard to the City's ability to provide water services beyond its exist- ing obligations. The County contended that the growth areas corresponded roughly to the City's existing water obligations and that other alterna. tives such as PUD's were available. Again, this mines the point. No actuai analysis of the need, expense or ability to provide water services for the designated JUGAs was done. No designation of the critical aquifer recharge area contained in the "Tri.Area" JUGA was completed (Ex. 20). Such an analysis is a necessary component in leffel1lOn County given the repealed references to the waler crisis that currently exists. Liltewise, the level of service (LOS) standards required by lhe Act and by the CPPs were not established. The County sel forth guidelines (with a substantial number of questionable exemptions) for some public facllilles and services applications outside ruOAs. ~titionertl contend that those are NO, 94-2-0006 both unintelligible and do not tilt a meaningful level. We point the County to the WAC 365-195- 210(12) procedural criteriadetinition which states: "Level of service" means an established mini- mum capacity of public facilities or services that must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriale measure of need." Without the analysis of need for. cost of, and abil- ity to provide services that was lacking here it is nol surprising that adequate LOS standards could not be developed, On remand, this issue will need to be rectified. (2) DID THE PROCESS COMPLY WITH THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIRE- MENTS OF THE ACT? Olympic Environmental Council contends that the information provided by the County in its work sessions, public meetings and public hearings was inadequate and therefore, the public participation goals and requirements of the Act were not met. Obviously the improper interpretation of the requirements of an interim urban growth area ordi- nance led to many deficiencies of information available both to the public and to the decision- makers, The GMA direction for early and continu- ous public participation certainly implies a mini- mum standard of objective and sufficient information that needs to be provided. 1be Act signals the end of treating the public like "mush. rooms".lt means more than simply holding public meetings and/or hearings. The void of reliable Infonnation available to the public in this case leads us to answer this question in the negative. (3) WAS TIlE DELffiERATJON AND DECISION-MAKlNO PROCESS REASONED? a) Is the ordinance supported by reasoned choices bued upon appropriate factors actu. ally considered as contained in the record? b) Were inappropriate factors avoided? We answer this question in the ne.alive. The fun- damenlal fault of interpretation found in question 1 leads to no other conclusion. August 1994 vices in ,110(3) is different from the prohibition of new urban growth in rural areas under ,110(1), Rural Residents v, Kitsap County. While the Act provides many negatives for the rural areas of a county. it provides very little in the way of positive direction. The only reference to "rural" is found in the comprehensive plan section RCW 36,70A.070(5) which requires thai counties include a rural element that permits uses compati- ble with the rural character of the lands and pro- vides for a variety of rural densities, We recognize the scheme of rural areas provides very little guid- ance. however we do not accept the contention by the County that placing an area outside an UGA designation means that it will simply be aban- doned for planning purposes. We suspect that counties in our jurisdiction will and do have the most difficult questions dealing with rural desig- nations since they have neither the population growth of central Puget Sound nor the expansive agricultural lands of eastern Washington. Candidly we are not disposed to adopt a "bright-line" rule that prohibits the use of a 1: 1 density in each and every case. We sgree that 1:1 density can easily lead to a violation of the anti-sprawl goals and requirement.' of the Act as well as cumulatively place new demands for urban government services in violation of the Act. We would expect that very rarely, If ever, would a 1: 1 density requirement in rural, or even most urban, designations comply with the Act, It is possible that a situation involv- ing a proper background analysis for an area dem- onslrates that a I: I density within a "variety of densities" could be within the discretion of local government officials authorized by the GMA, In this case Jeffenon County does not have any analysis to support the use of a I: 1 density in rural areas. Standing alone as the sole "roral" density requirement a I: lrora! density detennlnation does not and cannot comply with the Act, The City finally contends that areal adjacent to Its boundaries should have been included as an IUGA or at least been designated as a sludy area since the areas are adjacenl to the municipal boundaries. characterized by urban growth, and are presently provided with urban facilities and services. '(be County points out thaI City officials and staff vac. NO, 94-2-0006 iIIatcd between requesting municipal boundaries to be the IUGA and requesting areas outside the boundaries, The County points out that the City needed to "do its homework" by providing the information recommended under WAC 365-195- 33S(3}(c}(d)(e)(f), i,e. a land capacity inventory and analysis, and a fiscal and capital facilities analysis, The County is correct that the City has not provided the information nor done the analysis necessary to suggest reasons why areas beyond the municipal boundaries should be included in an ruGA. Unfortunately, by the time all of the issues in this case were being deblUCd prior to the adop- tion of the Ordinance there was plenty of petu- lance to go around. What the County fails to acknowledge, is that county staff would tell the public at meetings and hearings the purpose of the expansive Pt. Ludlow and Tri-Area ruGAs was to be a sort of study area, but later tell City staff that the IUGA process did not authorize any kind of study area analysis (Ex. 71). More fundamentally what the County fails to recognize i:l that its own ruGAs must also be based on infonnation and analysis that appear sim- ilar to, if not exactly, those proposed by the recom- mendations of WAC 365-195-310. Nonetheless, the BOCC did not fall to comply with the Act by omitting areas outside the IUGA adjacent to the City. STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND. OLYMPIC ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCll.. 1000 FRIENDS OF WASHINGTON. Petitioners vs. JEFFERSON COUNTY. Respondent On August 10. 1994. we issued a final order in this case finding that Iefferson County's Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) Ordinance was not in com- pliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA. Act). We specified that in order to achieve compli- ance three Issues needed to be resolved within a thirty or sixty day period of the August 10. 1994. date. Those Issues were: 1. Ellmlnl\tJon of lUGA designations outside the city limits of Port Townsend untJl proper stud- Ies and analysis. public partlclpatJon and adop- tion lOOk place; 2. Prohibition of new urban (a) residential, (b) commercial or (c) Industrial development until an JUGA outside the Port Townsend city limits could be properly designated; 3. Establishment of an appropriate rural density deslgnatJon for areas outside the JUGA. We did not fix a specific date for a compliance hearing. On October 28, 1994. Ietrel'8On County Informally requested I compliance hearing. Pul'lluant to that request. we notified all parties of a compliance hearing date by our letter of November 3. 1994, The hearing was ultimately held December 5, 1994, at the Jeft'erson County CoUl1hoU5C. Present for that hearing were representatives for Olympic Environmental Council. 1000 Friends of Washing. CASE NO. 94-2-0006 COMPLIANCE HEARING ORDER ton. the City of Port Townsend and Iefferson County, along with the three Board members, PrIor to the hearing. a copy of the ordinance, exhibits and briefs from each party were submit- ted. At the hearing each of the parties made a pre- sentallon and responded to our c;uestions. RCW 36.70A.330(1) provides that once the time frame for compliance set fonh in the final order has expired: .....(T)he Board. on Its own motion or motion of the petitioner, shall set a hear- ing for the purpose of determining whether the...county...ls In compliance with the requirements of this chapter." SubsectJon (2) requires that finding of compliance or non-compliance Is to be determined by a Board within 4S days of the filing of such R motJon. Subsection (1) does not provide for setling a hear- Ing based upon the motion of the respondenl, We therefore hold that the triggering date for com. menclng the 45 dsy period, under the facts of this case, Is the date of our notllicadon to the parties that a hearing was scheduled. I.e., November 3. 1994. At the hearing all parties agreed that this Interpretation of the provisions of RCW 36.70.330 was COITCCt. As we noted in Who/com Environmental CouflClI vs. Wha/Com County WWGMHB *94-2..()()()9, a Board has no authority to speclfically order any December 1994 failure to prohibit urban residential. urban com- mercial and urban industrial development outside a properly established lUGA violated the Act. The new ordinance at section 8.10 appears to prohibit new conunercial. industrial or plarmed unit devel- opment rezones. The county candidly acknowl- edged that some 400 acres of undeveloped commercial and industrial development zones cur- rently exist outside the IUGA and that no change was made to prohibit new utban development in those areas. 1bis failure to follow the clear dic- tates of the Act to prohibit new urban growth out- side an IUGA after October 1. 1993. renders Jefferson County in non-compliance. Nor do the provisions of section S.lO satisfy these compliance problems neither on their own nor in conjunction with section 8.10. Section 5.10 says: "Except as allowed by the adopted Interim of (sic) Level of Service Stan- dards, new development occurring out- side of the interim urban growth area shall be designed in such a manner as not to clIuse the extension ofutban gov- ernmental services. Nothing in this sub- section shall be consuued as restrictive or prohibitive of the in-fill of existing platted areas lying outside of the interim urban growth area where urban govern- mental services are provided...." InItially, the section references and uses the "Interim Public Level of Service Standards" adopled December I, 1993, as the defining charac- teristic, rather than prohibiting extension of urban governmental services outright The Interim Level of Service Standards adopled as attachment B looks very similar to the Level of Service Stan- dards we found to be Inadequate In our August 10. 1994, Final Order."te attachment B matrix sim- ply defines whether certain public services are "allowed", "not allowed", "conditional" or "provl- slonal" and does not establish any definitive level of service standard. Additionally, the matrix refers to "Rural Center". a designation which Is dellned a.. "unincorporated communities designated In the revised compre- hensive plan." To this point we are unaware thaI any revised comprehensive plan has even been adopted that uses this designation, "Rural Lands" are dellned as ..those areas not otherwise CBlCgO' rized herein that could be developed to Nral den. slties consistent with the comprehensive plan NO. 94-2-0006 (until amended)," Presumably. this classification is all of Jefferson County outside the municipa1lim- its of Pon Townsend, The use of these inadequate "Interim Level of Service Standards" as the defin- ing criteria of section 5,10 does not comply with the Act. There is concluding language in this section that says: "Funher. nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to impose an obligation on the City of Port Townsend to extend or otherwise make available water service that it is not otherwise obligaled to make available and serve." In other words. there is no obligation to supply water unless there is an obligation to supply water. Finally the reference in section 5.10 stating that nothing in the ordinance Is to be consUUed as "restrictive or prohibitive of the in-filling of exist- ing platted areas lying outside" the ruGA read in conjunction with section 6.10 is disblrblng. That section states: "Nothing In this ordinance shall effect the use of existing lots of record pro- vided said use is consistent with appli- cable Federal, State or County Statutes, Laws. Codes. Regulations or Ordl. nances." Although It is not a basis of our finding of non- compliance In this hearing, we talce this opportu- nlty to comment concemlng the ''In-lIWng'' por- tion ofsectlon 5.10 and all ofsectlon 6.10. If the intent of section 6.10 Is to somehow vest "lots of record" that might not otherwise be vested, then the attempt Is not In compUance with the Act's prohibition against new urban develop- ment outside an JUGA. As shown by the record in this case, there are some 10,000 small individual lots in the Tri-Area, many of which were platted in the late 19th Century or earty 20th Century. Many of those lots mayor may not be "vesled" for a variety of reasons including RCW 58.17.170 which states: .....(Alny lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use not with- standing any changes In zonlng laws STATE OF WAShiNGTON BEFORE THE WeSTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEAWNGS BOARD .' .' BARBARA Rudge, ~d ANDREA XAVER. ,Petitioners. SKAGIT COUNTY, Respondent, INTRODUCTION , 1995, Friends of Skqit County, Bar. The County quoted EES's "Skagit County Popula- tion Forecast and Growth Management Act:' elated February. 1995. as noting that the medium EES forecast for the County for 1994 was 90,519. whereas the actual population estimate was 91.000, The high case EES fo~t was 93,647 for 1994, 2.647 higher than the estimate. The OFM forecast for 1994 was 87,564. The County quoted the EES population foteCllSt: "this shows that both the medium and high case EES forecast better reflect the actual population than the forecast provided by OFM". The County asserted that the term "lDOst likely" which appears in the recent amcDdmcnt to RCW 43.62.03.5 in ESB 5876, equating a middle range as repreaentiDg the estimIIre of the most likely popu- lation projeCtion, wU not in effect at the limo the Cowity adopted its roGAs and therefore doe& not apply to this c:ase. The County went on to say that we should not Ibid the County's use ofEES projec- tions to be out of compliance with GMA as ESB<. 5876 statea:,~o coun~'1I pern,iins pompreheDSiveJ pllui will bii'deemiild'.o~fOf cOmjiUAiu:e until the OFM population projectiClns are issued in late 1995.. August 1995 - ~ OFM should have been used, We hold that the County's use of "EES high" was not in compliance with the Act. ISSUE 2 I - DID SKAGIT COUNTY FAll... TO COMPLY wrm THE GMA BECAUSE IT ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO PROHIBIT NEW NON-RESOURCE-DEPENDENT COMMER- CIAL AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTIl OUTSIDE THE IUGAs? Friends stated that the ruGA ordinances did not prohibit or restrict new commercial or industrial development outside JUGAs and that the County was 'aIIowinB the same. They aqued that RCW 36,70A.ll0 (1) prohibits urban growth outside ur- ban growth areas. In this Board's cae City Dj PDn Town.;md;'~.lii:; j,: Jeumim 'o,,m;y~ f94;.2-0006,. we held'thill "in so far ai'theorclinmCli puipOits to' allow new urban residential development, new re- zones or!)ther approvals (or commercial and indus- trial uses outside an IUGA, the same are prohibited by the Act and as such are not witbI.n the discretion of the County Commissioners to allow." Friends ' furtb~. wlll1f pn to quote from the above cited case "in onlerto .~o complJaDce, the tansuaBc of the ordinmco mu.t be clarified to not allow new ur- ban residaitla1, commercial, or industrial develop- ment outside .: properly designated IUGA," August 1995 exhibits R42. R43. and R44 as indicating the inten- tion of Skagit County to appropriately limit urban growth outside of the lUGAs. CONCLUSION 2 1 The ordinances and resolutions cited by the County and Intervenors as precluding COtlUDlll'Cial, ,aDd industrial development outside of the IUGAs. do not contain any refcreDCC to GMA ~ ISSUE2.2 I PUD) section of the zoning ordinance did not pro- hibIt .:lusters that would ultimately require eXlen. ,ion or expansion of public sewer or public water lor growth in rural areas. They contended that a violation of RCW 36.70A.II0 (4) and of County- wide PlanniJi, Policy(CPP) 1.8 occurred. CPP 1.8 requires that ifijYe!opment ouuide IUOAs "shall be rural in nature II defined in the nua1 element, not requiring urb~.Bovemmental services." .....August I99S ISSUE 3 I OlD SKAGIT COUNTY FAlL TO COMPLY wrrn THE GMA BECAUSE IT ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO PROPERLY ADOPT PREEXIST- ING REGULATIONS REGARDING NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS AND CRITICAL AREAS (NRUCA)? ..,' " 1995 THE PUBLIC WITH A."1 OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE ADOPTION OF PRE. EXISTING REGULATIONS REGARDING DID' "SKAGIT COUNTY FAll.. TO COMPLY wITH THE GMA IN TIiAT IT ALLEGEDLY ADOPTED IUGAS WITHOUT FIRST CON- DUCTING AN ANALYSIS OF LAND CAPAC- ITY, FISCAL IMPACTS, AND/OR A CAPITAl. ISSUE 6 1 DID SKAGIT COUNTY FAIL TO COMPLY wrrH GMA BY ITS ALLEGED FAILURE TO IDElIfl1FY AND PRqTECT ,GREENBELTS AND OPEN SPACES WHEN ADOPTING ITS IUGAS? \ August 1995 On April 28th, Skagit County's joinder in City of Anacortes' motion to dismiss the amended petition for review regarding roOAs was received. August 1995 NO, 95-2-006.5 On June 21. 1995. we received Skagit Couney's responding brief and City of Mt. Vernon's brief, On June 29. we received Friends' reply brief and the County's table of COnlenlS for its June 21 brief. The Hearing on the Men" was held lune 11, 1995. at the Best Western Cottontree Inn in Mt. Vernon. Present wen: aill three Board members, Board Executive Assistant Betty MICkey, Oera1d Steel n:presenting Friends af Skagit County; Bubara Rudge, Andrea Xaver, Petitioners; Jahn Moffat representing Skasit County: Linford Smith repre- sentins lnterveDOr Cityaf Mt. Vernon; IDd David Hough aftbe Sbak County PlannlIIi DepertmeDt. 9/22/1995 Teal Lake Div II . JONES REGARDING: Pope Plats September 22, 1995 Ms. Terri V, Milliken Assistant Planner Madrona Planning & Development Services 607-A Tyler street Port Townsend, Washington 9836B Re: Plat of TEAL Lake Village DIVISION 2 Dear Terri: Pursuant to our meeting yoaterday, the following are my comments and draft provisions with regard to the above-rererenoed plat: SEP 22 '95 Ms. Terri V, Milliken September 22, 1995 Page - 2 MS. Terri V. Millikan September 22, 1995 Page - 3 SUITE C 60M PARADISE BAY ROAD PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98!56~ September 22, 1995 Ms. Terri V. Milli~en Assistant Planner Madrona planning & Development Services 607-A Tyler street Port Townsend, Washington 9B368 Rs: PLAT Of PORT LUDLOW 7 Dear Terri: Pursuant to our meetinq yesterday, the following are my oomments and draft provisions with reqard to the above-referenoed plat: Ms, Terri V, Milliken September 22, 1995 Page - 2 B. Grading may include fill placement on slopes. All fi~l placed on slopes steeper than 5 to 1 (Horizontal to vertical) shall be properly keyed or benched into the slope face and drained, as appropriate, 'lbe bench should be about 10 feet wide and a maximum of 3 feet in height. C. Some of the on-site soils are moisture sensitive and earthwork should be performed during dry weather conditions, Soils unsuitable for use as structural fill because of moisture content or organic content may be stockpiled and later used for landscapinq, or removed from the site, D. The final subdivision plat shall include a BUilding Setback Line in accordance with the rocommendations of the geotechnical rGlport dated september 14, 1995, There shall be no construction activity on slopes in front of thGl Buildinq Setback Line as shown on the final subdivision plat, except for non- critical structures, such as decks, patios, small storage sheds, etc" unless the applicant submits an engineering report to determine if any proposed foundations, reintorcements or rock walls are required to be enqineered, The engineerinq report shall illustrate the exact ~ocation of all proposed residential foundations, reinforcements or rock walle that will be located on slopes in front of the Building Setback Line, The engineering report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Jefferson County public Works Department prior to issuance of the residential building permit, E. Shallow foundations founded on dense native materials or properly compacted structural fill (95 percent MOD) may be useel for support of structures, Daylight basement structures will be more practical and economic on sloping areas, F. Where mixed subgrade materials occUr at footing or floor grades, oVGroxcavation and replacemont with structural till may be required or alternative footing designs should be considered, G, Adequate drainage should be provided for all struotures. This inoludes footing drains, roadway subdrains where necessary and vapor barriers for all slabs-on-grade, Roof drains should not be tied into the footing drains, but dirocteel to the site .tor1l\water system. Ms. Terri V. Milliken September 22, 1995 Page - 3 H. Natural vegetation shall be maintained in open space areas 7 ,provided that removal of diseased and dangerous tree., selective thinning of vegetation for views, and placement of recreational amenities (such as a pickle ball court), shall be permitted in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical report prepared by a li~enBed engineer. 4. Mitigation condition 8. Delete. 5. Mitigation Condition 13. Delete. 5. Xitigation Condition 15. Delete, The.. are MY comments with regard to Port LUdlow 7. Thank you for your a..i.tance, Please call it you have any questions or comments. FINAL MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS Date: September 22, 1995 Applicant: Pope Resources Proposal: SUB 95-0004, Teal Lake Village Division 2 is an application for Long Subdivision of approximately 110,3 acres into 54 single family residential lots, Lots sizes would range from 35,160 square feet to 73,450 square feet with an average lot size of 50,400 square feel. The proposal includes a total of 40,60 acres identified as Tracls A through D, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association, Il'!.bI' (J The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed from~ghls.of. way off of Teal Lake Road. If granted the requested\rariance from the required sixty foot (601) right-of-way requirements, the proposed internal roadways would consist offifty foot (50') rights- of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cul-de-sacs, excepting that the right-of-way serving lots 16 through 36 would terminate in a loop. Site area dedicated to undeveloped open space would consist of approximately 40,60 acres (36,8% of the total site area), The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively. The proposal includes provision of temporary and permanent stonn waler management facilities, Project Location: The proposal site is located in Pon Ludlow soulh of Paradise Bay Road adjoining Teal Lake Road. Final Threshold Determination The project property is legally identified as Assessor's Tax Parcels #821-121-001, #821-121-003, and #821-121-004, located in a portion of the NortheaSt Quarter of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, W,M" Jefferson County, Washington. Mitigative Measures: 1, To mitigate sigruficant adverse impacts related to slope stability and soil erosion, the proponent shall conform 10 the following conditions based on the applicable Jefferson County regulations and the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers dated March 28, and Seplember 14,1995: 0;)-- ~ 0 No records offill placement/compaction are availa~ for the existing fill material placed on portions of the sile (Lots 40.41(51 and 52), This material is in a loose to medium dense condition and locally contains unsuilable material, Where this material will support structures, the unsuitail malerial should be removed and replaced wilh compaacted structural fill, I reas where the existing fill is of acceptable conlent but in a loose to m m dense condition, we recommend lhal, where it will support structures, it be recompacted to ninety-five (95) percent of the MDD (maximum dry density) in accordance with ASTM D-1557, Some of the on-site soils are moisture sensilive and earthwork should be performed during dry wealher condilions, Soils unsuilable for use as structural fill because of moisture contenl or organic conlent may be slockpiled and later used for landscaping, or removed from the sile, / 0 All fill should be placed on a prepared surface, generally in a twelve (12) inch maximum lift and uniformly compacted to ninety (90) percent MDD below lwo (2) feet of subgrade and ninety-five (95) percent in the upper two (2) feet, o Grading may include fill placement on slopes, All fill placed on slopes steeper I than five (5) to one (1) (Horizonla1 to Vertical) should be properly keyed or benched into the slope face and drained, as appropriate, The bench should be about ten (10) feet wide and a maximum of three (3) fet in height. o Shallow foundalions founded on dense native malerials or properly compacted structural fill (ninety-five (95) percent MOD) may be used for support of V structures, R 3, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, the proponent shall designate a qualified individual or finn who shall be responsible for ensuring that erosion and sedimentation control devices are correctly installed, that Best Management Practices are correctly implemenled, and that BMP melhods and mainlenance schedules are followed; for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of practices and recommending modifications 10 the drainage plan as necessary if monitoring reveals that the practices are not effective; and for ensuring that reports and inspections are coordinaled with the Jefferson Counly Department of Public Works, 4, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality. the proponent shall continue and expand the existing Water Quality Monitoring Program which documents non-point effects on the Class AA "Extraordinary" water quality ,I / designation of Port Ludlow Bay under the direction of Jefferson County, The program OV shall ensure the perfonnance of water quality control fealures and provide for upgrading, as necessary, The program shall include moniloring at appropriate background stations (i,e" l.udlow Creek and the intennitlenl streams on site and inner Port Ludlow Bay), The program shall allow for adjuslment of monitoring stations and water quality monitoring parameters depending on location of development activity and monitoring findings, On-going monitoring shall include evalualion of the proposed BMPs and testing of shellfish and sediment as appropriate, Ambienl monitoring and storm event monitoring shall be conducted. The scope of work for each subsequent year's program shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and approval by November 1 oflhe preceding year, If the moniloring indicales lhat the proponent's activities are causing a reduction in lhe water quality standards of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall in its annual report so advise Jefferson County, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent. shall conduct a sewage treatment plant monitoring program which documenls the effects of the development program on the capacity of the secondary sewage lrealment plant. The moniloring shall record the number of conneclions, effluent volume, and effluent quality, It is acknowledged lhat lhe sole aulhority to monitor and regulate operation of the sewage treatment plant rests with lhe Washington Department of Ecology, Nolhing in this mitigaling measure is intended to supersede or conflict with the requirements oflhe proponent's National Pollulanl Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No, WA-002120-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and companion statutes, Results oflhis monitoring shall be transmitted to the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and lhe Washington Department of Ecology by March IS of each year, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground water resources and to docum.ent the condition of the aquifers used as domestic waler sources, lhe proponent shall conduct a groundwater resource monitoring program, The scope of the program shall be mutually agreed upon by the proponent and Jefferson County prior to final plat approval. Monitoring shall include stalic groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. If groundwater monitoring indicates an inadequate yield to support development of the proponent's projects, the proponent and/or the County shall immediately notifY the Washington State Department of Ecology 10 request action or investigation pursuant to RCW 90,44 whieh provides authority for resolution of conflicts involving allocation of groundwater supplies, In the event lhat this siluation occurs no additional plats which withdraw water from the South Aquifer shall be approved by Jefferson County until the groundwater adequacy issues have been resolved. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to transportation, the proponent shall conduct a traffic monitoring program in cooperation with the Jefferson County Public Works Department to assess the impacts of the Teal Lake Village Division 2 subdivision and other Development Program subdivisions/plats on the State and County roadway system, The monitoring shall record trip generation, traffic counls on selected roadways, and level-of.service conditions at selected inlersections, The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified traffic engineer 10 design and direct the traffic monitoring program in cooperalion with other appropriate public agencies, The cost of retaining the traffic engineer shall be al the proponent's sole expense, Results oflhe monitoring shall be submitted to Jefferson County by March 15 of each year. 8, To mitigate potential impacts to transportation circulalion and lhe inlersection of Paradise Bay and Teal Lake Roads, the applicant shall be responsible for funding a share of the required improvements to the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road interseclion, including channelization, lhal is proportionate to the impacts related 10 the proposal. 9, In the event archaeological items are discovered lhe proponent shall observe the protocol developed by a professional archaeologist in conjunction with local Native American tribes as follows: STOP WORK, Do not further dislurb the area or remove any materials therefrom, Notify immediately the Director of Development Review, (360) 379-4463, Director of Development will immediately notify the Stale Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), (206) 753-5010, Protect the area from vandals and collectors, Obtain services of a qualified archaeologist 10 evaluate lhe site and make recommendations for further work in the area, Iffurther excavation or disturbance of the site is necessary, obtain the appropriate pennit fonn OAHP. Proceed only in compliance with the tenns and conditions of said pennit, ~ 10, As necessary in order to minimize temporary construction traffic, the proponent in ~ coordination with the Jefferson County Public Works Department shall designate truck routes and designate work hour restrictions, II, In order to avoid significant adverse impacls to school facilities, prior to final plat approval the proponent shall pay to the ChimBcum School Dislrict $437,10 per lot to be applied toward provision of school facilities, Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement. final plat approval the proponent shall pay to the Jefferson County Fire District #3 $193,00 per lot to be applied toward provision offire and emergency services, Payment may be arranged through a vol\lnlary agreement. Potential Significant EnvironfficBtal Impacts: The mitigative measures are designed to address impacts identified through the Environmental Checklist submitted by the applicanl, field evaluations by the Development Review and Public Works Departments, and public comments (including that by other agencies), These impacts include: o Soil erosion during clearing for construction of roads and other on-site improvements. a Stonn water ron-off during construction and after buildout. a Potential impacts to public roads and circulation, o Potential impacts to the capacity of the Chimacum School Dislrict's educational services and safe walki!lg conditions for school children, o Potential impacts to the ability of Jefferson Transit 10 provide public transportation service to the residential development. County policies which address the aforementioned probable impacts are contained in the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance: State Environmental Policy Act #7-84, Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance # 05-0509-94 and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Specific policies outlined in the Jefferson County SEPA Implementing Ordinance are as follows: J. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generAtions; 2, Assure for all people safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3, Attain the widest range of beneficial uses or the environmenl without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4, Maintain, wherever possible, an environmenl which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; and 5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities, Specific policies outlined in the Jefferson County Interim Crilical Areas Ordinance are as follows: 9,20 To maintain the natural integrity of geologically hazardous areas and their buffers in order to protect adjacent lands from the impacts of landslides, mudslides, subsidence, excessive erosion, and to safequared the public from these lhreats 10 life and property, Specific policies outlined in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan are as follows: 1. The natural beauty and "livability" of Jefferson County should be a primary consideration in the location, timing and quantity of growth, Nalural amenities identified as important to the County's well being should be considered; 2, Residential development should be located, designed, and construcled with respect to such natural conditions as soil capability, geologic fealures, probability of flooding, andtopo~phy;and 3. Residential development should be located, designed, and constructed with respect to such natural conditions as soil capability, geologic fealures, probability of flooding, and topography, 4. Residential developers should assume all direct costs of their individual projects such as roads, accesses, parking, surface drainage's, water systems, sewer systems, etc, The general taxpaying public of Jefferson County should not be required to pay lhose costs in future years due to the lack of, or inadequale, initial construction, 5, Transportation and circulation facilities should be located, designed and inslalled to meet reasonably foreseeable future needs, Notice or Lead Aleney: Jefferson County has delennined it Is the lead agency for the Notice of Noa-Significance: Jefferson County has detennined that the above-described proposal, conducted in conformance wilh the mitigation measures, would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43,21C, 030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division, and an inspection of the site, Comment Period: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 (2) (f), Jefferson County has considered comments on its preliminary mitigated determination of nonsignificance, There is no additional comment period, Any appeal of this determination on the basis of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 43,21.C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) must be submitted in writing before 5:00 P,M October 2, 1995 to the SEP A Responsible Official, Jefferson Counly Development Review Division (Jefferson County Permit Center, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, W A 98368) for consideration by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, David Goldsmith, SEP A Responsible Official 1 Following is a notice of Mitigated Determin.tion of Non-Significence. The proposa1 site is within your department's /agency's jurisdiction. If you have any questions or wish to comment on the proposal, please write or te1ephone the ,Jefferson County Permit center, Development Review Division by September 6, 1995. NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS PORT LUDLOW DIVISION 7 LONG SUBDIVISION CASE NO. SUB95-0002 PROPONENT ( S): POPE RESOURCES JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAl.. HIsTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Part Townsend, Washington 98368 July 14, 1995 Mr. David Cunningham, Vice President Pope Resources P,O, Box 1780 Poulsbo. W A 98370 Re: Ludlow Cove and Creekside II Development Proposals Dear Mr, Cunningham: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 29, 1995 in which you state that density control is governed by the County's Optimum Land Use Map and controlling ordinances, Furthermore, you note that an Environmental Impact Statement was issued for the Port Ludlow Development Program analyzing the probable impact to public services, natural systems. and infrastructure from approximately 700 additional residences and companion commercial and recreational development, Jefferson County chose to utilize lhe phased revicw provisions ofSEPA (WAC 197-11-060 (5)), in order to assess site specific impacts as each development proposal is brought forward, while addressing the cumulative impacts from the entire the Port Ludlow Development Plan, The issue of allowable density under Jefferson County Ordinances is not relevant to the discussion of environmental analysis as provided herein, The question we are trying to resolve is the deviation from the environmental document adopted by Jefferson County, Given lhat the FEIS addressed the known or projected impacts from the Port Ludlow Development Program, each detail review of specific phases of the plan must then: 1) relate to the development proposal for which the EIS was issued (preferred alternative,) and 2) address site specific impacts not covered by the initial analysis, The dilemma presenled by Ludlow Cove and Creekside II is that they do not relate to lhe development program as presented in the EIS, SEPA anticipates this will occur and provides a couple of ways to add~ess this type of deviation: WAC 197-11-625 Addenda: in lhis case the addenda would be an analysis of the development program to dale. and a modification to the proposed project by rearranging anticipated densities within the scope of the original preferred alternative, Essentially this will be a change to lhe proposed project, but it would create no new or unanticipated Mr, David Cunningham, Pope Resources impacts other than those at a specific location, Your environmental checklist will need to address increased site specific impacts associated with the new density over previously anticipated densities, WAC 197-11-620 SupplementalEIS; in this case YOll could supplement theEIS with an analysis of the new impacts associated with a modification to the proposed project. Here we would be looking for the incremental change in the overall project caused by the , increased density. As you also pointed out, Jefferson County is moving towards adoption of its GMA Comprehensive Plan, This document will include an EIS which analyzes the macro impacts from development options and provides a capital facilities plan to address shortcomings in the infrastructure, Concurrency becomes the mitigation package which will then be applied to individual development proposals, You may wish to withdraw your applications at this time and simply supplement the County's EIS (if necessary) to address , the Port Ludlow Development Program, I have spoken with DOE about these options and believe the three outlined above will address the procedural and substantive criteria for compliance with SEPA. Please notifY me of your decision so we may take the appropriate course of action, Acting SEP A Responsible Official c: Development Review Division. Permit Center Paul McUrath, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mlldrona Planning and Development Services Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O, Box 1220 Port Townsend. Washington 98368 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL 1"'STQRIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND WA~I1INGlor; ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD. DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E, WOJT. DISTRICT 3 September 21, 1995 Ms, Linda Mueller Pope Resources PO Box 1780 Poulsbo, W A 98370-0239 Re: Long Plat Application No. SUB 95-0002 - Port Ludlow Division 7 Long Plat Application No, SUB 95-0004 - Teal Lake VilIage Division 2 Dear Ms. Mueller: I have received and read both or your letters dated September 6, 1995, regarding the above referenced matters. You stated several issues of concern that I wilI attempt to address. In that your concerns are similar in nature for both proposals I will address each in this letter, Your letter regarding Port Ludlow Division 7 begins with the allegation that the Project Description section has been significantly revised. Due to a lack of specificity I can only asswne that you are referring to the matter of who would provide a sanitary sewer. In reviewing the proposal section of the MDNS and staff memorandum, I fail to see where it has been altered to any degree let alone significantly altered, The Proposal section states that the proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer, for water and sewer, respectively. I read this to mean that the Ludlow Water Company will provide water and tllat sewer will be provided by a sanitary sewer system, The proposal description is nonspecific about who will provide the service, but does specify the necessary infonnation that is the metllod of sewage disposal. Ms, Linda Mueller September 21,1995 The next issue raised in both letters is the content of the environmental record that you allege is incorrectly stated. Your letter states that as required by WAC 197-11- 330(a)(b), the only environmental data upon which a SEPA Threshold Determination may be made is the Environmental Checklist, The subsections cited in your letter do not exist; therefore, I will assume that you are refening to WAC 197-11-330(lXa)(b), I have thoroughly read this section of this Chapter and cannot find any statement that limits the Responsible Official to the environmental checklist. On the contraJy, WAC 197-11-315(1)(a) provides that the Responsible Official will use the environmental checklist to assist in making threshold determinations for proposals. It appears your interpretation of the citation in WAC 197-11-330(1) is, that in making a threshold detennination, the responsible official is limited to the environmental documentation used. Rather than being a limiting statement, this WAC citation refers to the minimum information that the Responsible Official must review in making a threshold determination. Furthermore, mitigation of potential environmental impacts from a development proposal cannot be arbitrarily imposed. The use of all adopted ordinances and standards is critical in detennining whether or not the adverse impacts from a pmposal can be mitigated to a point of non-significance. Such information is used as supporting documents by the lead agency and will be referenced as such in the threshold determination. Therefore, it is my detennination that this section of the MDNS is correctly stated and should remain unchanged. As stated in both of your letters, you believe recording the entire geotechnical report is wmecessary, cumbersome, and costly, and that specific pertinent mitigation should be written. This may be true, However, it is the intention of the lead agency to have the supporting data on record ratller than to provide blind mitigation measures for future property owners. Perhaps other alternatives can accomplish this objective. You may wish to prepare a document that provides the supporting information in condensed fonn with accompanying mitigation measures necessary to address environmental conditions, and have that document filed for the record. Or you may wish to annotate each lot as to site specific measures necessary to mitigate stated environmental conditions. In any event, tJle intent to provide future lot owners a record of the site specific development requirements or environmental encumbrance is necessary to address the impacts identified in the geotechnical report. As stated in both of your letters, you believe mitigation measures two (2) and eight (8) should be deleted since they are appropriately a preliminary plat condition Ms, Linda Mueller September 21,1995 pursuant to Subsection 6,405 of the Subdivision Ordinance. I concur with this assessment and the subdivision standard will be further refmed at the preliminary plat stage. Regarding your stated concerns for mitigation measures three (3) and four (4), these measures derived specifically from the geotechnical report. If you wish to draft a list of proposed mitigation measurt:s or specifically modify your proposal, with '::Y) accompanying citations of the supporting information in the referenced geotechnical report, you may do so and submit them to Jefferson County for detailed review and approval. The conditions and limitations found in the geotechnical report, however, must be addressed. ' With respect to Teal Lake Village Division 2, you believe mitigation measure five (5) that establishes a Maintenance Covenant ensuring adequate maintenance of the drainage system, should be deleted as SEP A mitigation since it is appropriately a ~ preliminary plat condition per Subsection 6.405 of the Subdivision Ordinance......!f.. \5 Pope Resources will stipulate to similar lansmage as a condition of preliminary plat approvart'1ientlrt~"'nea~ deleted, However, Subsection 6.405 states that --the installation of such a system shall be in acoorillU1ce with County standards and does not refer to their continued maintenance that is necessary to mitigate ongoing stonn water conditions. This measure ensures adequate maintenance of the installed drainage system to mitigate ongoing stonn water conditions. As stated in both of your letters, you believe mitigation measure 13 should be \/) deleted since it is appropriately a preliminary plat condition pursuant to the '" Subdivision Ordinance. I concur with this assessment and it will be required at the preliminary plat stage in confonnance with the standards of the Department of Public Works. As stated in your letter regarding Teal Lake Village, Division 2, you believe mitigation measure 14 should be deleted according to infonnation provided in the traffic study referenced in your letter. The Port Ludlow Development Program EIS discusses impacts to this intersection attributable to Development Program projects, It notes the potential need for improvements to accommodate traffic at this intersection. Existing traffic patterns support the assumption tlIat Teal Lake Village Division 2 residents will travel through this intersection. This mitigation is contingent and only requires a contribution from the proponent tJIat is proportionate to the impacts from the Teal Lake Village Division 2 development based on traffic monitoring. As you have argued in tJle past for consistency in applying mitigation Ms, Linda Mueller September 21,1995 measures, this measure bas been applied to Creekside, the Inn at Port Ludlow, Deer and Springwood plats. This mitigation should be retained. As stated in your letter regarding Teal Lake Village, Division 2, you believe measure 16 should be deleted since DO impact has been identified. The Port Ludlow Development Program EIS discusses impacts related to truck and construction traffic attributable to construction of Development Program projects. This mitigation measure was proposed in the EIS and should be retained. - I look fOlWard to the completion of your subdivision proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please contact Madrona Planning and Development Services should you require further assistance. Sincerely, David Goldsmith, Deputy Director Public Services Acting SEPA Responsible Official CC: ,Madrona Planning & Development Services MEMORANDUM David Goldsmith, SEPA Responsible Official Richard M. Sepler, Madrona Planning and Development Services August 17, 1995 Environmental Review and Threshold Determination under the Rules of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chaptec 197-11 WAC) Pope Resources SUB 95-0004, Teal Lake Village Division 2 is an application for Long Subdivision of approximately 110.3 acres into 54 smgle family residential lots. Lots sizes would range from 35,160 square feet to 73,450 square feet with an average lot size of 50,400 square feet. The proposal includes a total of 40.60 acres identified as Tracts A through D, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association. The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed from private rights-of-way off of Teal Lake Road. If granted the requested variance from the required sixty foot (6Oi) ri~ht-of-way requirements, the proposed internal roadways would conSist of fifty foot (50') rights-of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cul-de-sacs, excepting that the right-of-way serving lots 16 through 36 would terminate in a loop. Site area dedicated to undeveloped open space would consist of approximately 40.60 acres (36.IJ% of the total site area). The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively. The proposal includes provision of temporary and permanent storm water management facilities. Location: The pr,oposal site is located in Port Ludlow south of Paradise Bay Road adjoming Teal Lake Road. l)eserlptlon:The project property is identified as Assessor's Tax Parcels #821-121"()() I, #821-121-003, and #821-121-004, located in a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range I East. W.M., Jefferson County, Washington. Applleotlon:SUB 95.()()()4, Teal Lake Village Division 2 Checklist: The Environmental Clceklist was received by the Development Review Division on January 19, 1995. Comments: Staff requested review and comments on the Environmental Checklist from numerous agencies as well as adjacent property owners and parties of interest. Notified agencies include the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Jefferson County Department of Health, State Department of Transportation, Stale Department of Fish and WildIit€:, State Department of Natural Resources, State Departmenl of Ecology, Public Utility District (PUD) #1, Jefferson Transit, Chimacum School District #49, Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Olympic Environmental Council, Port Gamble S'KIa11am Tribe. Written responses received are as follows: Jefferson County Permit Center, March 14, 1995, Jefferson County Public Works Department, July 24 1995; Chimacum School District #49, May 18, 1995; Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3, June 5, 1995; Port Gamble S'KlaIlam Tribe. June 13, 1995; Copies of all correspondence and comments are attached. Written responses have not been received from the following notified agencies: Jefferson County. Department of Health, Jefferson Transit, Hood Canal Coordinating CouncIl, Ol~mpic Environmental Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Department of Natural Resources, and lhe Washington State Department of Ecology. Notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader on April 26, 1995. Notice ofpendinj; threshold determination was posted on the site by the proponents on Apnl 26, 1995. Notice of pending threshold determination was mailed to the adjacent property owners on April 26, 1995. Notice: Inspection: Staff conducted a site inspection on May 5, 1995. TO: Al1..8:nnit and Review Authoritics ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD The environmental review consisted of analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record. Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92 Implementing Ordinance #7-84: State Environmental Policy Act Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance # 05-0509-94 Jefferson County Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area Ordinance #01-0117.9.5 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Port Ludlow Development Progmm Unless otherwise noted, the above information is available for review in the Jefferson County Planning Department, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and .5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. STAFF AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The foUowing sections correspond with related categories of the environmental checklist submitted for the proposal and clarify, amend, or add to that document (see Exhibit I for proponeneschecklis0. I. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION SUB 95-0004, Teal Lake Village Division 2 is an application for Long Subdivision of approximately 110.3 acres into 54 single family residential lots. Lots sizes would range from 35,160 square feet to 73,450 square feet with an average lot size of 50,400 square feet. The proposal includes a total of 40.60 acres identified as Tmcts A through D, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association. ',,\v The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed froa~tp rights-of-way off of Teal Lake Road Ifgranted the requested variance from ther~~ty foot (60i) right-of-way requirements, the proposed internal roadways would consist of fifty foot (50') rights-of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cul-de-sacs, excepting that the right-of- way serving lots 16 through 36 would terminate in a loop. Site area dedicated to undeveloped open space would consist of approximately 40.60 acres (36.8% of the total site area). The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively. The proposal includes provision of temporary and permanent storm water management facilities. ' II. PERMITS REQUIRED: Jefferson County: Subdivision Approval Building PermIt Critical Areas Permit Summary of Si~nific8nt l~nvironment81 Comments: EaI:th; Lots 1 - 36 are located on the east side of Teal Lake Road which consists of a north-south trending ridge. The crest of the ridge slopes up to the south with side slopes along the eastern side ranJ;ing up to sixty percent (60%) having occasional areas of steeper slopes. Elevations in thIS area ran(te from 225 feet to 480 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Side slopes along the western SIde of the ridge range up to approximately thirty percent (30%) with occasional areas of steeper slopes. Lots 37 . 54 are located along the west side of Teal Lake Road in an area where slopes range from approximately 225 feet to 460 feet above Mean Sea level (MSL). This portion of the site slopes down toward the west with an average slope ofapproximately ten percent (10%) in the uppennost areas. Seasonally intermittent streams have developed on this portion of the Site willi slopes up to eighty percent (80%) along their drainage courses. Teal Lake Village The site is located in an area mapped by the Soil Conservation Service that consists of the Cassolary and Sinclair series soils which are listed as having severe erosion hazards which range from moderate to severe depending on slope. Such areas have limitations 10 construction of dwellings with basements which range from modernte to severe depending on the slope. In areas of the Sinclair soils the Soil Survey describes the limitation to dwellings with basements as moderate for slopes up to fifteen percent (15%) and severe for slopes greater than fifteen percenl (15%). In areas of the CassoIary soils the Soil Survey describes the limitation to dwellings without basements as moderate for slopes up to fifteen percent (15%) and severe for slopes greater than fifteen percent (15% )., The Soil Survey describes the erosion hazard of the CassoIary soils as slight to moderate for slopes rangmg up to fifteen percent (15%) and as moderate for slopes of fifteen to thirty percenl (15-30%). The Soil Survey describes the erosion hazard of the Sinclair soils as slight 10 moderate for slopes ranging up to fifteen percent (15%) and as moderate 10 severe for slopes ranging from fifteen to thirty percent (15-30%). The site is located within the Landslide Hazard Area designation on the Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps and will be subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. Vegetation on the site consists of mature second growth Douglas Fir and cedar trees with a dense understory of brush. Areas which have been cleared in the past have revegetated with alder trees, brush, and grass. Soil and construction debris has been stockpiled in the vicinity of Lots 40,41,42,51, and 52. The aforementioned soils and construction debris is unsuitable for support of foundations or pavements and should be removed to an approved disposal site. The proposal includes significant clearing, grading, excavation, and fills 10 construct roads, utilities, and residences. Because the site is characterized by steep slopes, the proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts 10 Earth related 10 slope stability and soil erosion. With slopes up to 80%, erosion is a distinct possibility due to the lot configumtion, the amount of earth removal for homeSIte preparation, and the development of roads and utilities. There has not been a history of erosion on the site which could be attributable 10 the retention of undisturbed native vegetation in areas of extreme steep slope. Removal of vegetation or any other site disturbing activities in the areas qualifying as sleep slopes should be conducted with extreme care. In a letter dated Julf 24, the Department of Public Works stated that in order to avoid si~nificant adverse Impacts related to slope stability and soil erosion, the following mltigativ~ measures based on the recommendations of the report prepared by GcoEngincers, dated March 28, 1995 should be required: I. Construction of roads, residences, appurtenant structures, and drainage systems and all land disturbin~ activities should be conducted in conformance with the recommended mmimum setbacks, erosion control measures, and conditions regarding earthwork, foundations, floor slab support, retaining and subgrade walls, dminage, subgmde preparation, and pavement. 2. The geotechnical report prepared for the site by GeoEngineers should be recorded witll the Jefferson County Auditor and the Auditor's File Number should be depicted on the plat along with the following notice to purchasers: A geotechnical report has been prepared for the plat by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Development of the plat shall be conducted in confonnance with the recommended conditions of the geotechnical report which has been filed with the Jefferson County Auditory under Auditor's File Number . In addition, all development should strictly adhere to the guidelines of the Jefferson County State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Critical Areas Ordinance. The checklist adequately addresses the issues of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. a. Surface Water: It does not appear that any site disturbing activities would occur in the vicinity of the intermittent streams that run through the portion of the site located west of Teal Lake Road. However, mitigation for erosion of soils and increased runoff from impervious surfaces that would carry sediments and pollutants into surface waters should be required. b. Ground Water: Although the site is not located within the Rechargr. Susceptibility Zone desi~nation on the Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps, the proposal could have a sigmficant adverse impact resulting from depletion of ground water resources due to increased provision of water to this proposal. However, this impact can be avoided by implementin~ the ground water monitoring measure developed through the Programmatic EIS process and required as a mitigation measure for the proponent's Plat of Deer Hollow and, if necessary, requiring the proponent to take actions to ensure an adequate supply of potable water. c. Water Runoff: The proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts to water as a result of sedimentation from eroSIon of exposed soils and contaminants used during development. Mitigation measures would be required for such impacts which are addresSed by the Jefferson County State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance. Subdivision Ordinance, and Oitical Areas Ordinance. IThe Jefferson County Public Works Departmenl has required an engineered drainage and stormwater plan and report to be submitted for County approval. The drainage plan is to incorporate the stann drainage criteria of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition). Inspections conducted by County staff will be required for the various phases of construction of roads and storm water fuciIities and/or land disturbing activities. Additionally, prior to commencement of any land dislurbing activities on the site, an erosion and sedimenl control plan, developed to the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition), should be submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control methods for construction purposes should be approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and employed during construction. . As stated above under the section titled Earth, vegetation on the site consists of mature second growth Douglas Fir and cedar trees with a dense understory of brush. Areas which have been cleared more recently are vegetated with alder trees, brush, and grass. No significant plant species or communities are known to exist on the site. The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Ener,ey and Natural Resources: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Environmental Health: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Noise produced by construction activities will be minimal and of short duration. However, to reduce noise impacts to neighbors, construction activities would only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Land/Shoreline Use: The subject J>rOPerty is within the Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area and is subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area Ordinance #OJ ..0 I 17- 95. Further, the proposal is subject to review to determine consistency with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. checklist adequately addresses the t.cplcs of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. SEPA Aesthetics' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Light and Glare: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Recreation' The checklist adequately addresses the lopics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Historic and Cultural Preservation: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; however, the listed measures to reduce or control impacts should be imposed as mitigation measures, TranSDOrtation: As stated in the comment letter from Il1e Jefferson Counly Department of Public Works, dated July 24, 1995, access to the site would be by way of the Paradise Bay and Teal Lake County Roads. Each individual lot is estimated to generate six (6) trips per day for a total of 324. The proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts to public roads, specifically the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road intersection. The proposal will require improvements to the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road intersection. This impact is addressed by the policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7: GOALS AND POLICIES, Transportation and Circufation, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Ludlow Development Program, and lhe Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. The Department of Public Works recommends the following mitigative measures be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts: 1. The applicant should be re~nsible for funding a share of the required improvements to the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road intersection, including channeli7.ation, that is proportionate to the impacts related to the proposal. Public Services: a. Schools: The Development Program EIS finds that the Port Ludlow Development Program, of which this proposal is a component of, would have significant adverse impacts to the Chimacum School District's capacity for provision of educational facilities. The Chimacum School District has mformed Jefferson County that they do not have adequate existing ~ity to provide educational facilities to additional students, The District would Incur approximate annual ~rating costs of S5,164 and capital costs of S8,888 per student. Chimacum School District #49 has asked that the C'.ounty maintain the provisions for school bus trans{lOrtation as a requirement for project approval. To mitigate impacts to schools, pnor to final81at approval the proponent should pay to the Chimacum School District $437.1 per lot to be applied toward provision of school facilities. In their letter date May , 1995, the Chimacum School District has asked that the County insure that appropriate provisions for schools and school grounds will be made as required by RCW 58.17 and the subdivision ordinance prior 10 preliminary plat approval. Further, they request thaI adequate provision for school bus stops be made as part of the plat approval. As with any development proposal that results in an increase of residential density, pedestrian safety is a primary concern. The criteria for subdivision approval in the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance will require the developer to provide safe walking conditions for pedestrians and school children. b. Transit: The Jefferson Transit bus stop referenced in the checklist is located at the Paradise Bay RoadII'ea1 Lake Road intersection, approximately 3,500 feet from the proposed subdivision. c. Fire: The EIS finds that the Port Ludlow Development Program, of which this ~sal is a component, would have significant adverse Impacts on the Jefferson County Fire District No. 3's capacity 10 provide fue and emergency services. On September 13, 1993 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners considered the issues of providing adequate school facilities and fire and e~ency services related 10 Pope Resources' Plat o( the Inn at Port Ludlow. After considering testimony from the Chimacum School District, Fire District #3, and County staff, the Board delermined that adequate provision could be made by ~uiring Pope Resources 10 pay the School District $437.10 per lot to provide school facilities and to pay the Fire District $193.00 per lot to provide fue and emergency services. Payment is required prior to final plat approval, This action by the Board was subsequently adopted by the Board as a SEPA mitigation measure in order to avoid significant impacts related 10 Pope Resources' Deer Hollow Long Plat. These measures should also be required as mitigation for school and fire district impacts related 10 this proposal. The proponent proposes to design and construct water systems with flow volumes and hydrants sufficient to meet fire protection standards and to design and construct roads to County standards. Further review of the proposal to ensure consistency with fire protection standards would occur during subdivision review. Additional mitigation measures to ensure this are not necessary, Analysis of the infonnation provided in the Development Programmatic BIS and consllleration of the recommended mitigation measures indicate that silP'ificant adverse impacts to the Chimacum School Dlstrfct and Jefferson County Fire District No. :~ can be avoided. The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section. The subject proposal must have State ~ent of Health Water System approval prior 10 leffCrsori COunty preliminary plat approval, Potential Significant Environmental Impacts: Based on review of the Environmental Checklist and other available material provided on the subject proposal, Development Review staff recommends that the Responsible Official consider the following as potential significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of development of the subject proposal: Soil erosion during clearing for construction of roads and other on-site improvements. Storm water run-off during construction and after buildout Potential impacts to public roads and circulation. Potential impacts 10 the capacity of the Chirnacum School District's educational services and safe walking condilions for school children. Potential impacts to the ability of Jefferson Transit to provide public transportation service to the residential development. Threshold Dl!termination Recommendation: Staff recommends a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance be issued by the Responsible Official for the subject proposal. The following mitigation measures have been proposed by Development Review Division staff for consideration by the Responsible Official. They are intended to address and mitigate to a point of non-significance the environmental impacts listed above. 1. To mitigate significant adverse impacts related to slope stability and soil erosion, the proponent shall conform to the following conditions based on the applicable Jefferson County regulations and the recommendations of tile geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers dated March 28, 1995: a. Construction of roads, residences, appurtenant structures, drainage systems, and all land disturbing activities shall be conducted in confonnance with the recommended >( minimum setbacks, erosion control measures, and conditions regarding earthwork, . '. foundations, floor slab support, retaining and subgrade walls, drainage, subgrade '~ preparation, and pavement design from the geotechnical report for the site. b. The above referenced geotechnical report for the site shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor and the Auditon; File Number shall be depicted on the plat along with the following notice to purchasers: A geotechnical repor1 has been prepared for the plat by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Development of the plat shall be conducted in conformance with the recommended conditions of the geotechnical report which has been filed with the Jefferson County Auditor under Auditors File Number 2. To mitigate significant impacts to water related to sedimentation from erosion of exposed soils and contaminants used during development the following conditions shall apply throughout development of the proposal: The proponent shall submit an engineered drainage and stann water plan and report to the Jefferson County Public Works Dq>artment for review and approval. The plan is to include temporary and permanent eroSion control measures. The drainage plan must incorporate the storm drainage control criteria of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stann Water Management Manual (current edition). The plan shall be of sufficient detail to clearly illustrate the "Best Management Practices" utilized are adequate to treat and control the runoff. Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities on the site, and erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washing Slate Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition) and submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for review and approval. Tem~ erosion control Best Management practices shall be implemented at all times dunng land disturbing activities. An approved set of plans shall be kept on the site during construction. If no development of the lots is proposed at this time, the proponent shall state under Notice to Purchasers: Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities and prior to issuance of a building permit, a Storm Water Site Plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washington State ])epartment of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition) ancfbe submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control Best Mana2ement Practices shall be approved by the Jefferson County Department or-Public f Works and implemented at all times during land disturbing activities. . c.. . In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, native vegetation in ..... open space areas shall be maintlincd in an undisturbed condition. 4. For disturbance of vegetation in any area with a combination of slopes greater than 1 S% with impermeable or slowly permeable soils, ground water seepage, or potentially , unstable slopes the following conditions shall apply: 'y a. Whenever feasible, existing vegetation in the1le areas should rel1111in in an " undisturbed condition. If the arm is unve~etated due to a previous disturbance, \ " immediate efforts shall be required to provIde a persistent native vegetative cover to / ' " prevent erosion or hazard. b. In order to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive area.s and on-site vegetation, authorized clearin, shall be I\'lquireif to be designed to minimize impacts to soil and understory vegetation by providing for sequencing and staging where appropriate. ".' S. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to llOlIs and water, the Jl"OIlOI'Ialt shall ., establish a Maintenance Covenant as part of the Restrictive Covenants to ensure that the )\., drainage system is maintained In accordance with the proponent's approved plans. The ,\' Y Maintenance Covenant shall be reviewed and Ilpproved by the Jeffenon County Public , r ) Works Department prior to final plat approval. 6, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts 10 soils and water, temporary erosion control and storm water structures shall be inspected at least once per week during the construction period and sediment shall be removed from sedimentation ponds as necessary to ensure proper functioning. Disposal of sediment materials shall be SUbjecl to the approval of the Public Works Director in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County regulations. 7, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, the proponent shall desi~ a qualified individual or firm who shall be respo>lSible for ensuring that erosion and sedimentation control devices are correctly installed, that Besl Management Practices are correctly implemented, and that BMP methods and maintenance schedules are followed; for monitonng and evaluating the effectiveness of practices and recommending modifications to the drainage plan as necessary if monitoring reveals that the practices are not effective; and for ensuring that reports and inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. 8. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to soils and water, prior to conducting land disturbing activities on individual lots, the owner shall submit a small parcel temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval. Development of individual lots shall be carried out in conformance with the TESC plan. A notice to this effect shall be placed on the fmal plat. 9. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent shall continue and expand the existing Water Quality Monitoring Program which documents non-point effects on the Class AA "Extraordinary" water quality designation of Port Ludlow Bay under the direction of Jefferson County. The program shall ensure the performance of water quality control features and proviCle for upgrading, as V necessary. The progmm shall include monitoring at appropriate background stations \J (i.e., Ludlow Creek and the intermittent streams on Site and inner Port Ludlow Bay). The prop-am shall allow for adjusunent of monitoring stations and water quality momtonng parameters depending on location of development activity and momtoring findings. On-going monitoring shall include evaluation of the proposed BMPs and te.~ting of shellfish and secliment as appropriate. Ambient monltonng and storm event monitoring shall be conducted. The scope of work for each subsequent year's program shall be submitted to JeffersclD Count,Y for review and approval by November I of the preceding 'year. If the monitoring indicates that the proponent's activities are causing a reduction In the water quality standards of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall in its annual report so advise Jefferson County. 10. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent shall conduct a sewage treatment plant monitorin,g progmm which documents the effects of the development program on the capacity of the secondary sewage treatment ",.J plant. The monitoring shall record the number of connections, effluent volume, and \'0,) 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 mitigating measure is intended to supersede or conflict with the requirements of the proponent's National Pollutant Discl1alue Elimination System (NPDES) Pes-mit No, WA..Q02 I 20-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and companion statutes. Results of this mOl'l1toring shall be transmitted to the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and the Washington Department of Ecology by March J S of each year. 11. In order to avoid sif,lnificant adverse impacts to ground water resources and to document the condition of the aquifers used as domestic water sources, the proponent shall conduct a groundwater resource monitoring program. The scope of the program shall be mutually agreed upon by the proponent and Jefferson County prior to final plat approval. Monitoring shall include slatic groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. If ~, groundwater monitoring indicates an inadequate yield to support development of the '\J proponent's projects, the proponent andlor the County shalf immediately notify the Washington Slate Department of Ecology to request action or investigation pursuant to RCW 90.44 which provides authority for resolution of conflicts involving allocation of groundw-ater supplies. In the event that this situation occurs no additional plats which withdraw water from the South Aquifer shall be approved by Jefferson County until the groundwater adequacy issues have been resolved. 12. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to transportation, the proponent sha1I conduct a traffIC monitoring program in cooperation with the Jefferson County Public Works Department to assess the impacts of the Teall.ake Village Division 2 subdivision and other Development Program subdivisions/plats on the State and County roadway system. The monitoring shall record trip generation, traff'1C counts, on ":V seIected roadways, and ievel-of-service conditions at selected intersections. The o ' proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified tmffic engineer to desi,gn and direct the trnffic monitoring program 10 cooperatiOn with other appropriate public agencies. The cost of retaining the traffic engineer sha1I be at the proponent's sole expense. Results of the monitoring shall be submitted to Jefferson County by March 15 of each year. 13. To mitigate potential transportation impacts or impacts attributable to new roads or improvements to existing roads, the proponent shall submit Road and Intersection plans 'v to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval prior to /'- developmenL All road construction shall comply with the standardS of and be performed under the inspection of the DepartmenL Road lIpPI'O!ICh pennits shall be secured from the Department and the approacbes developell to the standards set forth in thepermiL 14. To mitigate potential impacts to transportation circu1ation and the intersection of . l/ Pamdise Bay and Teal Lake Roads, the applicant shall be responsible for funding a ( \. share of the required improvements to the Paradise Bay. Tea1l.ake Road intersection, V including channelization, that is proportionate to the impacts related to the proposal. 15. In the event archaeological items are discovered the proponent shall observe the protocol developed by a professional archaeologist in conjunction with local Native American tribeS as follows: STOP WORK. Do not further disturb the area or remove any materials therefrom. Notify immediately the Director of Development Review, (360) 379-4463. Diroctor of Development will i~)' notify the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), (206) 753-5010, Protect the area from vandals and collectors. ObtaIn IIeIVices of a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the site and m:aIcc recommendations for further work in the area. If further excavation or disturbance of the site is necessary, obtain the appropriate permit fonn OAHP. Proceed only in compliance with the terms and conditions of said permit. , \l~. As necessary in order to minimize temporary construction traffic, the proponent in ~'V coordination with theJ, efferson County Public Works Department shall designate truck ''-' routes and designate work hour restrictions. 17. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to school facilities, prior to final plat approval the proponent shall pay to the Chimacum School District $437.10 per lot to be AV a,pplied toward provision of school facilities. Payment may be arranged through a '\J voluntary agreement 18. in order to avoid Signif1caDt adverse impacts to fire and emergency services, prior to ,,~ final plat approval the ~t shall pay to the JefferliOll County Fire District #3 Z\'\ $193.00 per lot to be applied toward provision of fire and emergency services. \..) Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement. ' Determination of Responsible Omcial: I have reviewed and considered the referenced proposal, the environmental checklist, public comments, other available material, and the Development Review Division's staff memo and recommendation. I hereby: _ issue a Determination of Non-Significance. --X- issue a Determination of Mitigated Non-Significance. _ issue a Determination of Significance. determine that I do not have sufficient information u~ which to malce a threshold - , determination and direct the Development Review Division slaft'to obtain additional information on the proposal. Pope Resources 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast P,O, Box 1780 Poulsbo. Washington 98370-0239 (360) 697-6626 (360) 697-1156 FAX September 6.1995 Mr. David Goldsmith SEPA Responsible Official Jefferson County Development Review 621 Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Teal Lake Village. Division 2. Long Subdivision SUB95-0004 - SEPA Review Dear Mr. Goldsmith: We are In receipt of the Notice of Mitlgated Detennlnation of Non-SlfPllflcancf:..mld Lead AsJenqy Status and staff ;Memorandum dated August IS, 1995, for the above- mentioned plat and have the following comments: ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD. The Environmental Record on this proposal Is Incorrectly stated, As required by WAC 197-11-330(a)(b) and 197-11-660(a), the only environmental data upon which a SEPA Threshold Detenninatlon may be made Is the Environmental Checkllst which accompanied the preUmlnary plat application submitted on January 19. 1995. In response to Jefferson County's request of March 14. 1995. the Environmental ChecldJst was supplemented with two technical reports: - Geotechnical Enltfneering Services Subsurface Investilt~tJon. Pro,posed Teal Lake VlIlade DIvision II. Port Ludlow. Washington, by GeoEngineers, March 2S, 1995: and . Teal Lake Vllla.lte DIvision II Preliminary Plat - Assessment of Traffic- Related ImpactEl, by David I. Hamlin & Associates. July 7. 1995. Having fulfilled all requests for pertinent environmental data, the Threshold Determlnatlon must be based on the complete Environmental ChecklJst. Documents such as the County's Subdlvislon Ordinance, SEPA Implementing Ordinance. etc.. do not constitute a legal or logical basis for environmental "analysis." SIJ\FF AMENDMENTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIrus:r, Should be .Staff Report" or "Staff Comments.. Staff may provide or request addltlonallnfonnatlon, but tllcre Is no provision for amending the Checkllst. unless It Is the agency's own checklist. Mr. David Goldsmith/September 6. 1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. In Paragraph 2. lots will be accessed from public lights-of-way. not private. MItl~ation Measure #1. Recording the entire geotechnical report is unnecessaxy. costly. and cumbersome. Instead. specific pertinent mitigation should be written. Mitl~ation Measure #2. This should be deleted as a SEPA mitigation since it is appropriately a pre1.lmlnaxy plat condition per Subsection 6.405 of the Subdivision Ordinance. In WAC 197-11-660(l)(e). MBefore requlrlng mitigation measures. agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identltled significant impact." This mitigation is redundant with preliminary plat review. Mitigation Measures #3 & #4. It appears these two proposed measures are inconsistent with the geotechnical report submitted on April 5, 1995. We, the applicant, will immediately commission a list of specific. concise mitigation measures emanating from the geotechnical report. Mitigation Measure #5. This should be deleted as a SEPA mitigation since It is appropriately a pre1.lmlnary plat condition per Subsection 6.405 of the Subdivision Ordinance. In WAC 197-11-660(l)(e), MBefore requlrlng mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state. or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an Identltled significant impact." This mitigation is redundant with preliminaxy plat review. Mlti~ation Measure #8. Same comment as Mitigation Measure #2 above. Mltiltatlon Measure # 13. Same comment as Mitigation Measure #2 above. Mitigation Measure f#. \4. nlls should be deleted since the Environmental Checklist, as ~upplemented with the Teal Lake Village Division II Preliminary Plat _ Asscsament (I(Tramc-Related Impacts. by David I. Hamlin & Associates, July 7. 1995, does not requIre Improvements to the Teal Lake Road and Paradise Bay Road intersectIon. WAC 197-11-660(l)(b) requires measures be linked to spec1ftc adverse Impacts clearly identlfted In an environmental document on the proposal, And, WAC 197-11-660(1)(d) states that mitigation measures may be imposed only to the extent attributable to the Identlfted adverse impacts of Its proposal. Mr. David Goldsmith/September 6, 1995 /Page 3 In addition to the foregoing comments on proposed Mltlgat1ng Measures. each and every one falls to comply with the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-660(l)(a)and WAC 197-11-660(1)(b)).by not identifying specific adverse,1mpacts in the Checklist and by not citing the formally adopted policy base for proposed mitigation. We respectfully request a mutually convenient meeting to discuss these items prior to your issuance of a final MDNS. Sincerely. Linda Mueller Land Use Planner Pope Resources 1995 19245 Tenth Avenue Northeasl P.O, Box 17BO Poulsbo. Washington 98370.0239 (360) 697-6626 (360) 697.1156 FAX September 6. 1995 Mr. David Goldsmith SEPA Responsible OfficIal Jefferson County Development Review 621 Shertdan Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Port Ludlow Division 7" Long Subdlvlslon SU895-OOO2 - SEPA Review Dear Mr. Goldsmith: We are In receipt of the undated ~ce of MItigated Detennlnatlon of Non- SlanIflcance and Lead Allency Status and staff Memorandum for the above-mentioned plat and have the following comments. PROJECT DESCRlPI10N. This section has been revised With no legal authority from the original Notice of Pendln~ Lon" Subdivision Application 'and Pendln~ Threshold Detennlnatlon, as well as the project description on the SEPA Checklist. This Is a significant departure from the original proposal, apparently generated from a letter of May 1 from the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC), Such a change In scope must origtnate from the proponent. not from a spec1a1lnterest group totally unrelated to the project applicant, Only Pope Resources can modIfy the project description. PROPOSAL, On Page 1 of the StnffMemorandum. Pope Resources will pro\1de sewer. ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD. The Environmental Record on this proposal is Incorrectly stnted. As required by WAC 197-11-330(a)(b), the only environmental data upon which a SEPA "nlreshold Detenninatlon may be made Is the Environmental Checklist. Said Checklist accompanied tlle Prellmlnary Plat Application which were both submitted on January 19, 1995, In response to Jefferson County's request. dated March 14, 1995. the Environmental Checklist was subsequently supplemented With two technical reports. One was Geotechnical ~natneerfnlJ ServIces SubsurfaC'.e Investigation. Pl"OJ)Osed Port Ludlow Division 7. Port Ludlow. Washlnltton. by GeoEngtnecrs, dated April 15, 1995. Mr. David Goldsmith/September 6, 1995 /Page 2 The second was Port Ludlow DMslon 7 ~ Plat Assessment ofTrafilc-Related Im,pacts, by David I. Hamlin and Associates. dated July 7. 1995. Having fulfilled all requests for pertinent environmental data, the Threshold Determination must be based on the complete Environmental Checklist. Documents such as the County's Subdivision OrdInance, SEPA Implementing Ordinance. etc.. do not constitute a legal or logical basis for environmental "analysis." PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Mltl~ation Measure # 1. Recording the, entire geoteclmlcal report Is unnecessmy, costly. and cumbersome. Instead, speclflc pertinent mitigation should be wrttten. Mltlltation Measure #2. TIlls should be deleted as a SEPA mitigation since It Is appropriately a prel1m1nary plat condition per Subsection 6.405 of the Subdivision Ordinance. In WAC 197-11-660(1)(e). "Before requlrlng mitigation measures. agencies shall consider whether local. state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identlfted significant impact." 1bls mitigation is redundant with prellmlnary plat review. MltlqatIon Measures #3 & #4. It appears these two proposed measures are inconsistent with the geotechnlcal report submitted on April 5. 1995. We. the applicant. will ,lmmedlately commlsslon a list of spec1flc, concise mitigation measures emanating from the geotechnlcal report. Mltiltatlon Measure #8. Same comment as MItigation Measure #2 above. Mltlaation Measure # 13. 1bls should be deleted as a SEPA mitigation since It is approprlately a prellminary plat condition per the Subdivision Ordinance, In WAC 197-11-660(l)(e), "Before requtrlng mitigation measures. agencies shall consider whether local. state, or federal requlrements and enforcement would mitigate an IdentUled signJ1lcant impact.. 1bls mltlgation Is redundant with Subdivision Ordinance prel1m1nary plat review, In addition to the foregoing comments on proposed Mitigating Measures. each and every one falls to comply with the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-660(1)(a) and WAC 197- 11-66O(1)(b)) by not IdentJJYlng specl.ftc adverse impacts In tlle Check1lst and by not citing the fonnally adopted poUey base for proposed mitigation. We respectfuUy request a mutually convenient meeting to discuss these ltemll prior to your Issuance of Q Onal MDNS. Sincerely. MEMORANDUM To: David Goldsmith, SEPA Responsible Official Director of Community Services From: Richard M. Sepler, Madrona Planning and Development Services Date: August 17, 1995 RE: Environmental Reviewand Threshold Determination under the Rules of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 197-11 WAC) Applicant: Pope Resources Proposal: SUB 95-()()()2, Port Ludlow Division 7 is an application for Long , Subdivision of approximately 46.2 acres inlo 22 single family residential lots, an open space tract, and a 9.3 acre remnant tract. Lots 1 - 22 would ' range in size from 27,170 square feet 10 93,251 square feet with an average lot sizeof36,I71 square feet. The proposal includes 17.1 acres, referenced as Tract A, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association, and 9.3 acres referenced as Tract B 10 be reserved in the proponents ownership for future development for multi- family unils. The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed from Rainier Lane. If granted the requested variance from the required sixty foot (601) right-of-way requirements, lots number 1 - 10 and 18, 19,21, and 22 of the proposed subdivision would be served b>:: internal roadways with fifty fOOl (50') rights-of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cuI-dC-sacs. Site area dedicated 10 undeveloped open space would consist of approximately 17.1 acres (37% of the Iotal site area). The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively. The proposal includes provision of temporary and permanent storm water management facilities. The proposal site is located in the North Bay Community of Port Ludlow North of Oak Bay Road and the North Bay Condominiums, west of Division 4, and south of Divisions I and 3. Adequacy: Staff has determined that the application with environmental checklist was substantially complete on February 2, 1995, Staff requested review and comments on the Environmental Checklist from numerous agencies as well as adjacent property owners and parties of interest Notified agencies include the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Jefferson County Department of Health, , State Departmenl of Transportation, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Slate Department of Natural Resources, State Department of Ecology, Public Utility District (PUD) #1, Jefferson Transit, Chimacum School District #49, Fire Protection District #3, Hood Canal Coordinating Committee, Olympic Environmental Council, Jamestown S'KIaIlam Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'KIaIlam Tribe. Written responses received are as follows: Jefferson County Permit Center, March 14, 1995 and Jefferson County Public Works Department, May 23, 1995; Chimacum School District, May 1, 1995; lhe Washington State Department of Transportation, May 4, 1995; the Washington State Department of Ecology, May 12, 1995; John Hutsell, SecretaryJTreasurer (or North Bay Condos #2, May 11, 1995; and David A. Harris, Chairman of Committee for Division 7 - Ludlow Maintenance Commission, April 19, 1995 and May I, 1995. Copies of all correspondence and comments are attached. Notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader on April 26, 1995. Notice of pending threshold determination was posted on the site by the proponents on April 26, 1995. Notice of pending threshold determination was mailed to the adjacent property owners on April 26, 1995. Comments: Notice: Inspection: Staff conducted a site inspection on May 5, 1995. TO: All Pennil and Review Authorities ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD The environmental review consisted of analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record. Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92 ',,) Implementing Ordinance #7-84: State Environmental Policy Act '.' '\ \ Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance # 05-0509-94 Ie )J, Jefferson County Port L.udlow Urban Growth Area Ordinance #01-0117-95 (~ \.... Final Environmental Impact Statement for Port Ludlow Development Program Unless olhelWise noted, the above information is available for review in the Jefferson County Planning Department, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. STAFF AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following sections correspond with related categories of the environmental checklist submitted for the proposal and clarify, amend, or add to that document (see Exhibit 1 for proponent's checklist). I. PROPOSAL DESCRlPl'ION SUB 95-0002, Port Ludlow Division 7 is an application for Long Subdivision of approximately 46.2 acres inlo 22 single family residential lots, an open space tract, and a 9.3 acre remnant tract Lots 1 - 22 would range in size from 27,170 square feet 10 93,251 square feet with an average lot size of36,171 square feet. The proposal includes 17.1 acres, referenced as Tract A, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association, and 9.3 acres referenced as Tract B 10 be reserved in the proponents ownership for future developmenl for multi-family units. The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed from Rainier Lane. If granted the requested variance from the required sixty foot (601) right-of-way requiremen1s, lots number I - 10 and 18, 19,21, and 22 of the proposed subdivision would be served by internal roadways with fifty foot (50') rights-of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cul- de-sacs. Site area dedicated 10 undeveloped space would consist of approximately 17.1 acres (37% of lhe Iotal site area). The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively. The proposal includes provision of temporary and permanent slonn water management facilities. II. PERMITS REQUIRED: Jefferson County: The topography of the site slopes down from the upland area north of Port Ludlow Bay. Site slopes range up 10 approXImately sixty percent (60%) with locally steeper areas. Elevations ran,ge from !1PProximately 70 feet to 280 feet above mean sea level with steep slopes qualifYing as critical areas. Areas with the steepest slopes would appear 10 pose extreme development limitations on lots I and 12-22, A small creek flows In the valley along the western side of the site, and a seasonally intermittent flow occurs in the drainage course located in the eastern portion of tile site. The site is located in an area mapped by the Soil Conservation Service that consists of the Alderwood series soils and having severe erosion hazards which range from slight 10 severe depending on slope. Such areas have limitations to construction of dwellings with basements, which range from moderate 10 severe depending on the slope. The Soil Survey describes the limitation 10 dwellings without basements as moderate for slopes greater than fIfteen percent (15%). The Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington published by the Department of Ecology describes the slopes on the site as unstable. The site is located within the Landslide Hazard Area designation on the Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps and will be subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. Vegetation on the site consists of mature second growth Douglas Fir and cedar trees with a dense understory of brosh. Areas which have been cleared more recently are vegetated with alder trees, brosh, and grass, With slopes up 10 78% in ravines, erosion is a distinct possibility due 10 the lot configuration and the amount of earth removal for homesite preparation and the development of roads and utilities. There has not been a history of erosion on the site which could be attributable 10 the retention of undisturbed native vegetation in areas of extreme steep slope. Removal of vegetation or any other site disturbing activities in the areas qualifying as steep slopes should be conducted with extreme care. The proposal includes significant clearing, grading, excavation, and fIlls 10 construct roads, utilities, and residences. Because the site is characterized by steep slopes, the proposal is likely 10 result in significant adverse impacts 10 Earth relaled 10 slope stability and soil eroSIon. The Department of Public Works recommends that the proponent implement the following mitigative measures as cited in the geotechnical and engineering report prepared by GeoEngineers dated AprilS, 1995: J. Construction of roads, residences, appurtenant structures, and drainage systems and all land distwbin~ activities shall be conducted in conformance with the recommended mmimum setbacks, erosion control measures, and conditions regarding earthwork, foundations, floor slab support, retaining and subgrade walls, drainage, subgrade preparation, and pavement design from the geotechnical report for the site prepared by GeoEngineers dated AprilS, 1995. 2. The Geotechnical report prepared for the site by GeoEngineers, dated March 28, 1995 shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor and the Auditor's File Number shall be depicted on the plat along with the following notice 10 purchasers: A geotechnical report has been prqmed for the plat by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Development of the plat shall be conducted in confornulnce with the recommended conditions of the geotechnical report which has belen filed with the Jefferson County Auditor under Auditor's File Number . The checklist adequately addresses the issues of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. a, Surface Water: It does not appear that any site disturbing activities would occur in the vicinity of the intermittent stream that runs through the eastern portion of the site or the stream that runs through that portion of proposed tract A along the west boundary of the site. However, it does appear that the aforementioned stream could be subject to adverse impacts due to development of proposed lots 1 -5 and 19 - 21, most notably, the acceSs to lot 20. Mitigation for erosiOn of soils and increased runoff from impervious surfaces that would carry sediments and pollutants into surface waters will be required. b. Ground Water: The site is located within the Recharge Susceptibility Zone designation on the Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps and will be subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. The proposal could have a significant adverse impact resulting from depletion of ground water resources due to increased provision of water 10 this proposal. However, this impact can be avoided by implementin~ the ground water monitoring measure developed through the Programmatic EIS process and required as a mitigation measure for the proponent's Plat of Deer Hollow and, if necessary, requiring the proponent to take actions to ensure an adequate supply of potable water: c. Water Runoff: The proposal is IiJcely 10 result insignificant adverse impacts to water related to sedimentation from erosion of exposed soils and contaminants used during development. Mitigation measures would be required for such impacts which are addressed by the Jefferson County State Fnvironmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Critical Areas Ordinance. In a letter dated May 23, 1995, the Department of Public Works recommended thaI an engineered drainage and stonnwater plan and report should be submitted 10 the Department of Public Works for review and approval The drainage plan is to incorporate lhe stonn drainage criteria of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water MllnlIiement Manual (current edition). The Plan should be of sufficient detail 10 clearly illustrate the "Best Management Practices" utilized are adequate to treat and control the runoff. Drainage calculations which support the plan shall be included with the plan. Prior to commencement of any land disturbing activities on the site, an erosion and sediment control plan, developed 10 the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Manl\eement Manual (current edition) would be submitted 10 the JefferSon County Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control methods for construction purposes would be approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and employed during construction. An approved set of plans should be kept on the site during construction. If no development of the lots is proposed at this time, the applicant shall state under "Notice to Purchasers": Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities and prior 10 issuance of a building permit, a Storm Water Site Plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology Slonn Water Management Manual (current edition) and be submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be approved by the Jefferson Coun~ Department of Public Works and implemented at all times during land distwbing activities, As slated above under the section titled Earth, vegetation on the site consists of mature second growth Douglas Fir and cedar trees with a dense understory of brush. Areas which have been cleared more recently are vegetated with alder trees, brush, and grass. No significant plant species or communities are known to exist on the site. The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Enert!y and Nalural Resources: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; tllerefore, staff has no additional comment. Environmental Health: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Noise produced by construction activities will be minimal and of short duration. However, to reduce noise impacts to neighbors, construction activities would only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. land Shoreline Use: The subject l'roperty is within the Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area and is subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Port Ludlow Urban Growth An'~ Ordinance #01-0117- 95. Further, the proposal is subject to review to determine consistency with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Aesthetics' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; lherefore, staff has no additional comment. Lit!ht and Glare: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Recreation: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Historic and Cultural Preservation: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; however, the listed measures 10 reduce or control impacts should be imposed as mitigation measures, As stated in their letter dated May 4, ]995, the State Department of Transportation has reviewed the subject proposal and has found that, due to the its location, the project will have no significant impact to the State Route. In a letter dated May 23, 1995, Jefferson County Public Works Department recommends that the applicant submit road and intersection plans for review and approval by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. AU road construction shall comply with the standards of and be perfonned under the inspection of the Department. Road approach permits shall be secured from the Department and the approaches developed 10 the standards set forth in the permit. a. ~ The Development Program EIS finds that the Port Ludlow Development PrOgT'dm, of which this proposal is a component of, would have significant adverse impacts to the Chimacum School District's capacity for provision of educational facilities. The Chimacum School District has mformed Jefferson County that they do not have adequate existing ~ity to provide educational facilities to additional students. The District would mcur approximate annual ~rating costs of $5,164 and capital costs of $8,888 per student. Chimacum School District #49 has asked that the County maintain the provisions for school bus trans{lDrtation as a requirement for project approval. To mitigate impacts 10 schools, pnor 10 final plat approval the proponenl should pay to the Olimacum School District $437,10 per lot 10 be applied toward provision of school facilities. As with any development proposal that results in an increase of residential density, pedestrian safety is a primary concern. The criteria for subdivision approval in the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance will require the developer to provide safe walking conditions for pedestrians and school children. b. IriInsil.;", The Jefferson Transit bus stop referenced in the checklist is less than a quarter of a mile from the most distant lot of the proposed subdivision and is accessible via the existing and proposed addition to the Port Ludlow trail system. c. fu; The EIS finds that the Port Ludlow Development Program, of which this proposal is a component, would have significant adverse Impacts on the Jefferson County Fire District No. 3's capacity to provide fire and emergency services. On September 13, 1993 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners considered the issues of providing adequate school facilities and fue and emergency services related to Pope Resources' PIat of the Inn at Port Ludlow. After considering testimony from the Chirnacum School District, Fire District #3, and County staff, the Board determined that adequate provision could be made by requiring Pope Resources to pay the School District $437.10 per lot to provide school facilities and to pay the Fire District $193.00 per'Jot to provide fue and emergency services. Payment is required prior to finaI plat approval. This action by the Board was subsequently adopted by the Board as a SEPA mitigation measure in order to avoid significant impacts related to Pope Resources' Deer Hollow Long Plat These measures should also be required as mitigation for school and fire district impacts related to this proposal. The proponent proposes to design and construct water systems with flow volumes and hydrants sufficient to meet fire protection standards and tt) design and construct roads to County standards. Further review of the proposal to ensure consistency with fue protection standards would occur during plat review. Additional mitigation measures to ensure this are,not necessary. Analysis of the information provided in the Development Programmatic EIS and consllleration of the recommended mitiJl3.tion measures indicate thaI significant adverse impacts to the Chimacum School DiSlrict and Jefferson County Fire District No.3 can be avoided. Utilities: The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section. The subject proposal must have State J)epartment of Health Water System approval prior to Jefferson County preliminary pfat approval . Potential Sl~nlncant Environmental Impacts: Based on review of the Environmental Checklist and other available material provided on the subject proposal, Development Review staff recommends that the Responsible Official consider the following as potential significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of development of the subject proposal: Soil erosion during clearing for construction of roads and other on-sire improvements. Storm water run-off during conSlnIction and af'let bulldout. Potential impacts to transportation. Potential impacts to the capacity of the Chimacum School Disbict's educational services and safe walking conditions for school children. Potential impacts to the ability of Jefferson Transit to provide public transportation service to the residential development. Threshold Determination Recommendation: Staff recommends a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance be issued by the Responsible Official for the subject proposal. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been proposed by Development Review Division staff for consideration by lhe Responsible Official. They are intended to address and mitigate to a point of non-significance the environmental impacts listed above. I. To mitigate significant adverse impacts related to slope stability and soil erosion, the proponent shall conform to the following conditions based on the applicable Jefferson County regulations and the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers dated AprilS, 1995: a. Construction of roads, residences, appurtenant structures, drainage systems, and all land disturbing activities shall be conducted in conformance with the recommended minimum setbaclcs, erosion control measures, and conditions regarding earthwork, foundations, floor slab support, retaining and subgrade walls, drainage, subgrade preparation, and pavement design from the geotechnical report for the site prepared by GeoEngineers dated AprilS, 1995. b. The above referenced geotechnical report for the site shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor and Lite Auditors File Number shall be depicted on the plat along with the following notice to purchasers: A geotechnical report has been prepared for the plat by a licensed geotechnical en~ineer. Development of the plat shall be conducted in conformance WIth lhe recommended conditions of the geotechnical report which has been filed with the Jefferson County Auditor under Auditors File Number _' 2. To mitigate significant impacts to water related to sedimentation from erosion of exposed soils and contaminants used during development the following conditions shall apply throughoul developmenl of the proposal: The proponent shall submit an engineered drainage and storm water plan and report to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval. The plan is to include temporary and permanent erosion control measures. The drainage plan must incorporate the storm drainage control criteria of the Washin~ton State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition). The plan shall be of sufficient detail to clearly illustrate the "Best Management Practices" utilized are adequate to treat and control the runoff. Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities on the site, and erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washing State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition) and submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for review and approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management practices shall be implemented at all times during land disturbing activities. An approved set of plans shall be kept on the site during construction. If no development of the lots is proposed at this time, the proponent shall state under Notice to Purchasers: Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities and prior to issuance of a building permit, a Stonn Water Site Plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water management Manual (current edition) and be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be approved by the Jefterson County Department of Public Works and implemented at all times during land disturbing activities. 3. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, native vegetation in open space areas shall be maintained in an undisturbed condition. 4, For disturbance of vegetation in any area with a combination of slopes greater than 15% with impermeable or slowly permeable soils, ground water seepage, or polentially unstable slopes the following conditions shall apply: a. Whenever feasible, exisling vegetation in these areas should reJ:T13,in in an undisturbed condition. If the area is unvegetated due to a previous disturbance, immediate efforts shall be required to provide a persistent native vegetative cover to prevent erosion or hazard. b. In order to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and on-site vegetation, authorized clearin~ shall be required to be designed to minimize impacts to soil and understory vegetation by providing for sequencing and staging where appropriate. 5. In order to avoid significanl adverse impacts to soils and water, the proponent shall establish a Maintenance Covenant as part of the Restrictive Covenants to ensure that the drainage system is maintained in accordance with the proponent's approved plans. The Maintenance Covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. 6. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, temporary erosion control and storm water structures shall be inspected at least once per week during the construction period and sediment shall be removed from sedimentation ponds as necessary to ensure proper functionin~. Disposal of sediment materials shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works DII'CCtor in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County regulations. 7. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, the proponent shall desittnate a qualified individual or finn who shall be responsible for ensuring that erosIon and sedimentation control devices are correctly mstalled, that Best Management Practices are correctly implemented, and that BMP methods and maintenance schedules are followed; for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of practices and recommending modifications to the drainage plan as necessary if monitorin~ reveals that the practices are not effective; and for ensuring that reports and inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. 8. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to soils and water, prior to conducting land disturbing activities on individual lots, the owner shall submit a small parcel temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval, Development of individual lots shall be carried out in conformance with the TESC plan. A notice to this effect shall be placed on the final plat 9. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent shall continue and expand the existing Water Quality Monitonng Program which documents non-point effects on the Class AA "Extraordinary" water quality designation of Port Ludlow Bay under the direction of Jefferson County. The program shall ensure the performance of water quality control features and provide for upgrading, as necessary. The program shall include monitoring at appropriate background stations (Le., Ludlow Creek and the intermittent streams on site and inner Port Ludlow Bay). The program shall allow for adjustment of monitoring stations and water quality monitoring parameters depending on location of development activity and morutoring findings. On-going monitoring shall include evaluation of the proposed BMPs and testing of shellfish and sediment as appropriate. Ambient monitoring and storm event monitoring shall be conducted. The scope of work for each subsequent year's program shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and approval by November I of the preceding year. If the monitoring indicates that the proponent's activities are causing a reduction in the water quality standards of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall in its annual report so advise Jefferson County. 10. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent shall conduct a sewage treatment plant monitoring program which dOcuments the effects of the development program on the capacity of the secon<ll!ry sewage treatmenl plant The monitoring shall record the number of connections, effluenl volume, and effluent quality. It is acknowledged that the sole authority to monitor and regulate operation oftJje sewage treatment plant rests with the Washington Department of Ecology. Nothing in this mitigating measure is intended to supersede or contlict with the requirements of the proponent's National Pollutanl Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-00212o-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and companion statutes. Results of this mOOltoring shall be transmitted to the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and the Washington Department of Ecology by March 15 of each year. 11. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts 10 ground water resources and to document the condition of the aquifers used as domestic water sources, the proponenl shall conduct a groundwater resource monitoring program. The scope of the program shall be mutually agreed upon by the proponent and Jefferson County prior to final plat approval. Monitoring shall include static groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. If groundwater monitoring indicates an inadequate yield to support development of the proponent's projects, the proponent and/or the County shall immediately notify the Washington State Department of Ecology to request action or investigation pursuant to RCW 90.44 which provides authority for resolution of conflicts involving allocation of groundwater supplies. In the event that this situation occurs no additional plats which withdraw water from the South Aquifer shall be approved by Jefferson County until the groundwater adequacy issues have been resolved. 12. In order to avoid significanl adverse impacts to transportation, the proponent shall conduct a traffic monitoring program in cooperation with the Jefferson County Public Works Department to assess the impacts of the Port Ludlow Division 7 plat and other Development Program plats on the State and County roadway system. The monitoring shall record trip generation, traffic counts on selected roadways, and level-of-service conditions at selected intersections. The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified traffic engineer to design and direct the traffic monitoring program 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. 13. To mitigate potential transportation impacts or impacts attributable to new roads or improvements to existing roads, the proponent shaH submit Road and Intersection plans to the Jefferson Counly Public Works Department for review and approval prior to development All road construction shall comply with the standards of and be performed under the inspection of the Department Road approach permits shall be secured from the Department and the approaches developed to the standards set forth in the permit 14. In the event archaeological items are discovered the proponent shall observe the protocol developed by a professional archaeologist in conjunction with local Native American tribes as follows: STOP WORK. Do not further distulb the area or remove any materials therefrom. Notify immediately the Director of Development Review, (360) 379-4463. Director of Development will immediately notify the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), (206) 753-5010. Protect the area from vandals and coHectors. Obtain services of a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the site and make recommendations for further work in the area. If further excavation or disturbance of the site is necessary, obtain the appropriate permit form OAHP. Proceed only in compliance with the terms and conditions of said permit. IS. As necessary in order to minimize temporary construction traffic, the proponent in coordination with the Jefferson County Public Works Department shall designate truck routes and designate work hour restrictions. 16. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to school facilities, prior to final plat approval the proponent shall pay to the Olimacum School District $437.10 per lot to be applied toward provision of school facilities. Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement 17. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to fire and emergency services, prior to final plat approval the JX'C?PO!Ient shall pay to the Jefferson COunty Fire District #3 $193.00 per lot to be apphed toward provision of fire and emergency services. Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement Determination or Responsible Official: I have reviewed and considered the referenced proposal, the environmental checklist, public comments, other available material, and the Development Review Division's staff memo and recommendation. I hereby: _ issue a Detennination of Non-Significa.'lce. ---X- issue a Detennination of Mitigated Non-Significance. --,.- issue a Determination of SignifIcance. _ determine that I do not have sufficient information u~n which to make a threshold determination and diJect the Development Review Division staff to obtain additional infonnation on the proposal. David Goldsmith SEPA Responsible Official Dale September 14, 1995 Mr. Bill Shamhardt. President Ludlow Maintenance Comm PO Box 60 Port Ludlow WA 98365 Re: Plat of .Port Ludlow DIvision 7" Dear Mr. Shamhardt: On January 19, 1995, Pope submitted Its application to Jefferson Mr. Bill Shamhardt September 14, 1995 Page 2 However. to our and disappointment. we have very discovered that Dave Harris, under the auspices of LMC, wrote a letter Dave Han1lI. 680 Ralnler Lane, Port Ludlow Jim Presley, 20 Pathflnder, Port Ludlow David Goldsmith. 680 RAINIER L.ANE May 1. 1995 L-95.78.LMC SUBJECT: Port Ludlow Division 7 - Long Subdivision, Case # SUB9S-0002 To Whom il May Concern: Subdivision Application and Pending Threshold Determination, Case No, SUB 9.5..0002, Port Ludlow Division 7, Proponent: Pope Resourccs negotiallon~ between Pope Resources and the Ludlow Mainterumce Commission (LMC). Wire and vertical, or whip, antennas may be installed without specific ACC approval. They should be located as inconspicuously as practicable. Satellite dish and tower antennas require ACC approval. REGULATION II ARTICLE II DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS In order to interference with the enjoyment of nearby lots and establish an improvement use and occupancy of the plat- ted area in a pleasing but not necessarily uniform combination of personal residences and recreational homes, the ACC shall exer- cise in good faith its discretion to approve or disapprove plans and specifications for improvements, on the basis of the follow- ing design considerations. 1. Stories. In general, all houses should be single story except on sloping sites that lend themselves to two stories or daylight basements. 2. Compatibility. All houses and structures shall be as comp- atible as possible with their natural surroundings and with each other. 3. Height. No part of a proposed structure shall be so high that ~t unreasonably inter.feres with the view from other dwell- ings. The ACC is authorized to limit the maximum height of pro- posed structures whether or not views will be affected. 4, A-frame houses. A-frame houses generally will not be ap- proved. 5. MOdular, Sectional o~ Other preconstructed Homes. Modular, sectional or other preconstructed homes w~ll not be approved unless: (1) They comply with all requirements of this Regulation1 (2) They have poured-in-place concrete foundations1 and (3) They include features, such as a porch entryway, deCks, patios, stone or brick chimneys and eaves, which elim- inate an outside appearance and configuration resembl- ing a trailer or mobile home. 6. Garages and Carports, At least a single carport or garage and connecting access driveway, or space for these, shall be pro- vided at each residence. Garages and carports must connect to residences, except where this is prevented by unusual topography. JEFFERSON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST "PORT LUDLOW DMSION .,.. PRELIMINARY PLAT: PROPONENT: Pope Resources ADDRESS: PO Box 1760, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 TELEPHONE: (business): 2~97-6626. oxt 529 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (contact): Linda Mueller, Planner PROPOSAL AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The proposal is to subdivide approximately 46 acres into 22 single-fam,v lots, with 17.1 acres (Tract A) dedicated as common open space owned by the Hom~rs' Association. and 9,3 acres (Tract B) reserved in Pope Resources ownership for futur~ development of multi-family units. Lot sizes range from 27,170 square feet to 93,251 _Quare feet, and average 36,171 square feet. Open space is forty-six percent (46.3%) of the combined developed acreage (36.9 acres) of the 22 lots and Tract A. All lots will be served by sanitary sewer. Stormwater runoff will be detained on-site. Ludlow Wat.r Company and pope Resources are the water and sewer purveyors, respectively. PROPERTY AND AREADESCRIPTION: MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS (REVISED-IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIOI'ol'ERS DECISION OF APRIL 13, 1994) DATE: April 13, 1994 APPLICANT: Pope Resources PROPOSAL: Proposal (PIal of Ironwood. LP 6-92) to subdivide a parcel of land approximately 34 acres in size into 53 single-family 101S and 42 multi- family lots, to be served by public water and sewer systems, The application includes a request for a Variance from the subdivision developmenl standards for roadways and for 101 configuration contained in the Subdivision Ordinance, a request for a Variance from the side yard setback slandards for attached units and a request for Condilional Use approval for multi-family residential development in accordance wilh the review procedures for Condilional Uses in Seclion 9 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance, LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: In lhe South Bay community of Port Ludlow, east of Highland Drive, surrounded by fairways 10, II, 16, and 18 of the Port Ludlow Golf Course. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 20 and W 1/2 of See, 21, Twp 28 N, Rge I E, W.M" olherwise known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers, 821204001,821204006,821213001, and 821213002. NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has detennined that it is lhe Lead Agency for the above-described proposal. NOTICE OF MITIGATED DETERMlNATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE: MITIGATION CONDITIONS I. Prior to commencement of any clearing, grading. or filling on the site. a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed to the standard. of the D,D.E, Storm Water /v/anaf!ement Iv/anual (current edition). for review and approval by the Jefferson Counly Department of Public Works (DPW). These plans shall minimi=e soil diswrbance during the wet season (November through Afarc/O, and will provide for maintenance of native vegetation on unde~'eloped areas and revegetation after construction. 2, In order to avoid significant impacts to soil and water, native vegetation shall be maintained in open space areas and on slopes exceeding fifteen (15%) percent; removal of diseased and dangerous trees, and selective thinning of vegetation, shall be permWed in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical report prepared by a lice/l.l'ed engineer. 3, An engineered drainage and storm water plan and report shall be submilled to DPW for review and approval. The drainage plan must incorporate the storm drainage criteria ofD.D.E. Storm Water Mana2ement Manual (current edition), -I. In order to avoid significanl impacts to soils and water. the proponent shalf establish a maintenance covenant as part of the Restrictive Covenant,\' to ensure that the drainage system Is maintained in accordance with the proponent '.I' approved plans. The Alaintenance Covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Public Works Department prior toftnal plat approval. S, In order to avoid significant impacts to soils and water. temporary erosion control and storm water structures shalf be inspected at least once per week during the construction period and sediment shall be removed from sedimentation ponds as necessary to ensure proper functioning, Disposal of sediment materials shalf be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County regulations. 6, In order to avoid significant impacts to soils and water. the proponent shalf designate a qualified individual or firm who shall be responsible for ensuring that erosion and sedimentation con/rol devices are correc/lv installed, that Be,lt Afanagement Practices are correct(v implemented. and ti,at 8MP me/hods and maintenance schedules are followed: for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of practices and recommending modifications to the drainage plan as necessary if monitoring reveals that practices are not effective: and for ensuring that reports and in.<pections are coordinated with the Jefferson County DPW. 7. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to soils and water. prior to conducting land disturbing activitic,< on individual lou, the owner .<hall .<ubmit a small parcel temporary erosion and sedimentation control (1'ESC,J plan to the Jefferson County DPW for review and approval, Development of individual lots shall be carried out in conformance with the TESC plan. A notice to this effect shall be placed on the final plat. 8, Grading and structural encroachment within slopes exceeding.rifteen (15~) percent shall be consistent with a geotechnical report and lot-specific site plan prepared for prior review by the Department of Public Works, 9. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to marine water quality, the proponent shall continue and expand the existing Water Quality Monitoring Program whit:h documents non paint efficts on the Class AA "Extraordinary" water quality designation of Port Ludlow Bay under the direction of Jefferson County, The program shall ensure the per:formance of water quality control features and provide for upgrading as necessary, The program shall include monitoring or appropriate background stations. The program shall allow for adjustment of monitoring stations and water quality monitoring parameters depending on location of development activity and monitoring findings. On-going monitoring shall include evaluation of the proposed BMP 's and testing of shellfish and sediment as appropriate. Ambient monitoring and storm event monitoring shall be conducted The scope of work for each subsequent year's program shall be submit/ed to Jefferson County for review and approval by November 1 of the preceding year. If the monitoring indicates that the proponent'" activities are cau,ing a reduction in the water quality standards of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA "E.ttraordinary" designation, the proponent shall in its annual report so advise Je.lferson County. 10. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground water resources and to document the condition of the aquifers UJ'ed as domestic water source~'. the proponent shall conduct a ground water resource monitoring program. The scope of the program shall be mutually agreed upon by the proponent and Jefferson County prior to final plat approval. Monitoring shall include static groundwater levels and saltwater Intrusion. If groundwater monitoring Indlcaies an Inadequate yield to support development of the proponent 's projects, the proponent and'or the County shall Immediately notljj; the Washington State Department of Ecology to request acllon or Investigation pursuant /0 RCW 90,44 which provides authority for resolution of conflicts Involving allocation of groundwater supplies, In the event that this situation occurs no additional plats which withdraw water from tl:e South Aquifer shall be approved by Jefferson County the groundwater issues have been resolved. 11, In order to avoid slgnljlcant adverse Impacts to housing, prior to commencing development of the plat. the proponent shall set aside five spaces at their RV Park for use hy program related COMtMlCtlon workers. The number of space' shall be adjusted bused on tlrelr use by "onsfrUctlon workers and timing of IndiVIdual 12, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to housing. prior to commencing development of the plat. the proponent shall notifY its contractors that space is available at its recreational vehicle park so long as contractors' employees are working full-time 0/1 Port Ludlow projects, The proponelll shall also monilOr COlllractars' usage of the RV Park, make appropriate adjustments for reserved spaces, and report to Jefferson County on an annual basis as to the effectiveness of this mitigation. ]3, As provided in the May. 1992 wetland report (Raedecke Associates) the two larger wetlands within the site shall be retained in their current condition, with u minimum 50-foot vegetated buffer provided around each wetland. Mitigation measures proposed in the report are adopted by reference. 14, The subject plat shall obtain water for domestic use and fire prOteClion from the Ludlow Water Company, ]5, The right-of-way of the proposed interior plat road, with the exception of Tract H (designated as a private drive) shall be separately deeded to Jefferson County by Statutory Warranty Deed. The Auditor's Filing Number of this Deed shall be shown on the face of the plat. 16. The proponent shall conduct a traffic monitoring program in cooperation with the DPW to assess the impacts of the ironwood Plat and other Development Program plats on the State and County roadway system. The monitoring shall record Irip generation, traffic counts on selecled roadways, and level-of-service conditions at selected intersections. The proponent .fhall be responsible for employing a quallfled traffic engineer to design and direct the Iraffic monitoring program In cooperation with other appropriale public agencies. The cost of retaining the trafflc engineer shall be at the proponent's sole expense. Re~'ults of the monitoring shall be submitted to Jefferson County by March 15 of each year. 17. if traffic monitoring indicales that intersection Improvements are necessary at the Paradise Bay Road/Teal Lake Road Intersection, Ihe proponent shall enter Into an agreemenl wilh the DPW to contribute a share of the required funds Ihal is proportionate 10 the Impacts generated by the Ironwood Plat. 18. As necessary in order to minlmi:e temporary construction traffic, the proponent, in coordination with Ihe Jeffirson County DPW, shall deslgnale truck roules and deslgnale work.hour reslricllon,f. 19. In order 10 avoid significant adverse Impacls 10 Ihe Chimacum School Dlstrlct's capacity to provide educational services and 10 ensure Ihal Ihe Dlslrlct can make approprlale provisions for school foci/Illes. prior to final long subdivision plat approval, Ihe proponenl shall pay Ihe Chlmacum School Dlslrlcl $-IJ7.IO per 101 to mitigate impacls to school facilities, Paymenl may be arranged through a voluntary agreement. 20, Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall pay a mitigation fee (S193.00 per unit) for mitigation of direct, identified impacts I~ the Jefferson County Fire District No, 3 as a result of the proposed subdivision, to be applied towards provision of fire and emergency services. Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement. 21. The proposed subdivision has only one access road that serves the en/ire development. The number of homes, both single and multi-faml(v, requires two access roads. This requirement may be modified if fire sprinklers ore provided within the aI/ached residential (multi-family) structures as specified in the leuer of agreement between the proponent and Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fisheries Washington State Department of Wildlife Jefferson County Public Works Department Peter Bahls, Port Gamble S'Klallam Fisheries Jamestown S'KIallam Fire District No. #3 Olympic Environmental Council Harvey Fleming ,'Pope Resources Parties of Record 1994 Final Threshold Determination routi~ Final MDNS to: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners with Ironwood HRX rpt ,Jefferson County Public Works Department ,Jefferson county Health Department / Jefferson County Fire District No. 3 /Chimacum School District JWashington state Department of Ecology -Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ~Washington Department of Health ~Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (attn: Peter Bahls) vOlympic Environmental Council -.wendi, Wrinkle -'Mike Fleming .Hiller West \Applicant Mailed to the above agencies and parties on , 1994, JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHouse NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON P.O. Box 1220 Port Townse~d, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385.9100 . 1.800.831.2678 ROSERT H, HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORO, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners JEFFERSON COUN~Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FILE NO. LP05-92 AND IN THE MATTER OF applications by Pope Resources for preliminary approval of Creekside and Ironwood Long Plats LP06-92: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION FINDINGS OF FAC~ 1. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopts the Background and Procedural Information regarding this proposal from the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner dated June 17, 1994, 2. The BOCC adopts the testimony from the May 17, 1994 hearing as summarized by the Hearing Examiner in the June 17, 1994 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, 3. The BOCC adopts the Exhibits as listed by the Hearing Examiner in the June 17, 1994 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. 4, The BOCC adopts the Findings and Conclusions made by the Hearing Examiner in the June 17, 1993 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation with the following exception: a) The following portion of Finding and Conclusion #7 for Creekside Long Plat and #9 for Ironwood Long Plat is rejected I The SEPA review is duplicative and preempts the same review required under the Subdivision Ordinance for this water supply aspect of assuring "adequate, potable water supply" to the proposed lots to be platted. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation LP05-92 Creekside Long Plat 1. 5. The BOCC held a public hearing on July 25, 1994 for the purpose of considering the June. 17, 1994 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner. TestLmony was limited to information pertaining to the appropriate provision of potable water and to information pertaining to which parties would be responsibl,e for providing an alternative water source if groundwater monitoring indicates that there are.not sufficient resources to provide adequate water supply to the proposed plat. 6. Notice of the public hearing was given by publishing a notice in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader on July 13, 1993 and by informing by mail the applicant and parties of record. 7. The following is a summary of testimony taken at that public hearing. A memo dated July 21, 1994 from Environmental Health Director Larry Fay regarding these bl'o plats was submitted to the Board. The memo states that both of these proposed plats will be served water by the Ludlow Water Company which has a Water System Plan (WSP) that was approved by the State of Washington on April 17, 1989. WSP Area 15 includes the area of the proposed Creekside and Ironwood plats, as well as the previously approved Deer Hollow Plat. Those three subdivision would have approximateJ.y 180 residences. The LudJ.ow Water System PJ.an proposes that there will be approximateJ.y 200 residential units developed in that area between 1993 and 1998. A J.etter dated January 14, 1993 from the Ludlow Water Company states that there is adequate provision for water for these units. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained that he had recommended to the Board that they hold a hearing to consider the foJ.lowing portion of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions #7 for Creekside and #9 for Ironwood: The SEPA revie,.. is duplicative and preempts the s~e review required under the Subdivision Ordinance for this water supply aspect of assuring "adequate, potable Water supply" to the proposed lots to be platted. The Prosecutor stated that this portion of the Finding is in error. The two reviews are not the same. The State Environmental Policy Act requires review to determine whether there would be significant adverse impacts to the aquifer from Findings, Conclusions, llnd Recommendation LPOS-92 Creekside Long Plat 2 groundwater withdrawals necessary to provide water to the proposed development. RCW 58.17 and the County Subdivision Or- dinance require review to det}~ne whether there is appropriate means to provide potable water to the proposed development, This hearing is intended to allow the Board to consider additional testimony in order to amend the Findings and Conclusions, as appropriate, and to ensure compliance with RCW 58.17 and the County Subdivision Ordinance. The Prosecutor also noted that the Hearing Examiner's report does not contain a finding that there is a State-approved Water System Plan that covers these plats. Such a finding would provide a firm basis for the County's reliance on the Department of Health's approval of the Water System Plan in issuing preliminary plat approval. The Prosecutor noted that the Mitigative Measure #10 from Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposal requires the Pope Resources to conduct a groundwater resource monitoring program. This measure was derived from the FEIS for the Port Ludlow Development Program. It specifies that if the monitoring indicates that there are inadequate groundwater resources to support development, the Department of Ecology shall be notified in order to resolve the water right conflict pursuant to RCW 90.44 which provides authority for resolution of conflicts regarding allocation of groundwater supplies, However, a recent Washington Supreme Court decision states that the Department of Ecology does not have that authority, Therefore if the monitoring indicates that water withdrawals are causing an impact on the aquifer, the lot owners and/or the Ludlow Water company and other water right holders would have to resolve the matter in Court through a Water Rights Adjudication, In summary the Prosecuting Attorney advised that the information in the record from the Department of Eqology and the Department of Health i~ adequate to meet the requirements of RCW 59.17 and the County Subdivision Ordinance. It would be irlappropriate for the County to further cond,!. tion the proposed plat or to deny preliminary plat approval, Wendy Wrinkle, Secretary, Shine Community Action Council, stated that the Council disagrees with the Hearing Examiner's recownendation for preliminary plat approval. She stated that in order for the County to issue prel.iminary plat approval the County Health Department must assess the water system plan for conformance with State regulations and recommend its approval. She stated that Larry Fay has provided a l.etter documenting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation LP05-92 Creekside Long Plat 3 an existing plan, but he has not personally reconunended approval of the water system. Ms. Wrinkle stated that the April 17, 1989 letter of approval for the 1989 Water System Plan by the Department of social and Health Services states that the plan must be updated within five years or sooner if a revised plan is necessary due to significant changes in the water system or its service area. According to testimony .given to the Hearing Examiner by Bob Montgomery, principle author of the water plan, the plan was approved for 1,700 connections through 1998. Shine Conununity Council believes that approval of these plats would put commitments to this system beyond 1,700 connections. Ms. wrinkle stated that the County should condition the preliminary plat to require approval by the Department of Health of an updated water system plan. The proponent needs to submit an updated water system plan to the DOH. If the DOH finds that there is not sufficient water available and limits the number of connections, the proponent would have to obtain additional water rights to serve their proposed development. Commissioner Huntingford questioned why, if Ms. Wrinkle' s assertions were correct, has the Department of Health has never sent the County i.nformation saying that there isn' t enough water for the number of hookups? He pointed out that Karl Johnson from the Department of Health has been contacted many times on this matter and has never objected. The Prosecutor stated that the Environmental Health Director had contacted the Department of Health and they had responded that the Ludlow Water Company has an approved water plan which needs to be updated, but is still approved. The County can't deny the plat by saying that the water plan isn't approved, because the authorized authority says it is approved. Steven Hayden, Olympic Environmental Council, stated that the information in the record only indicates that there is an approved water system plan from 1989. This does not indicate that there is adequate water for the proposed subdivision. He recommended that the Board not issue preliminary plat approval until the DOH approves the water system. David Cunningham, representing Pope Resources, stated that the Board had already made the findings with respect to the adequacy of the water source based on the information in the EIS, geohydrological studies, and the testimony from a profes- Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation LPOS-92 Creekside Long Plat 4 sional geohydrologist and representatives of the State Department of Ecology. with regard to the delivery system, he stated that there was a letter from Ludlow Utilities Company which states that there is adequate supply and the capability to serve the plat. Now the Board has a letter from the Environmental Health Director which indicates that the p~ats that they are seeking approval for are covered by the Water System Plan. The WSP states that approval is for 5 years. However the regulations have changed and the approval of the WSP is now for 6 years. They can be updated soorier if there is' a change in the service area or a dramatic change in the delivery system. There have been no deviations from what they have planned. The only change in the service area is that there will be fewer lots than planned. There is nothing that would require that they update the plan until 1995. A draft revised WSP has been submitted to the DOH. The Prosecutor pointed out that the letter from the water purveyor is required prior to final plat approval (RCW 58.17.150.) This statute provides for a formal final plat review to insure compliance with all of the conditions placed on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Wojt asked if this is the time to address the issues raised or can that be done at final plat approval? The Prosecutor stated that this is the time to address any concerns with the preliminary plat conditions. 8. commissioner Huntingford asked if the County needs to put a condition on this project about State approval of the updated water system plan, if Pope Resource is updating their plan with the Department of Health? Mr. Pearson stated that the water system must be constructed before final plat approval and that can't be done without the system being consistent with the existing or updated water system plan. The BOCC rejects that portion of the Hearing Examiner's Finding #7 for Creekside and #9 for Ironwood which states: 9. The SEPA review is duplicative and preempts the same review required under the Subdivision OrdinAnce for this water supply aspect of assuring "adequate, potable WAter supply" to the proposed lots to be platted. The BOCC f.inds that the Ludlow Water Company has a Water Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation LPOS-92 Creekside Long Plat 5 System Plan (WSP> that was approved by the Department of Social and Health Services. This WSP includes provision of potable water to 200 residences in W?p Area 15 which is the location of the proposed Creekside and Ironwood Long Plats. 10. The BOCC finds that the project is consistent with the County Subdivision Ordinance based on the above and on the Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of June, 17 1994, except as noted CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing Findings the BOCC concludes that: l. The proposal is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance (Second Edition> and in particular Section 6.305 Water Supply. Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, it is hereby Ordered that preliminary plat approval be granted for long subdivision applications LP05-92 Creekside Long Plat and LP06-92 Ironwood Long Plat. DATED this ~~day of October, 1994. BOARD OF RICHARD WOJT, MEMBER Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation LPOS-92 Creeks~de Long Plat 6 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY Applications by Pope Resources: Preliminary Plat of "Ironwood". Variance from subdivision development and side yard setback standards. Conditional Use for mUlti-family residential development, ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATION ) SuMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION Subdivision: The applicant is seeking to subdivide 34 acres into 53 single family lots and 42 mUlti-family lots. Open Space proposed to be dedicated will be approximately 5.6 acres, 16% of the site. Varianoes: a. Roadway width subdivision development standards, Sec. 6.309 (to be determined by Public Works); b. Lot design requirements, Sec. 6.301 ~; c, Setback requirements from side lines, Sec. 9, Interim Zoning Ordinance. Condition.l Us.: Multi-family residential development. .. APPROVE the requested variances; APPROVE the MUlti-family Rosidential Development Conditional Use; and 3. APPROVE the "Ironwood" preliminay plat, all subject to conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND INFORMATjON Pope Resources PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, WA 98370 Not assigned. Property Locations In the South Bay community of Port Ludlow, east of Highland Drive, surrounded by fairways 10, 11, 16 and 18 of the Port Ludlow Golf Course. LegaJDe5Criptiom A portion of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 20 and the W half of Sec. 21, Township 28 N, Range 1 E, W.M., otherwise known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 821204001, 821204006, 821213001, and 821213002. General Use Comprehendve Plan Map De5il:natiolU The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Optimum Land Use Map designates the site as Suburban Area. Properiy Descriptiom The property is il:'regularly shaped as it fits between fairways, and slopes downward to the south to a wetland. SurrollJUllng Condltionsl The site is surrounded on all sides by the Port Ludlow Golf Course, and by relatively recent residential development Water Ludlow Water Company Ludlow Sewer Company Jefferson Transit Jefferson county Public Works Chimacum School District PROCEDURAL INFORMATION AppUcabJe Planat county comprehensive Plans Chapter 7, County-wide Growth, pages 32-34; Chapter 7, Housing and Residential Development, pages 35-38; Chapter 7, Utilities, pages 41-43; Chapter 7, Transportation/Circulation, pages 44-48; Chapter 10, optimum Development Map. "Ironwood" Plat Authorizirq:: Ordinances Jefferson County Subdivision ordinance No.- 04-0526-92: section 6, Long Subdivisions. Jefferson County Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 1-016-92: section 8, General Use Zone; section 9, Conditional Use; section 11, Variances and Exceptions; Administrative Rules, Subsection VI (Multi-family). Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Ordinance No. 1-0318-91: section 12. Hearing Dates May 17, 1994 Site Vlsit:l May 17, 1994 Nodcesl Mailed: February 17, 1994 Posted: February 9, 1994 Published: March 9, 1994 (Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader) SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued February 9, 1994. The MONS was appealed by Pope Resources, the Board held public hearings on March 21, April 4, and April 13, 1994. The Board issued an Order modifying the Final MONS on June 6, 1994. The public hearing was opened on May 17, 1994, at 1:00 p.m., in the Public Works Conference Room. After the hearing procedures were explained, testimony was accepted. All testimony was taken under oath. Hiller We8t, contract staff reviewer for the Department, presented the Start Report [Exhibit 1], and summarized the several requests, Mr. West explained the status of SEPA, and requested that the public hearing be held open administratively until the Board completes its final Order. Mr, West testified that the staff recommended conditions were similar to thODe he believed had been determined by the Board. Mr. West modified his recommendation at the end of the public hearing to add the following to Condition 15: "An easement ~or utility purpose shall be provided along the private drive right-or-way (Tract H)," Linda Mueller, Pope Resources, testified regarding Tract Hand staff recommended Condition 15, She also asked that the variance requeat be modiriod to apply to lots 31, 32 and 34. With regard to the conditional use, Ms, Mueller commented on Open space, parking and steep slopes. Dave Cunninqham, Pope Resources, testified regarding water supply and source issues, arguing that the Board had explored the subjects in depth. Mr. Cunningham submitted and spoke from a letter dated May 17, 1994, entered as Exhibit A. To be assured that the Examiner's file was complete, he asked that Linda Mueller be allowed to check the documents, and later confirmed that the file was complete. Paula Mackrow, Olympic Environmental Council, testified and asked that environmental documents from the SEPA review be made part of the record. In order to highlight two most pertinent letters from the SEPA review, she submitted letters from the DEC signed by steve Hayden. She argues that there is not adequate water at recommended use levels to expand the Ludlow plats at this time, reading from her letter entered as Exhibit D. Wendi wrinkle, Secretary, Shine Community Action Council, testified in opposition and read from her letter entered as Exhibit E. The public hearing was closed at 2 p.m., provided that the record be held open to received the Board's Order on the SEPA appeal. ExhIbits as part of Staff Report Package. Staff Report for "Ironwood" Preliminary Plat. Jofferson County Long Subdivision Application, February 23, 1993. Jefferson County Interim Zoning Approval Application, dated February 23, 1993. Propo....d Preliminary Plat Map of "Ironwood" Request for Site Development Standard Variance, February 23, 1993. Attachm..nt 1 to Jafferson County Interim Zoning Approval Application for "Ironwood" Attachment 2 to Jefferson County Interim Zoning Approval Application for "Ironwood" Letter from Larry Smith, Pope Resources, to Jerry Smith dated January 14, 1993, regarding sewer ayatem. Letter from Larry Smith, Pope Resources, to Jsrry Smith dated January 14, 1993, r..garding water ayatem. Exhibit 10. Letter from Carter Renner, Public Worka, dated December 10, 1993. Exhibit lOA. Memo from carter Renner to Jerry Smith dated September 22, 1993, regarding SEPA and Subdiviaion Application Review - "Ironwood" - and listing recommended conditions. Exhibit 11. Hemo from R. Kent DeWitt, Fire Chief, JCFPD#3, recommending conditiona, dated October 22, l.993. "Ironwood- .,. Plat Exhibit 11A: Letter from Greg McCarry, Pope Resources, to Chief DeWitt, dated January 18, 1994, requesting agreement to alternative sprinkler improvements - signed also by Chief DeWitt on 2/14/94. Exhibit 12: Letter from Chimacum school District (first page only) dated September 15, 1993. Exhibit 13: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance and Lead Agency Status (Revised), dated April 13, 1994. Exhibits entered during Pub1ic Bearing: .Exhibit A: Letter from Dave Cunningham, Pope Resources, dated May 17, 1994 together with five attachments: Ex A: A report entitled Evaluation of the Imoact of Planned Future Develonment on Port Ludlow Ground Water Resources, January 1993. Ex B: Minutes from Jefferson County Board of Commissioners' 4/13/94 public hearing. Ex C: Table entitled "Water Rights vs. Obligations, 4/8/94. Ex D: Title page and Figure 6 from Water System Plan for Ludlow Water ~, 3/15/89. Ex E. Correspondence from Ludlow Water Company dated January 14, 1994. Exhibit B: Letter from Steve Hayden, Olympic Environmental Council, to the Jefferson County Co~missioners, dated March 21, 1994, together with seven attachments. A. "i'rincipal Port Ludlow Area Aquifers" - map from Port Ludlow EIS. B: "Port Ludlow Community Development Growth Analysis" - 10/27/93. C: "Ludlow Water co. D. Letter (1st page) from Don Davidson, DOE, dated 12/2/92. E. Letter from Karl Johnson, WA State Dept of Health, dated 12/2/92. F: Letter from Don Davidson, DOE, dated 1/J.2/94. G. Letter from Mark Huth, Prosecuting Attorney, to Don Davidson, dated 2/11/94. Exhibit C. Letter from Steve Hayd.n, Olympic Environmental council, to the Jefferson County Commissioners, dated April B, 1994, together wJ.th one additional attacrun.nt. H. "Tabla 1. Existing ground wat.r ra.ourc.... - annotat.d. Exhibit D. Memo from Paula Mackrow, Olympic Environm.ntal Council, dat.d May 17, J.994, r.ad in t..timony. Exhibit E. L.tt.r from Wendi Wrinkle, Secr.tary, Shin. Community Action Council, dat.d May 17, 1994, R.ceiv.d June 7, 19941 Exhibit F. Order Modifying SEPA MONS for Plat of Ironwood dated Jun. 6, 1994, Exhibit G. L.tt.r from Wendi Wrinkle dat.d May 20, 1994, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prelilninary Plat PrOPOSaIsl 1. The Development Review Division has made a detailed analysis of the proposal's consistency with the applicable Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Code provisions. The analysis is contained in Exhibit 1 "Ironwood" Preliminary Plat Staff Report, Staff Findings and ConClusions, Nos. 1 through 41 (staff Report pages 3 through 17). The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposal and the evidence of record and concurs with and hereby adopts the Findings and ConClusions, Nos. 1 through 41, except as may be specifically modified by the following Findings and Conclusions under "Issues:" Subdivision Variance Requests: 2. The Development Review Division has made a detailed analysis of the proposal's consistency with the applicable Subdivision Ordinance and Interim Zoning Ordinance provisions for each of the three requested variances: a. Subdivision ordinance, Section 6.309(4), ~. b. Subdivision ordinance, Section 6.301, ~~. c. xnterim Zoning ordinance, Section 9.3, Conditional Use. The analysis is contained in ElChibit 1 "Ironwood" Preliminary Plat Staff Report, Variance Findings and Conclusions Nos. 1 through 3 (Staff Report pages 21 thru 23). The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposal and the evidence of record and concurs with and hereby adopts the Variance Findings and Conclusions Nos. 1 through 3. Conditional V.e Multl.Famlly Re.tdentlal Development Requem 3. The Development Review Division has made a detailed analysis of the proposal's consistency with the applicable Interim Zoning Ordinance provisions. The analysis is contained in Exhibit 1 "Ironwood" Preliminary Plat staff Report, Interim Zonina Ordinance: Section 9 - Conditional Uses (Staff Report pages 17 through 21). The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposal and the evidence of record and concurs with and hereby adopts the staff analysis on pages 17 through 21 as Findings. 4. The staff analysis referenced above shows that the criteria of the Interim Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.2, Review Criteria, Section 9.3, ~onditional Uses, (a) Multi-familv Residential DeveloDment, and Administrative Rules Establishing Development Standards, are each met. Therefore, it is concluded that the requested conditional use can be approved. Groundwater Resources Issue: 5. The Jefferson Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 58.17 RCW require that a new plat be served by an adequate potable water supply. Water systems can be thought of as a hierarchy: a. Water Source - in this case ground water resource; b. Water Storage - reservoir or storage tanks to even out demand flows, usually over several days. c. Transmission Mains - major pipes used to move water throughout the service area, usually without regard to pressure and without direct service connections; d. Distribution Mains - water mains distributing to service lines, engineered to maintain flows and pressure, and also used to serve fire hydrants; and e. Service Lines - usually privately owned lines between the water meter and the building being served. Item a. (water source) is dependent on factors outside the control of the applicant -- or the County for that matter. While legal authority rests with Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health, the real issue is whether the ground water resource -- a finite resource -- is sufficient. Items b. through e. can be accomplished by choice, although there is a significant range in cost between water reservoirs and service lines. 6. The SEPA process, in particular the appeal public hearings held by the Board, specifically addressed this water resource issue. The Board concluded that water availability in the aquifer was sufficient. The Board also concluded,from evidence in the record that sufficient water rights exists to use the available water. 7. The correct parties were involved in the appeal hearings to assure that there was opportunity for complete testimony. 8. The Board reached proper conclusions based on the facts before them. 9. The SEPA review is duplicative and preempts the same review required under the Subdivision Ordinance for this water supply aspect of assuring "adequate potable water supply" to the proposed lots to be platted. Preliminary plat considerations require the local health department to assess the water supply system, and the local health department has the responsibility to recommend approval of the water supply system prior to final plat approval. [ReW 58.17.150(1)] This distinction is important because parties opposing the plat argue that the Washington state Department of Health is required to approve the water supply system at the preliminary plat stage. While the local health deparment has the statutory responsibilty, they will make their recommendation in conformance with State regulations. "Ironwood" ..............,. Plat Groundwater Resource Monitorina: Issue: 10. A groundwater resource monitoring program is critical to document the condition of the aquifer and to understand the effect of new development. 11. The purpose of .a monitoring program is long range and should assume a sufficient margin of error such that any indication of adverse change will allow for continued services to committed building,pro~rams. ,A.monitoring program should not, 12. The Ironwood preliminary plat is well designed with a mixture of housing types, totally integrated into the existing golf course, and takes full advantage of the open space created by the surrounding golf course. The street and lot layout are sensitive to the topography and wetland. The staff recommended conditions and the SEPA Mitigations will be adequate to assure compatibility with the surroundings. 13. The applicant concurs with the staff recommended conditions. 14. As noted under "Groundwater Issues" above, the SEPA review and mitigations adequately add~ess the issues. 15. The governing criteria for a preliminary plat are met. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to: a. APPROVE the Preliminary Plat Application of Pope Resources for "Ironwood" APPROVE the requested Subdivision Variances for lot ratios, c. APPROVE the requested Conditional Use for MUlti-family Residential Development, all subject to the following conditions (as recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant): b. NOTE: the following conditions which are duplicates of final Mitigated DNS conditions as ordered by the Board on June 6, 1994, are shown in smaller italics type and cross referenced: 1. Prior to commencement of any clearing, grading, or filling on the aite, a temporary erosion control plan shall be developed to the standards oL the DOE~ Storm Water Management Manual approval by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works (DPW). These plans shall minimize soil disturbance durjng the wet season (November through March), and will provide lor maintenance of native vegetation on undeveloped areas and revegetation after construction. [MONS Condition 1] 2. Native vegetation shall be maintained in open space areas and on slopes exceeding Lifteen (15%) percent; removal of diseased and dangerous trees, and selective thinning of vegetation, shall be permitted in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical report prepared by a licensed engineer. [MONS Condition 2] 3. An engineered drainage and storm water plan and report shall be submitted to DPW for review and approval. The drainage plan must incorporate the storm drainage criteria of DOE Storm Water Ma~aaeme~t Manual (current edition). [MONS Condition 3] The proponent shall establish a maintenance covenant as part of the Restrictive Covenants to ensure that the drainage system is maintained in accordance with the proponent's approved plans. The Maintenance Covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. [MONS Condition 4] Temporary erosion control and storm water structures shall be inspected at least once per week during the construction period and sediment shall be removed from sedimentation ponds as necessary to ensure proper functioning. Disposal of sediment materials shall be subject tot the approval of the Public Works Director in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County regulations. [MDNS Condition 5] The proponent shall designate a qualified individual or firm who shall be responsible for ensuring that erosion and sedimentation control devices are correctly installed, that Best Management Practices ere correctly implemented, and that BMP methods and maintenance schedules are Lollowed, for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of practices and recommending modifications' to the drainage plan as necessary if monitoring reveals that practices are not effective, and Lor ensuring that reports and inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County DPW. [MONS Condition 6 Xn order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to Boils and water, prior to conducting land disturbing activities on individual lots, the owner shall submit a small parcel temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan to the Jefferson County DPW for review and approval. Development of individual lots shall be carried out in conformance with the TESC plan. A notice to this effect shall be placed on the Linal plat. [MDNS Condition 7] 4. 5. 6. Grading and structural encroachment within slop.s exceeding Lifteen (1$\) percent shall be consistent with a geological report and lot-specitic site plan prepared for prior review by the Depsrtment Of Public Works. [MDNS Condition 8] The proponent shall continue and expand the existing Water Quelity Honitoring program which document. nonpoint eftects on the Cla.. AA .llxtraordinsry. water quality designation Of Port Ludlow Bay under the direction of 3efferson County. The program shall ensure the performence of water quality control features and provide for upgrading as necessary. The program shall include monitoring at appropriate background stations. The program shall allo~for adjustment of monitoring stations and water quality monitoring parameters depending on location of development activity and monitoring findings. On-going monitoring shall include evaluation of the proposed BHP's and testing of shellfish and sediment as appropriate. Ambient monitoring and storm event monitoring shall be conducted. The scope of work for each subsequent year's program ,shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and approval by November 1 of the preceding year. If the monieoring indicates ehae the proponent's activities are causing a reduction in the water quality standards of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall in its annual report so advise Jefferson County. [MDNS Condition 9] 10.' The proponent shall conduct a ground water resource monitoring program. The scope of the program shall be mutually agreed upon by the proponent and Jefferson County prior to final plat approval. Honitoring shall include static groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. If groundwater monitoring indicates an inadequate yield to support development of the proponent's projects, the proponent and/or the County shall immediately notify the Washington State Department of Ecology to request action or investigation pursuant to RCW 90.44 which provides authority for resolution of conflicts involving allocation of groundwater supplies. In the event that this situation occurs no additional plats which withdraw water from the South Aquifer shall be approved by Jefferson County until the groundwater adequacy issues have been resolved. [MDNS Condition 10] 11. Prior to commencing development of the plat, the proponent shall set asiUe five spaces at the RV Park for use by program related construction worhers. The number of spaces shall be adjusted based on their use hy construction workers and timing of individual development projects. [MONS Condition 11] 12. Prior to ccmmencing development of the plat, the proponent shall notify its contractors that space is available at its recreational vehicle park so long as contractors' employee. are working full-time on Port Ludlow projects. The proponent shall also monitor contractors' usage of the RV Park, make appropriate adjustments for reserved spaces, and report to Jefferson County on an annual baais as to the effectiveness of this mitigation. [MDNS Condition 12] 13, As provided in the Hay, 1992 wetland report (Raedecke Associates) the two larger wetlands within the site shall be retained in their current condition, with a minimum 50-foot vegetated buffer provided around each wetland. Mitigation measures proposed in the report are adopted by reference. [MDNS Condition 13] 14. The subject plat shall obtain ..ater for domestic use and fire protection from the Ludlo.. Water Company. [MONS Condition 14] 15. The right-oE-..ay of the proposed interior road, with the exception of TraCt H (designated as a private drive) shall be separately deeded to Jefferson County by Statutory Warranty Deed. The Auditor's riling Number of this Deed shall be shown on the face of the plat. [MDNS 23. Prior to plat approval, the proponent shsll pay a Jerrerson County Ftre District No. Condition 15] ~n easement for uti1itv purpose shall be orovided alona the Drivate drive ria~t-of-wav (Tract H) The proponent shall conduct a traffic monitoring program in cooperation with the DPW to assess the impacts of the Ironwood Plat and other Development Program plats on the State and County roadway system. The monitoring shall record trip generation, traffic counts on selected roadways, and level-af-service conditions at selected intersections. The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified traffic engineer to design and direct the traffic monitoring program 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 25 of each year. [MDNS Condition 16] If traffic monitoring indicates that intersection improvements are necessary at the Paradise Bay Road / Teal Lake Road intersection, the proponent shall enter into an agreement with the DPW to contribute a share of the required funds that is proportionate to the impacts generated by the Ironwood Plat. [MONS Condition 17] Road and intersection plans shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department, and must be approved by the Department. All road construction shall comply with the standards of and be performed under the inspection of the Jefferson County Department of Public Works. An agreement for the continued maintenance of all private roads shall be established either by recording of a separate instrument and referencing said instrument, or by establishment of said agreement by declaration on the subdivision plat. As necessary in order to minimize temporary construction trarLic, the proponent, in coordination with the JeLferson County DPW, shall designate truck routes and designate work-hour restrictions, [MDNS Condition 18] Construction of roads and storm water facilities and/or development of the site requires that the applicant submit plans in accordance with the Department of Public Works' plan review schedule, and the applicant shall notify the Department of Public Works during various phases of construction in accordance with the department.s inspection schedule. 22. In order to avotd .ignirtcant sdver.s impacts to ths Chimacum school District's cspscity to provids educational ssrvicss and to ensure that the District Can make appropriate provisions Lor school Lacilities, prior to rinal long subdivision plat approval, the proponent shall pay ths Chimacum School District $437.JO per lot to mitigate impacts to school Laciltti.s. Psyment may b. arrangsd through . voluntary agr..msnt. [HDNS Condition 19] subdivision, to be applied towards provision of fire and emergency services. Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement. [MONS Condition 20] 24. The proposed subdivision has only one access road that served the entire development. The number of homes, both single and multi-family, requires two access roads. This requirement may be modified if fire sprinklers are provided within the attached residential (multi-family) structures as specified in the letter of agreement between the proponent and Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. [MDNS Condition 2~] Minimum fire flow, location, and spacing of fire hydrants, shall be in accordance with the requirement of Jefferson County Fire Protection District No.3. DATED this ~7th day of June, ~994. Irv Berteig Hearln&: Examlner for Jefferson County A copy or notice of this Recommendation was transmitted by the Jefferson County Planning Department to the following' Date Transmitted: David Cunningham, Pope Resources, PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, WA 98370 Linda Mueller, Pope Resources, PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, WA 98370 Bob Montgomery, P.E., c/o Pope Resources, PO Box 1780, Poul.bo, WA 98370 Paula Mackrow, OEC, PO Box 1906, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Wendi wrinkle, 172 Hubbard Creek Road, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 H. W. Stowe, 191 Windro.. Dr., Port Ludlow, WA 99365 Thomas roley, 381 Highland Dr., Port Ludlow, WA 98365 JameG Brannaman, 563 Pioneer Dr" Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Julie Jaman, 790 KcMinn, Port Town.end, WA 98368 Oliver Gardner, PO Box 65156, Port Ludlow, WA 98365. MEMORAND UM To: David Goldsmith, SEPA Responsible Official From:Richard M, Sepler, Madrona Planning and Development Services Date:August 17, 1995 RE:Environmental Review and Threshold Determination under the Rules of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 197,11 WAC) Applicant:Pope Resources Proposal:SUB 95-0004, Teal Lake Village Division 2 is an application for Long Subdivision ofapproximately 110.3 acres into 54 single family residential lots, Lots sizes would range from 35,160 square feet to 73,450 square feet with an average lot size of 50,400 square feet, The proposal includes a total of 40.60 acres identified as Tracts A through D, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association, The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed from private rights-of,way off of Teal Lake Road.1fgranted the requested variance from the required sixty foot (60j) right-of-way requirements, the proposed internal roadways would consist offifty foot (50') rights-of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cul-de-sacs, excepting that the right-of- way serving lots 16 through 36 would tenninate in a loop. Site area dedicated to undeveloped open space would consist of approximately 40.60 acres (36,8% of the total site area). The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively. The proposal includes provision of temporary and permanent stonn water management facilities. Location:The proposal site is located in Port Ludlow south of Paradise Bay Road adjoining Teal Lake Road, Deseriptlon:The project property is identified 81 Assessor's Tax Parcels #821.121-001, #821.121.003, and #J821.12I-004, located in a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range I East, W,M" JetTerson County, Washington, Appllcatlon:SUB 95-0004, Teal Lake Village Division 2 Checklist: The Environmental Checklist was received by the Development Review Division on January 19,1995, Adequac:y:Staffhas determined that the application with environmental checklist was substantially complete on February 2, 1995. Comments: Staff requested review and comments on the Environmental Checklist from numerous agencies as well as adjacent property owners and parties of interest. Notified agencies include the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Jefferson County Department ofHea1th, State Department of Transportation, State Department ofFish and Wildlife, State Department of Natural Resources, State Department of Ecology, Public Utility District (PUD) #1, Jefferson Transit, Chimacum School District #49, Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Olympic Environment31 Council, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. Written responses received are as follows: Jefferson County Permit Center, March 14, 1995, Jefferson County Public Works Department, July 24 1995; Chimacum School District #49, May 18, 1995; Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3, June 5, 1995; Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, June 13, 1995; Copies of all correspondence and comments are attached. Written responses have not been received from the following notified agencies: Jefferson County Department ofHea1th, Jefferson Transit, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Olympic Environmental Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, State Department ofFish and Wildlife, State Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Notlc:e:Notice was published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader on April 26, 1995. Notice of pending threshold determination was posted on the site by the proponents on April 26, 1995, Notice of pending threshold determination was mailed to the adjacent property owners on April 26, 1995. Inspec:tion:Staffconducted a site inspection on May 5, 1995, TO: All Permit and Review Authorities ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD The environmental review consisted of analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record, Subdivision Ordinance #04-0526-92 Implementing Ordinance #7-84: State Environmental Policy Act Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance /I 05-0509-94 Jefferson County Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area Ordinance #01 -01 17-95 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Port Ludlow Development Program Unless otherwise noted, the above information is available for review in the Jefferson County Planning Department, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, between the hours of9:oo a.m. and 5:00 p.rn, Monday through Friday. SEPA 1995 STAFF AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following sections correspond with related categories of the environmental checklist submitted for the proposal and clarifY, amend, or add to that document (see Exhibit 1 for proponent's checklist). I. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION SUB 95,0004, Teal Lake Village Division 2 is an application for Long Subdivision of approximately 110,3 acres into 54 single family residential lots. Lots sizes would range from 35,160 square feet-to 73,450 square feet with an average lot size of 50,400 square feet. The proposal includes a total of 40.60 acres identified as Tracts A through D, which would be dedicated as common open space owned by the Homeowners Association. The lots within the proposed subdivision would be accessed from private rights-of-way off ofTea1 Lake Road. Ifgranted the requested variance from the required sixty foot (601) rigllt-of,way requirements, the proposed internal roadways would consist offifty foot (50') rights-of-way ending in fifty foot (50') radius cul.de-sacs, excepting that the right-of- way serving lots 16 through 36 would terminate in a loop. Site area dedicated to undeveloped open space would consist of approximately 40.60 acres (36.8% of the total site area), The proposal would be served by the Ludlow Water Company and sanitary sewer for water and sewer, respectively, The proposal includes provision of temporary and pennanent stonn water management facilities, II. PERMITS REQUIRED: Jefferson County: Subdivision Approval Building Pennit Critical Areas Pennit Significant Environmental Comments: Lots I .36 arc located on the east lide of Tea1 Lake Road which consists ora north.south trending ridge. The crest of the ridge slopes up to the south with lide slopes along the eastern side ranging up to sixty percent (60%) having occasional areas of steeper slopes. Elevations in this area range from 225 feet to 480 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Side slopes along the western side of the ridge range up to approximately thirty percent (30"/0) with occasional areas of steeper slopes. Lots 37,54 are located along the west side ofTea1 Lake Road in an area where slopes range from approximately 225 feet to 460 feet above Mean Sea level (MSL). This portion of the site slopes down toward the west with an average slope of approximately ten percent (10%) in the uppennost areas. Seasonally intermittent streams have developed on this portion of the site with slopes up to eighty percent (80"/0) along their drainage courses. The site is located in an area mapped by the Soil Conservation Service that consists of the Cassolary and Sinclair series soils which are listed as having severe erosion hazards which range from moderate to severe depending on slope, Such areas have limitations to construction of dwellings with basements which range from moderate to severe depending on the slope, In areas of the Sinclair soils the Soil Survey describes the limitation to dwellings with basements as moderate for slopes up to fifteen percent (15%) and severe for slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%). In areas ofthe Cassolary soils the Soil Survey describes the limitation to dwellings without basements as moderate for slopes up to fifteen percent (15%) and severe for slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%), The Soil Survey describes the erosion hazard of the Cassolary soils as slight to moderate for slopes ranging up to fifteen percent (15%) and as moderate for slopes of fifteen to thirty percent (15-30%). The Soil Survey describes the erosion hazard of the Sinclair soils as slight to moderate for slopes ranging up to fifteen percent (15%) and as moderate to severe for slopes ranging from fifteen to thirty percent (15-30%), The site is located within the Landslide Hazard Area designation on the Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps and will be subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. Vegetation on the site consists of mature second growth Dougla.s Fir and cedar trees with a dense understory of brush, Areas which have been cleared in the past have revegetated with alder tr~s, brush, and grass. Soil and construction debris has been stockpiled in the vicinity of Lots 40, 41, 42, 51, and 52, The aforementioned soils and construction debris is unsuitable for support of foundations or pavements and should be removed to an approved disposal site. The proposal includes significant clearing, grading, excavation, and fills to construct roads, utilities, and residerices, Bect;use the site is characterized by steep slopes, the proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts to Earth related to slope stability and soil erosion. With slopes up to 80%, erosion is a distinct pOllsibilIty due to the lot configuration, the amount of earth removal for homesite preparation, and the development of roads and utilities. There has not been a history of erosion on the site which could be attributable to the retention of undisturbed native vegetation in areas of extreme steep slope. Removal of vegetation or any other site disturbing activities in the areas qualifYing as steep slopes should be conducted with extreme care, In a letter dated July 24, the Department of Public Works stated that in order to avoid significant adverse impact. related to .Iope .tability and soil eroeion, the following mitigative measure. based on the recommendation. of the report preparecl by GeoEngineera, dated March 28, 1995 should be required: 1995 1. Construction of roads, residences, appurtenant structures, and drainage systems and all land disturbing activities should be conducted in confonnance with the recommended minimum setbacks, erosion control measures, and conditions regarding earthwork, foundations, floor slab support, retaining and subgrade walls, drainage, subgrade preparation, and pavement. 2. The geotechnical report prepared for the site by GeoEngineers should be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor and the Auditor's File Number should be depicted on the plat along with the following no!ice to purchasers: A geotechnical report has been prepared for the plat by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Development of the plat shall be conducted in conformance with the recommended conditions of the geotechnical report which has been filed with the Jefferson County Auditol}' under Auditor's File Number In addition, all development should strictly adhere to the guidelines of the Jefferson County State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Critical Areas Ordinance. Air:. The checklist adequately addresses the issues of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. a. Surface Water' It does not appear that any site disturbing activities would occur in the vicinity of the intermittent streams that run through the portion of the site located west ofTeaI Lake Road, However, mitigation for erosion of soils and increased runoff from impervious surfaces that would carry sediments and pollutants into surface waters should be required. b, Ground Water' Although the site is not located within the Recharge Susceptibility Zone designation on the Jefferson County Critical Areas Maps, the proposal could have a significant adverse impact resulting from depletion of ground water resources due to increased provision of water to this proposal. However, this impact can be avoided by implementing the ground water monitoring measure developed through the Programmatic EIS process and required as a mitigation measure for the proponent's Plat of Deer Hollow and, if necessary, requiring the proponent to take actions to ensure an adequate supply of potable water. c, 'Wllter Runoff: The proposal is likely to result in significant adverse impacts to water as a result of sedimentation from erosion of exposed soils and contaminants used during development. Mitigation measures would be required for such impacts which are addressed by the Jefferson County State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Critical Areas Ordinance, 1995 J w ~ I- o :z :::: :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- <..> :z w In ::E In => W<..> -' 0 ",017 ... ~I; ~""I' ~~I' ~Sli I- oec => :z:c::;r, - I I-~I :z:.... w ' :E 0' 8....1 I g~i ~~! ....-i "- ...., ... -I 8 I i5 i I Z I f'\ '-7 ',I I- I I I ! I- '! I " i " "{ .,.' . . oil SEPA 'I'hrNhoId DeIormlNdIan TeollAb VllIate DlYillotl2 .....'0 Au..... 17, 1995 - ]- J w ~ 5 :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z , In ~i ~Bi -Ie! en C! .....W! ~i=ii < "-I e: C! I >-, In 1-: ~::;1 1-< ~g.i wi I-:C ! :z 1-: ~o: _ 61-: ow, c:::> Q w :z: In I- ..... ~ t:;: w ~ 5 :z: ," o . .. . - . .. . , The Jefferson County Public Works Department has required an engineered drainage and stonnwater plan and report to be submitted for County approval. The drainage plan is to incorporate the stonn drainage criteria of the Washington State Department of Ecology Storm Water Management Manual (current edition). Inspections conducted by County staffwiU be required for the various phases of construction of roads and stonn water facilities and/or land disturbing activities. Additionally, prior to commencement of any land disturbing activities on the site, an erosion and sediment control plan, developed to the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stonn Water Management Manual (current edition), should be submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control methods for construction purposes should be approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and employed during construction. flaDlJ:. As stated above under the section titled Earth, vegetation on the site consists of mature second growth Douglas Fir and cedar trees with a dense understory ofbrush. Areas which have been cleared more recently are vegetated with alder trees, brush, and grass. No significant plant species or communities are known to exist on the site. ~ The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Eneray and Natural Resources' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Environmental Health' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. ' ~ Noise produced by construction activities will be minimal and of short duration. However, to reduce noise impacts to neighbors, construction activities would only occur between the hours of 7;00 a,m, and 6;00 p.m. SEPA Thl'tlllholol DelemIInaIIon T....IA. Vln. Dlvlllion 2 Pqoll Ausull 17, 1995 ,. '(<~'.._\ r ' " , j' I- · . ,)2,)\,I[ ... ] <<''''':Sl,''''''' J W t..> ~ o :z: In - :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z ~~i' wt..>' -' 0 C In _w :::r: WI- :E < "- e<:O ..... >- ~t; :z: -' I- < :::> :0' Wi I-:Z: . :z: I- w :EO =>1- t..> ow c:::> c w :z: In I- - ~t:; w ~ I; :z: /'\ I .--...j o . ,~ . - . - . . .. " Land/Shoreline Use' The subject property is within the Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area and is subject to the provisions of the Jefferson County Port Ludlow Urban Growth Area Ordinance #01- 0117-95. Further, the proposal is subject to review to determine consistency with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, lIwlsin&:. The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Aesthetics' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Liiht and Glare' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment, Recreation' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; therefore, staff has no additional comment. Jiistoric and Cultural Preservation' The checklist adequately addresses the topics of this section; however, the listed measures to reduce or control impacts should be imposed as mitigation measures, Tran~portation' As stated in the comment letter from the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, dated July 24, 1995, access to the site would be by way of the Paradise Bay and Teal Lake County Roads. Each individual lot is estimated to generate six (6) trips per day for a total of324. The proposal I. likely to result in .ignificant adverse impacts to public roads, specifically the Paradise Bay. Teal Lake Road intersection, The proposal will require improvements to the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road intersection, This impact is addressed by the policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7: GOALS AND POLICIES, Transportation .1Id Circulation. the Final Environmental Impact Statement for SUPA Threohold DoComllnallon TIlII J..aIe. Villq. Oiviolcln 2 Paso 12 AU,UIl17,1995 e ..' . . 1.", ; ',~2 '" I [ ., '1 J a~~~~ -I J w u ~ o :z: In - :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < W . -' I- u= W In :E In :::> Wt..) -'0 C In - W :::r: WI- :E < "- e<:o "- >- ~t: :z: -' I- < => =:;0' w; I-:::r: ' :z I- w :E 0 :::> I- U ow Q:::> C W :z: VI I- - ~t: W ~ 15 :z: .t' .~ ......_,.,..... o . ( . - TW, --' . . .. " the Port Ludlow Development Program, and the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. The Department of Public Works recommends the following mitigative measures be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts: 1. The applicant should be responsible for funding a share of the required improvements to the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road intersection, including channelization, that ill proportionate to the impacts related to .the proposal. Public Services' a. Schools: The Development Program EIS finds that the Port Ludlow Development Program, of which this proposal is a component of, would have significant adverse impacts to the Chimacum School District's capacity for provision of educational facilities, The Chimacum School District has informed Jefferson County that they do not have adequate existing capacity to provide educational facilities to additional students, The District would incur approximate annual operating costs of $5, 164 and capital costs of $8,888 per student, Chimacum School District #49 has asked that the County maintain the provisions for school bUll transportation as a requirement for project approval. To mitigate impacts to schools, prior to final plat approval the proponent should pay to the Chimacum School District $437.10 per lot to be applied toward provision of school facilities, In their letter date May 18, 1995, the Chimacum School District has asked that the County insure that appropriate provisions for schools and school grounds will be made as required by RCW 58.17 and the subdivision ordinance prior to preliminary plat approval. Further, they request that adequate provision for school bus stops be made as part of the plat approval. As with any development proposal that results in an increase of residential density, pedestrian safety is a primary concern, The criteria for subdivision approval in the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance will require the developer to provide safe walking conditions for pedestrians and school children. b. Transit: The Jefferson Transit bus stop referenced in the checklist is located at the Paradise Bay Roadrrea1 Lake Road intersection, approximately 3,500 feet from the proposed subdivision. c. Fire: The EIS finds that the Port Ludlow Development Program, of which this proposal is a component, would have significant adverse impacts on the Jefferson County Fire District No. 3's capacity to provide lire and emergency services, SIlPA Threohold Dotennlnollon TClllIlAko Viii.... DMoIon 2 p.... u Au,uIIl1? 199~ . o ~ "..,tl .. \ I , ) ~ ~ ':ii' ~ .' . . '~ ~) I I [] .. " J w ~ I- o :z: ~ :z: I- :z: < :z: I- 0:: ;:5 .f dEI' (l')E. ~B':I -'8i In ! .....La.JI, ~~Ii e: ~l'.' <Ill-' ;; ~! .- :3j\ Z ol i ;: ~I 151-1 B~: ow; 0:): c' w ' :c V)I t- .....; Lr.. 1-: - -I ,! I I I \ On September 13, 1993 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners considered the issues of providing adequate school facilities and fire and emergency services related to Pope Resources' Plat of the Inn at Port Ludlow. After considering testimony from the Chimacum School District, Fire District #3, and County staff; the Board detennined that adequate provision could be made by requiring Pope Resources to pay the School District $437.10 per lot to provide school facilities and to pay the Fire District S193.oo per lot to provide fire and emergency services. Payment is required prior to final plat approval. This action by the Board was subsequently adopted by the Board as a SEP A mitigation measure in order to avoid significant impacts related to Pope Resources' Deer Hollow Long Plat. These measures should also be required as mitigation for school and fire district impacts related to this proposal. The proponent proposes to design and construct water systems with flow volumes and hydrants sufficient to meet fire protection standards and to design and construct roads to County standards. Further review of the proposal to ensure consistency with fire protection standards would occur during subdivision review, Additional mitigaticn measures to ensure this are not necessary. Analysis of the infonnation provided in the Development Programmatic EIS and consideration of the recommended mitigation measures indicate that significant adverse impacts to the Chimacum School District and Jefferson County Fire District No.3 can be avoided, w ~ l5 z 11.tiIi1ia:. The checklist adequatel~' addresses the topics of this section. The subject proposal must have State Department ofHcalth Water System approval prior to Jefferson County preliminary plat approval. ,'\ .,.' . . SEPA 1'IwlINllcI DoWnlInatbl T'" Lake vw.,e Dlvltlan 2 Poee 14 Au.,,", 17. 1995 IlIIIl' 1 -e::J:t;~,..,,~;us:,~ ; ..".. -, . '~ ~...~ W t..> ~ o % In - :z: I- :z: < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z w In :E In :::> wu -'0 C In - W :z: W I- :E < "- "",0 "- >- ~t:; :z: -' I- < :::> ~O' w I- :z: :z: I- w :EO ::> l- t..> ow c:::> c w :z: In 1--' ~= w ~ 15 :z ,'", o \ j .. . - . . .. , , Potential Significant Environmental Impacts: Based on review of the Environmental Checklist and other available material provided on the subject proposal, Development Review staff recommends that the Responsible Official consider the following as potential significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of development of the subject proposal: o Soil erosion during clearing for construction of roads and other on-site improvements. o Storm water run-off during'construction and after buildout. o Potential impacts to public roads and circulation, o Potential impacts to the capacity of the Chimacum School District's educational services and safe walking conditions for school children. o Potential impacts to the ability of Jefferson Transit to provide public transportation service to the residential development. Threshold Determination Recommendation: Staff recommends a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance be issued by the Responsible Official for the subject proposal, The following mitigation measures have been proposed by Development Review Division staff for consideration by the Responsible Official. They are intended to address and mitigate to a point of non-significance the environmental impacts listed above, 1, To mitigate significant adverse impacts related to slope stability and soil erosion, the proponent shall conform to the following conditions based on the applicable Jefferson County regulations and the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers dated March 28, 1995: a, Construction of roads, residences, appurtenant structures, drainage systems, and all land disturbing activities shall be conducted In conformance with the recommended minimum aetbacka, erosion control measures, and conditions regarding earthwork, foundations, floor a1ab support, retaining and lubgrade walls, drainage, subgrade preparation, and pavement design from the geotechnical report for the site, b. The above referenced geotechnical report for the site shall be recorded with the SnPA Threohold OeIamllllllGn Teat lAke Villop Divl,ion 2 I'aaol 5 AU,UIl17, t995 I I i f I I l I ~ " ,~ , M .'. . " ...... I [ .) /.'" .' "'J; .,;..',. , ,..,':1 '.';,. . ]- . .. " J w t..> ~ o :z ~ :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: , < ' ~~! u~r. ~~I ~gi In Cl, ..... L&J I:, W 1= I ~"-! e: 01 >-, In 1-1 ~:;! I-~i ;:;11;; z: I- w B~l OL&J~ eEl ~U)! ..........i l.J.. t-i ~-'I tJ I ;::: l o ' z: I r Jefferson County Auditor and the Auditors File Number shall be depicted on the plat along with the following notice to purchasers: A geotechnicai report has been prepared for the plat by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Development of the plat shall be conducted in conformance with the recommended conditions of the geotechnical report which has been filed with the Jefferson County Auditor under Auditors File Number _' , , ,'i ......~- (' . i I , ! . .' . . SEPA 'I'htwhDkl DotonnInallaI ToaIlAko Via.,. DMokln 2 raael6 Au,UIII',1995 J ,] "1Z..!r~,~.':t~ j w ~ I- o :z: In :z: I- :z < :z: I- cr; < W , -' I- U:z ' w' . In :EI In :::>' W t..> -'0 C' In . - w :::r: ~I- '" "- cr;o "- >- till- -- :z: -' I- < :::> ;::;0' I- ~i :Z:I- w :E 0 :::> l- t..> ow c:::> c w :z: In I- - ~ !::; w u ~ o :z ,'\ .......-.,..- o . . - .....---.... ( . , - . . .. , , 2, To mitigate significant impacts to water related to sedimentation from erosion of eKposed soils and contaminants used during development the following conditions shall apply throughout development of the proposal: The proponent shall submit an engineered drainage and stonn water plan and report to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval. The plan is to include temporary and pennanent erosion control measures. The drainage plan must incorporate the stonn drainage control criteria ofthe Washington State Department of Ecology Stonn Water Management Manual (current edition). The plan shall be of sufficient detail to clearly illustrate the "Best Management Practices" utilized are adequate to treat and control the runoff. Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities on the site, and erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washing State Department of Ecology Stonn Water Management Manual (current edition) and submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Public Works for review and approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management practices shall be implemented at all times during land disturbing activities, An approved set of plans shall be kept on the site during construction. Ifno development of the lots is proposed at this time, the proponent shall state under Notice to Purchasers: Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities and prior to issuance of a building permit, a Stonn Water Site Plan shall be developed to the standards of the Washington Stale Department of Ecology Stonn Water Management Manual (current edition) and be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. Temporary erosion control Best Management Practices shall be approved by the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and implemented at all times during land disturbing activities, 3, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, native vegetation in open space areas shall be maintained in an undisturbed condition. 4, For disturbance of vegetation in any area with a combination of slopes greater than I S% with impenneAble or slowly penneable soils, ground water seepage, or potentially unstable slopes the following conditions shall apply: a, Whenever feasible, existing vegetation in these areas should remain in an SBPA Threohold Dotomlinalion Teal Lolce VilJa,o [)jvlolon 2 "asel7 Ausull 17,1995 ~-~ I~'~~: '..',(1)" c - I l :j '{. I I ! t i ~ ,~~ '~ - , . .' . . " ,,) .'1. .., I 1[1 1 ...- ] ~E$2~Wj " j W t..> ~ o :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' l- t..> Z W In :E In :::> wt..> -'0 C In _W :::r: wI- :E <"- e: O! >- ' ~!:; :z: -' I- < ::;)i :z 0' - W! J-::C : :z I- W :EO :::> l- t..> OW c:::> C W :z: In 1-- :=;1:; W ~ 15 ::z: ,'\ .....-.-r- o ,. ,I . - . . .. " undistutbed condition. If the area is unvegetated due to a previous disturbance, immediate efforts shall be required to provide a persistent native vegetative cover to prevent erosion or hazard, b. In order to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and on-site vegetation, authorized clearing shall be required to be designed to minimize impacts to soil and understory vegetation by providing for sequencing and staging where appropriate. 5. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, the proponent shall establish a Maintenance Covenant as part of the Restrictive Covenants to ensure that the drainage system is maintained in accordance with the proponent's approved plans. The Maintenance Covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Public Works Department prior to final plat approval. 6. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, temporary erosion control and storm water structures shall be inspected at least once per week during the construction period and sediment shall be removed from sedimentation ponds as necessary to ensure proper functioning. Disposal of sediment materials shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and County regulations. 7. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to soils and water, the proponent shall designate a qualified individual or firm who shall be responsible for ensuring that erosion and sedimentation control devices are correctly installed, that Best Management Practices are correctly implemented, and that BMP methods and maintenance schedules arc followed; for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of practices and recommending modifications to the drainage plan as necessary if monitoring reveals that the practices are not effective; and for ensuring that reports and inspections are coordinated with the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, 8. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts related to soils and water, prior to conducting land disturbing activities on individual lots, the owner shall submit a small parcel temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval. Development of individual lots shall be carried out in conformance with the TESC plan, A notice to this effect shall be placed on the final plat. 9, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent shall continue and expand the existing Water Quality Monitoring Program which documents non-point effects on the Class AA "Extraordinary" water quality SErA 'I1mlohoId Detamlnation Teal J.aIce Vi..... Divl,kln 2 r.... 1 a AUluot 17. 1995 \ ~ ti, " , .' . . ,'~? ;'" I [ - w U ~ o :z Vl - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e< < w . -' l- t..> :z w' en::E: i In => WU -' 0 C In _w :::r: WI- :E < "- e<O ..... >- ~C :I:~; I- < :::> ::;0' Wi I- :::r: :z I- W :0:0 => I- U OW Q:::> Q W ::r: In I- - ~t:; W ~ l5 :z ,', o I j , . . .. , , designation of Port Ludlow Bay under the direction of Jefferson County. The program shall ensure the performance of water quality control features and provide for upgrading, as necessary. The program shall include monitoring at appropriate background stations (i.e., Ludlow Creek and the intermittent streams on site and inner Port Ludlow Bay). The program shall allow for adjustment of monitoring stations and water quality monitoring parameters depending on location of development activity and monitoring findings, On-going monitoring shall include evaluation of the proposed BMPs and testing of shellfish and sediment as appropriate, Ambient monitoring and storm event monitoring shall be conducted. The scope of work for each subsequent year's program shall be submitted to Jefferson County for review and approval by November] of the preceding year. If the monitoring indicates that the proponent's activities are causing a reduction in the water quality standards of Port Ludlow Bay below the Class AA "Extraordinary" designation, the proponent shall in its annual report so advise Jefferson County, 10. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to marine water quality, the proponent shall conduct a sewage treatment plant monitoring program which documents the effects of the development program on the capacity of the secondary sewage treatment plant. The monitoring shall record the number of connections, effluent 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 mitigating measure is intended to supersede or conflict with the requirements of the proponent's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-002120-2 issued pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and companion statutes. Results of this monitoring shall be transmitted to the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and the Washington Department of Ecology by March 15 of each year. l ) ,) -t 1 I I I 11, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground water resources and to document the condition of the aquifers used as domestic water sources, the proponent shall conduct a groundwater resource monitoring program. The scope of the program shall be mutually agreed upon by the proponent and JelTerson County prior to final plat approval. Monitoring shall include static groundwater levels and saltwater intNsion. If groundwater monitoring indicates an inadequate yield to support development of the proponent's projects, the proponent andlor the County shall immediately notifY the Washington State Department of Ecology to request action or investigation pursuant to RCW 90.44 which provides authority for resolution of conflicts involving allocation of groundwater supplies, In the event that this situation occurs no additional plats which withdraw water from the South Aquifer shall be approved by Jefferson County until the groundwater adequacy issues have been resolved. SEPA Thl'Cllhold Do......in.tian Teal Lake Viii.,., Divi.ion 2 ".19 Au~ul117. 1995 . c ',~ ,.. . " . .. . - . ',: ";'1 ! I I I rJ - ] tC'im,aa~U"..A.! . W t..> ~ o :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' ~ t..> :z W In :E In :::> Wt..> -'0 c In - W :::r: W I- :E < "- e<:O "- >- ~!:; :z: -' I- < :::> :z 0" - W I- :::r: :z I- W ::EO :::> l- t..> ow c:::> c W :z: In I- - ~= W := 15 :z: 1'\ '" "."....-. . - o . .. -;---- , --I.~ - . . .. , , 12. In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to transportation, the proponent shall conduct a traffic monitoring program in cooperation with the Jefferson County Public Works Department to assess the impacts ofthe Teal Lake Village Division 2 subdivision and other Development Program subdivisions/plats on the State and County roadway system. The monitoring shall record trip generation, traffic counts on selected roadways, and level-of-serviceconditions at selected intersections. The proponent shall be responsible for employing a qualified traffic engineer to design and direct the traffic monitoring program 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, 13. To mitigate potential transportation impacts or impacts attributable to new roads or improvements to existing roads, the proponent shall submit Road and Intersection plans to the Jefferson County Public Works Department for review and approval prior to development. All road construction shall comply with the standards of and be performed under the inspection of the Department. Road approach permits shall be secured from the Department and the approaches developed to the standards set forth in the permit. 14. To mitigate potential impacts to transportation circulation and the intersection of Paradise Bay and Teal Lake Roads, the applicant shall be responsible for funding a share of the required improvements to the Paradise Bay-Teal Lake Road intersection, including channelization, that is proportionate to the impacts rel~ted to the proposal, 15. In the event archaeological items are discovered the proponent shall observe the protocol developed by II professionel ercha.."Ologist in conjunction with local Native American tribes as follows: STOP WORK. Do not further disturb the area or remove any materials therefrom. NotifY immediately the Director of Development Review, (360) 379-4463. Director of Development will immediately notifY the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). (206) 753-5010. Protect the area from vandals and collectors, Obtain services ofa qualified archaeologist to evaluate the site and make recommendations for further work in the area, If further excavation or disturbance of the site is necessary, obtain the appropriate SEPA Thftllhold DoIermlnalion Tool Lake VII..,., Dlviolon 2 r.". 20 Au'UIl17.199S =- ';"2" "J '::'~i~":",r, H. ,,' (", ' (. i I \ ~ i ! \ . r I I I r I ". . . .' . . ,~{ ';~ ,I [1 III" . - - . ]- . .. " .J r I ..... ~ I- o :z: ~ :z: I- :z < :z: I- 0:: .< ..... " -' 1-' u~i In:>;: I CI)::;:): ::151 i CI ~w: :z: i . 1&.1 t-! :E: , CC .l.L! 0::0' "- >-, ~t:': :E:....J; .....~i ~C': WI .....-:z:::! :z 1-, ~o' S "'1 0'-" c:::> C ..... :z: VI' 1-- ~= permit fonn OAHP. Proceed only in compliance with the tenns and conditions of said permit. 16. As necessary in order to minimize temporary construction traffic, the proponent in coordination with the Jefferson County Public Works Department shal1 designate truck routes and deSignate work hour restrictions. 17, In order to avoid significant adverse impacts to school facilities, prior to final plat approval the proponent shall pay to the Chimacum School District $437.10 per Jot to be applied toward provision of school facilities: Payment may be arranged through a voluntaJy agreement. 18. In order to avoid ,significant adverse impacts to fire and emergency services, prior to final plat approval the proponent shall pay to the Jefferson County Fire District #3 $193.00 perlot to be applied toward provision office and emergency services. Payment may be arranged through a voluntary agreement. DetermiDatioD of RapoDlible Official: I have reviewed and considered the referenced proposal, the environmental checklist, public comments, other available material, and the Development Review Division's staff memo and recommendation, I hereby: ..... ~ I- o :z: _ issue a Determination of Non-Significance, ...x.. issue a Determination of Mitigated Non-Significance. _ issue a Determination of Significance. f'\ _ determir.e that I do not have sufficient infonnation up-on which to make a threshold determination and direct the Development Review Division staff to obtsin additional inronnation on the proposal, ~''":.~ . David Goldsmith" SBPA Responsible Official Date .. .. . . SBPA 11uDohclkI ~ Teal lAb vw.,. 01..... 2 Paae 21 AUJusI17.I99S ... 2~2 '" I [ - ] (l'1.:Ct"J.iit';r~"'Il J w ~ I- o :z ~ :2: I- Z < :z: I- 0:: < W . -II-' t..> :z V'J~i; In ::::> wu -10 C In _w W~i :E < LL. 0::0 u.. >- ~~, :2: -' 1-< ::::> ZO' - W I- ::>:: :z: I- W :EO :::> l- t..> OW Q::::> C W :2: '" 1-- ~t:: w ~ I- o z i\ '..... .....-.- o . . - , . . .. , , GeoG Engineers September 14; 1995 GeotedmicaJ, Geoenvironmental and Geologic Services Pope Resources P.O. Box 1780 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 Ann: Ms. Linda Mueller Swmnary Letter Geotechnical Engineering Port Ludlow Division 7 Port Ludlow, Washington File No. 2378-032-T03 This letter summarizes our AprilS. 1995 geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Port Ludlow Division 7 residential development. We understand that this letter will be included as support documentation for your SEPA checklist for the site. Based on our observations of surface and subsurface conditions. it is GeoEngineers. Inc. opinion that the site is generally suitable for the proposed develcpment. The site soils consist of a thin veneer of outwash sand and gravel over glacially consolidated soils, The glacially consolidated soils at the site ~stable relative to deep seated failure. No evidence of landsliding or slope instability was observed at the site during our site work. Potential erosion hazards at the site arc mitigatable with conventional construction/erosion protection techniques, and arc therefore not a limiting factor for the proposed site development. Alllefferson County stormwater management and erosion conuol guidelines and BMPs will be incorporated into the fmal design plans. The stormwater and erosion conuols will be installed and maintained in accordance with the plans and under the supervision of a licensed engineer. In general.' development will take place in the flatter portions of the site, Where construction will occur on slope areas, specific earthwork and design measures arc required. Specific geotechnical guidelines have been provided in detail in the April 5. 1995 OeoEnginccrs geotechnical report, Those guidelinesfreconunendations are summarized below, GtoEnRi"""', Inc. 6240 T.'OIN Mall BIvcI.. Sune 31R TarotN. WA 9IIi09 Tdtphone (2061 471{1379 FAll (206\471-0\21 . . ,--,-'~ .'..... ',.'..'0"", "", :,'.:1":r~"::,,,:"''':-r':,,,,: " '.~;~~:J:~~~":.:':;. "'~"''''''''-'''''''''''''''''':'''' .' :'" ,"" ,-",,' ," .,; ':"1" .-,..,'" ~,..., .,.",:,1<; , ' - i ~ i;:\,,:: '~':',(.'I,'. Cl",'"'' . '-:';~-iJ: ~(:'i"""'.1t..""'wi' 'r ~ .. . . ~-" .......', ,'),,,": " I r .. ]~ ] 1 w ~ I- o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z w' In 2:1 In :::> w t..> ~o C In -..... :::r: W I- :E , < "-, 0::0 "- >- ~= :z: -' 1-< :::> ::;0' W I- :::r:, :z I- w :EO :::> I- U ow c:::> c w :z: "" 1-- ~t: w u ~ o :z: ,'\ ..... - ;,.... o . .. - \. . -<1 , . . .. " Pope Resources September 14, 1995 Page 2 . All fill should be placed on a prepared surface, generally in a 12-inch maximum lift and uniformly compacted to 90 percent MOD below 2 feet of subgrade ami 95 percent in the upper 2 feet. . Grading may include fill placement on slopes. All fill placed on slopes steeper than 5 to I (Horizontal to Vertical) should be properly keyed or benched into the slope face and drained, as appropriate. The bench should be about 10 feet wide and a maximum of 3 feet in height. . Some of the on-.site ~oiiS are moisture sensitive and earthwork should be performed during dry weather conditions. Soils unsuitable for use as structUral till because of moisture content or organic content may be stockpiled and later used for 1andscaping, or removed from the site. . Slopes at the site are generally stable under :he existing conditions, The recommended building setbacks from slopes are based on the slope angle and height and are as follows: SETBACK SLOPE DISTANCE (Horizontal) 15 to 30 percent, greater than 10 feet in vertical height 8 feet minimum 31 to SO percent, greater than 10 feet in vertical height 12 feet minimum Greater than 50 percent, greater than 10 feet in height 20 feet minimum Where these setback distances cannot be met, the slope may be retained, This may include concrete, reinforced earth, block or engineered rock walls. . Shallow foundations founded on dense native materials or properly compacted structural fill (9S percent MDD) may be used for support of struCtures, Daylight basement structures will be more practical and economic on sloping areas, . Where mixed subgrade materials occur at footing or floor grades, overexcavation and replacenlent with stnlctural fill may be required or alternative footing designs should be considered, . Ground water may be seasonally perched immediately above the unweathered glacial tll1 or slit. Sile development should include appropriate drainage facllltles to intercept significant ground water seepage, . Adequate drainage should be provided for all stnlcture5. This includes footing drains, roadway subdrains where necessary and vapor bllTlers for all slabs-on.grade. Roof drains should not be tied Into the footing drains, but directed to the site stonnwater system, OeoEft.ine.,. Plio No. 2J1I.032,~3 'Li' ~' j,<,' .." v - . ,. "~:t';::ti:;,:~~:~;,,:~,~~;.:~{~;;~~,~:~:ji/!:~:, ";, - -. . i I I " .' '.. --...... . . ~, '~, I r 1 ,) 1::. ," · l I - . - ~ ... <,';:'71::" ;: - "(,;,;,<, :\:,), ir~7' ,;;',,'; /,:, :::,'; ':.\'~:;:'{:,~,;\<~.i: ',': > ::',,:-, ;.:;., ~ ;~::.,:,' :: ; , ;;/'{:,\1 ;dO:.: {, ;:;)1 ,.').; :":",:<"..)(: /)0.~', :,.~ :'-iFJ < ~:,:,:':.~: ;~~'~;:':,F(:if~,.:,i'~i\ :;~~~:.,,:tft~~i~: i."-<.',~'t:~;:X':;:, ~'(;d'-/:';:-:i":<,:, '",..".:', ,,-.';;-,," '.',;' ',' .., 1,:;" ~',"I/ ..'" .", .,.,.,.,:f;'{'" "i": "-.;-:,;"~ <"i:;' r.::, :"'. ",//, ;~;',:,:}i::;+r ;- <, ~''': j; '~':\,:,~;,';.~:;:,::;';:<:;'::j~:. '.'~ >:~' ""',"'- '."';.'>i/').r "":":. ',-"-", ~.<Tf:1\;;-~' ,..;.'i....':.;"'...' ,:',-.,,' >,"-;',1,' ;,..-,; """,,;..'.:, ..'.,...:....i::.; (, -, )": : ~i~~'<f ....i.f. t' , .. '.''''-,:~,::/ ;'j .. ,I.,' ',i:,Il;. ., ,,' ,'), ]-.- .. .~ ....~.,., ..';.f.'~" ] w ~ I- o :z: ~ ::c: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W _i ~~r~ ~~I!: In :::> ~8r In ! .....I.&JI' ~i=I;' ~:sl' L&. ,..l' ~t:l' i= ;;! i =gl ... ~I :z: ... w ' !5~1 8~! c w : ::C:CI)' t- .....; II- ...: ...........\ w ~ I:; :z: Pope Resources September 14, 1995 Page 3 . Existing vegetation within open-spacc, common or green belt areas may remain undisturbed provided that it docs not present a hazard. On steep slopes, unhealthy or ~ trees should be removed leaving the stump in-placc, This typically includes unhealthy or large isolated trees or groups of trees that willlikcly experience "windsall" effects during periods of high wind. Evergreen trees arc typically stumped at or near the ground surface. Some deciduous trees may be stumped so as to continue growing, but at a lower height. In view ,shed areas~ the existing vegetation may be managed as described above or enhanced. This may be accomplished by thinning onopping of trees to improve selected views provided that the underlying vegetation is enhanced. The goal is a healthy vegetative growth that ultimately has a limited growing height. ... <> .. " , We appreciate the opportunity to be: of service to you on this project. Please call if you have questions conccrning this report or if we can be of additional servicc. Yours very truly, " ,'I . 'l/1'JrJ GeoEngineers, Inc. f1(e ~~;.~ Brad p, Biggerstaff Senior Geologist %P4~ Gary W. Henderson Principal '--1 I I. i I 1 ' 1 · I I : J BPB,OWH:~. DocuIllllllID: 2~11O'2L,a Two copl~ submitted I. . . 0'0811,1"..,. PlIe No. 2371-032. T03 .. J--- J w u ~ o :z: ~ :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < .... . -' I- U :z: w '" :E '" => .... " -'0 "'c ... &oJ ::z: lil- <"- IX C) "- >- '" I- ... ... :z: ..J I- < :::> ;!;O' &oJ I- :::r: :z I- w :EO ::>1- u ow Q.:::> C .... :z: VI I- ... ~!:: !'r',~"-;; I ,( - ", /." '. i I ~ I',,' \" I' 1" ! l,' .~ I I i. I" I , \~ i.: w ~ 15 :z I" L r" !. "--'-;'~ f j . I... . l_,. L '" ,.( ,'( " "'''>. "V \'-:,\' ,," \ , ,~ \, , \ ',I 0 '.. 0 8 . .''', . . r , '. , -' L .' .: _.~"._.1' ... . " . .. " / ," Report Geotechnical Engineering Ser,vlces '. '. I . Subsurfacelnvestlgs,t1on . p~op~se~. TeaHake Village Dlvlslon.1I . Port Ludlow, Washington March 28, 1996' For Pope Resources I I I t ',\ .. . (' ... No, 2m4M-TOVllU29S ./ ,. " , " \ ',., . . IIIr"' . - JI"~ ,_. ',;" ,. '~ " ,;/;!_::, ': <"" >^'.: ;~~,::-'; ,:.>},~~,:/,:,:,; '" ..,.",......., ", i~.:?' ." ",_".", .'.:> :' .>:'~.;:".;' _,,1,"_""'" ! ',";J,j''' "~,_I "1,' , . ,';.,:" d ;;i: .i;""'.' "-;'" ":':,;., ~ >i ' ",:,;': .. ;.'./"L' ',i. . .,;. ]~ . .. " "" ".....;---"..,<', ] ,--. w ~ I- o :z ~ :z:, I- :z: < :z: l- e<: ! < ' ~~! t..> :z' In ~I In :::> ~g! (l'JcfJ -~! ~I-I < "- e: ~! (11 t-: ;: ~! :g: :: ~I ZI- ..... ' :E 01 B t-i OLIJi :5: :c (,/): t- ......1 u.. I-i --I i "='~.2 Geo~Engineers March 28. 1995 I I -j I I 1- ! Pope Resources P.O. Box 1780 Poulsbo, Washington 98370 " Attention: Ms, ,Linda Mueller We are pleased to submit four copies of our "Report. Geotechnical Engin~ering Services. Subsurface Investigation, Proposed Teal Lake Village Division II. Port Ludlow, Washington for Pope Resources," We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Pope Resources. Please contact us if you have questions regarding this project or if we can provide additional services. Yours very truly, W t..> ~ o z: GeoEngineers, Inc, Aw.ll~~~- Gary W. Henderson Principal ,'\ SLP:OWH:.c DocumeJU W: 2378034R.R .......-r ( ie 1 PD. No. 2J78~34-T03 cc: Pope Resources 781 Walker Way Port Ludlow, Wuhlngton 98365 Altn: Mr, Ray Welch . .' . . 32 x,l[ '" .. ]~~ J W t..> i5 :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- U :z w In :E In :::> wt..> -' 0 c VI - w :z: WI- :E < "- e<:O "- >- VII- -- :z: -' 1-< :::> =:;0' W I- :z: :z: I- W :EO :::> I- U OW, c:::>' Q W :z: In I- -; ~!:: w ~ b :z: f'\ -.......~....... o . 0# . - .Jl .\' . - ,. . . .. CONTENTS , , INTRODUCTION. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . , . . Pace No. 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 " , ' 4 4 5 6 6 6 l ., 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 , , 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 16 .' 16 16 . . 16 16 SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . , . . . . , . . . , , . . . . . . , . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SITE CONDITIONS ..,...,.........,......,."..",....,.........,. SURFACE CONDITIONS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS SITE GEOLOGY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , , . . . . GENERAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD SETBACKS EROSION HAZARD EROSION CONTROL SEISMIC VULNERABILITY EARTHWORK General Claarlng and Site Preparation Subgrado Preparation Structural Fill .Suiteblllty of On-Site Materials for Fill Fill Placement on Slopea Fill Slopes Fill Drainage Cut Slope a Temporery Cut Slopes Permanent Slopea Utility Trenches FOUNDATION SUPPORT General Foundation Doalgn Lateral Load Realstance Foundetlon Settloment FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT RETAINING end SUBGRADE WALI.S Design Peremeters Backdrlllnege Conatructlnn Conalderatlons Rockerles DRAINAGE PAVEMENT DESIGN AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION LIMITATIONS ,.".."".,..,..",.""",...",."."."""".. o.~Bn.ln..r. FOe No, 2311-llUo-ro3ln80S .~12 X, I r l~ . .. '.. J w ~ I- o :z ."~l _ ",,'. ~ :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < w .i ~~Il" <n :::> w t..> -'01 CI <n ' .... WI ~i=!., < ,,-I e: oi >-, <n 1-' ;: :i! :~! ;: ~j :z: 1-1 ~ :;:! t..> I g~! wO! :z: <n' ~t-4i ~=\ CONTENTS (continued) FIGURES Vicinity Map/Site Plan Foundation Detail Soil Classification System Test Pit Logs Ficure No. 1 2 3 4...8 APPENDICES Pace No. Appendix A - Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance A-l ,\ w ~ t; :z: [, I I, ! ,'\ . . .' . . OttBn.ln..r. u FUo No. 2311.034.TO'fJ2195 oil IIlI' , . ]- . .. " 01 ~, "I' ., \ w ~ l- e :z: ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e< < .... . -' I- U :z w <n :E <n :::> ....t..> -' 0 c <n _w, :z:' w....: :E ' < LLl 0::0' "- I V1 i=(, 1 ~~I t- c:c ~ :::>' :z: 0', :~j :z:: t-; .... :EO :J 1-; t..> ' OW C :JI C W :z: <n 1-- ~t::; REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROPOSED TEAL LAKE VILLAGE DIVISION II PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Teal Lake Village Division II residential subdivision to be developed south of Port Ludlow, Washington. The site is located along Teal Lake Road, in the central portion of Section 21, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian. as shown on the Vicinity Map and Site Plan, Figure 1. We understand that the proposed development will include 54 single-fainily residences located as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. ,', w ~ l5 :z: SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our services was to explore subsurface soil and ground water conditionS at the site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed development. Our specific scope of services included the following: 1. Excavate a series ofba,ckhoe test pits at the site to explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions. 2. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the soils at the site, 3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork including stripping requirements, hlllside gr3ding, evaluation of on-site solis for use as fill and Import fill, and compaction criteria, 4. Provide recommendations for building setbacks In steep slope areas in accordance with Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance No. OS-oS09-94, S. Provide recommendations for foundation and slab support of the proposed structures Including allowable bearing values and estimates of settlement, 6. Provide recommendations for site drainage, as appropriate, 7. Provide recommendations for pavement design Including subgrade preparation. 8. Prepare a report containing our findings along with our conclusions and recommendations, f\ "'--~r . . SITE CONDITIONS I, · . SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed subdivision will be located in an upland area southwest of Teal Lake VJ1Iage Division I and southeast of the proposed Springwood Development, as shown on the Site Plan. Lots I through 36 are located on the east side of Teal Lake Road. This portion of the site " 0.08n.ln..r. 2 FIIo 1'1.. 237..034-T031032S05 ". .~~ 2x IE] ]<1.'1_ ] W t..> ~ o :z <n - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- U:Z: w' <n:E I V)::J I "-Ie.> ....re: c~ <n _w :z: WI- :E <..... e<:o ... >-, . V) 1-; -...., :r: -' i I- <' ::>! :z 0' - ' w I- :z: :z I- W :E 0 :::> I- U ' g~; Q W :z: l/)! 1-- ~t:: W ~ b :z: ,'\ .....,._,~ . - - . . .. " -,-'; -, consists primarily of a north-south trending ridge. Elevations range from about 310 to 480 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The crest of the ridge slopes up toward the south. Side slopes on the eastern side of the ridge range up to about 60 percent with occasional steeper areas. Side slopes on the western side of the ridge range up to about 30 percent with occasional steeper areas. The majority of this portion of the site is vegetated with mature second growth Douglas fir and cedar trees with a dense understory of brush. Areas which have been cleared more recently are vegetated with alder trees, brush, and grass. Lots 37 through 54 are located on the west side of Teal Lake Road. Elevations range from about 225 to 460 feet above MSL. This portion of the site slopes down toward the west with an average slope of about 10 percent. Seasonally intermittent streams have developed drainage courses in the southwestern portion of the site, Slopes along the drainage courses range up to about 80 percent. The majority of this portion of the site is vegetated with mature second growth Douglas fir and alder trees with a dense understory of brush. Soil and construction debris has been stockpiled on portions of lots 40 through 42, 51 and 52. Soils exposed in a borrow pit located to the southwest of the site consist of dellse fine to medium sand. The face of the borrow pit is on the order of 100 feet in height. No groundwater seepage or springs were observed at the time of our site visit, Seasonal intermittent streams flow in drainage courses on the site. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on February 20. 21, and 24, 1995 by excavating 13 test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 9 to 12'1.t feet below the ground surface using a Jolm Deere 310C tubber-tired backhoe, The locations of the test pits were established in the field by taping or pacing from existing features, and should be considered approximate. A representative from our finn continuously monitored the excavations and kept a detailed log of the soil and ground water conditions encountered, 50115 were visually classified In general accordance with the system described on Figure 3, The logs of our explorations are attached as Figures 4 through 8. o SITE GEOLOGY Our Interpretation of the site geology Is based on our review of published Infonnatlon In our library, our lite reconnaissance Including the borrow pit excavation to the southwest of the site, and aublurface explorations on this lite and adjacent lites, In general, the lite lolls consist of a cap of glacial till. Glacial till consllts of a mixture of clay to boulder-sized .011 particles which wu depollted by the Ice and consolidated to a very dense condition. The glacial tUlls underlain by Vuhon advance outwash deposits. Advance outwash deposltl consist of sands and gravels depollted by melt water streams In front of advancing glaclen, These lOlls were also consolidated by the overlying ice, To the west of the site In the Sprlngwood Development the . OeoUnll....r. 3 PUB No. 2J1S-O:I4-T031032195 .. - I, · . " :,..,~ '.:.'. " I [ " :, ." Ifl ]- '1 J w ~ I- o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w , -' l- t..> :z <n ~I' <n :::> ..... UI -'0 CI <n I - W, LLJ ~! ::E: I ~~! l.L>i V) 1-, . ~~rn :::>' :z 0', ::~i " :z I- . w :E 0 B 1-: 0.....: C~: c' w ::CV'l; I- -' "-I- .....-: W t..> i5 :z ,'\ ~"-''''~. .. o ... "i . - :' . . .. " contact between Pre-Vashon clayey silt and overlying Vashon advance outwash was observed. The site soils are generally glacially consolidated and therefore very stiff to dense. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our ;lIbsurface explorations the contact between the overlying glacial till and the underlying advance outwash appears to occur approximately along the 375 foot contour line. In general soils encountered below the 375 foot contour line (to the west) consist of advance outwash deposits, and soils encollI1tered above the 375 foot contour line (to the east) consist of glacial till deposits. Glacial till was encountered in test pits 3, 4, and 7 along the upper portion of the ridge on the east side of Teal Lake Road, and in test pit 2 and 9 to the west of Teal Lake Road, The till extended to the depths explored, 9'h to 12 feet, except in test pit 5 in which the till is underlain at a depth of 7 feet by advance outwash deposits. The upper Ilh to 3 feet of the till has weathered to a medium dense condition, The ground surface is covered with 6 -to 12 inches of forest duff, local areas are overlain with fill or soils deposited through erosional processes, Advance outwash deposits were encountered in test pits 12 and 13 located along the eastern edge of the site at the toe of the slope, in test pits 5, 6, 8, and 11 located in the north-central portion of the site, and in test pits I, 2, and 10 located in the western portion of the site. As discussed above, advance outwash deposits were also observed in a borrow pit to the southwest of the site. _'_ Fil1 was encountered in test pit 1 located on Lot 52. Fill consisting of a mixture of silty soil and construction debris appears to extend over portions of Lots 40 through 42,51, and 52. " The depth of fill appears to vary from a few feet to about 20 feet in the stockpile areas, , Ground water levels are expected to vary seasonally, Perched groundwater was observed at the contact between the weathered and unweathered til1, , I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on our observations of surface and subsurface conditions, It is our opinion that the site Is generally suitable for the proposed development, Specific grading plans for the site have not yet been developed, however, we have addressed general geotechnical considerations for the project as follows: . Slopes at the site appear to be stable undel' existing conditions, General setback recommendations have been developed. . Some of the on-site solis are moisture sensitive and It is our opinion that earthwork and grading will be more economical If perfonned during dry weather conditions, , Oeolln,lneer. 4 FUe No.2.1'S-4J40.TOSIIl32I9S - I, · . ..-, ''"\ 'w I [ '.", II:. ". 1 Q.';,'k'~1U!i'~';;'~ .1 w ~ I- o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- u:z: w <n :E <n :::> wu -' 0 Q <n - w :::r: WI- :E < "- 0::0 "- >- ~t: :z: -' I- < :::> :; C1" w I- :z: :z I- W 2:0 :::> I- U ow c:::> c W :z: <n I- - ~t: W U ~ o :z: r', ~~~' o . . , . . .. , , . FiII has been placed on portions of the site. This material does not appear to have been compacted. and is of variable quality. This material will be unsuitable for support of foundations or pavements. and should be removed from these areas. . Grading may include fiIl placement on slopes. All fill should be properly keyed into the slopes and drained, as appropriate. . Shallow foundations founded on dense native materials or properly compacted structural fill may be used for support of structures. . Where mixed subgrade materials occur at footing or tioor grades, overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be required or alternative footing designs should be considered. . Ground water may be seasonally perched immediately above the unweathered glacial tilI. Site development should include drainage facilities as appropriate to intercept ground water seepage. LANDSLIDE HAZARD A copy of the Geologically Hazardous Areas Section of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance is attached as Appendix '1\, Jefferson County defines landslide hazard areas as: . Areas of historic failures, including areas of unstable slopes and old and recent landslides. . Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, or undercutting by wave action. . Areas described and mapped as having severe or very severe building limitations for dwellings without basements within the United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County. No evidence of landsliding or slope instability was observed on the s;.:. However, we believe that surficial soils on the steeper slopes will be wlnerable to creep and/or sloughing if they are disturbed during construction. or if development of the top of the ridge increases or concentrates surface drainage or ground water seepage. Fills on or near slopes should be placed on properly proofrolled and compacted subgrade material, and should be keyed and drained as recommended below. Graded areas and fill slopes should be rcvegetated to reduce erosion potential. We recommend that a surface water drainage system be developed for the subdivision to collect drainage from impermeable surfaces and yard areas, and directed it away from slope areas. Recommendations for fill construction, drainage and erosion protection are presented in greater detail in fOllowing sections of this report. The site Is located In an area mapped by the Soli Conservation Service (SCS) as having limitations to construction of dwellings with basements which range from moderate to severe depending on the soli type and slope. Site 10111 are included In the Cassolary and Sinclair series In the Soil Survey of Jefferlon County. The loll lurvey describes the limitations to dwellings without basementl of the Cassolary loill as moderate for slopes nnglnB from 0 to IS percent and as severe for slopes greater than IS percent. The soil lurvey describes the limitations to O..Bo,I"..r. 5 FIl. N.. 2378~34,T03103289' r ! 1 'I' , - .' . . <) 0' .'[ ... '''rt J W t..> ~ o :z <n - :::r: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' l- t..> :z W <n ::E: <n :::> w t..> -'0 C <n - w = W I- :E < "- e<:O "- >- ~t:; :z: -' I- < :::> ;::;0' W I- :z:: :z I- W :E 0 :::> l- t..> OW c:::> c W :::r: In, f- -: ::; 1:: . W ~ 6 :z: f'\ .._,-.~ o . .. . - - ~ . - dwellings with basements of the Sinclair soils as moderate for slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent and as severe for slopes greater than 15 percent. Neither rapid stream incision nor stream bank erosion was observed in the seasonally intennittent stream beds which flow across portions of the site at the time of our site visit. Portions of the site meet the Jefferson County criteria for landslide hazard areas due to the SCS classification. However, based on our site explorations and experience on similar sites it is our opinion that landslide hazards are not a limiting factor for this development provided that our recommendations for building setbacks and site development oare followed. SETBACKS In our opinionj a minimwn horizontal setback of 8 feet should be maintained between foundations and the face of slopes between 15 and 30 percent and greater than 10 feet in vertical height on this portion of the site. For slopes between 30 and 50 percent we recommend the foundation setback be increased to 12 fect, and 20 feet for slopes steeper than 50 percent. For clarity, an illustration of the recommended setback has been included as Figure 2. EROSION HAZARD Jefferson County defines erosion hazard areas as those areas that are classified as having severe or very severe erosion potential by the SCS. The site is located in an area mapped by the SCS as having erosion hazards which range from slight to severe depending on slope, Site soils are included in the Cassolary and Sinclair series in the Soil Survey of Jefferson County, The soil survey descrl~.s the erosion hazard of the Cassolary soils as slight to moderate for slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent and as moderate for slopes of IS to 30 percent, The soil survey describes the erosion hazard of the Sinclair soils as slight 10 moderate for slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent and as moderate to severe for slopes ranging from 15 to 30 percent. , EROSION CONTROL It is our opinion that the potential erosion hazard of the site is not a limiting factor for the proposed development, The proposed development wlll be located primarily in the more gently sloping portions of the site. Temporary and pennanent erosion control measures should be installed and maintalned during construction or as soon as practical thereafter to limit the sddltionallnflux of water to exposed areas and protect potential receiving waters. Erosion control measures should include but not be llmited to benna and swales wltb check dams to channel surfll'.e water ronoff, ground cover/protection In exposed areas and sUt fences. Removal of natural vegetation should be minimized and 11mIted to the active constNctlon areas, and reestabllshment of vegetation should be undertaken as soon as possible, Graded areas should be shaped to avoid directing nmoff onto cut or fill slopes, natural slopes or other erosion-sensitive areas, Temporary ground a..llnsln.... 6 FU. Ne. 2"S.o34.1'03I032S" /., - .' . . 3L\ :~,I [ w '-, OJ W t..> ~ o :z: <n - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' l- t..> :z w, ~~! W t..> -'0 C <n _W, :::r:' WI- :E < "- e<:O ..... >- ~t:; :z: ...J I- < :::> = CY! W: 1-::1: i % I- W :EO :::> l- t..> OW c:::> Q W :z: <n 1-- lJ..1- -- , W ~ b z ,'\ ._'-/~...., o . .. ( ~ .~ . , cover/protection such as jute matting, excelsior matting, wood chips or clear plastic sheeting should be used until pennanent erosion protection is established. We recommend that graded or disturbed slopes be tracked in-place with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours SO that the track grouser marks provide a texture to help resist erosion. Thereafter, all disturbed areas should be revegetated. We recommend that no loose fill be placed on the slopes and that no water be directed toward or discharged on the slope areas. Tightlines should be used to direct stonn or other surface water across slope areas. Long-term erosion control will require that the vegetative cover on the slopes be maintained. Any bue ground areas should be vegetated, as necessary. Erosion resistant plant species include: . Woody shrubs such as: Oregon grape, service berry, and salal. . Grass mixtures including: rye, fescue, bent, and clover. . Other deep-rooted site-tolerant vegetation. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY In our opinion, the site does not contain seismic hazards areas as defined by Jeff~rson County criteria. The Puget Sound region is a seismically active area; all sites within this region can be expected to experience some damage in the event of a significant seismic event. Cenain factors can result in increased probability or degree of damage at a panicular site. We did not encounter conditions which in our opinion place this site at risk of unusual damage in the event of a significant seismic event. Specifically, potentially liquefiable soils, loose sands and silty sands below the water table, were not encountered on the site. EARTHWORK General We expect that the majority of the grading can be accomplished with conventional heavy earthmoving equipment, Surficial solis at the site generally contain high amounts of silt, and are therefore sensitive to disturbance when they become excessively wet, Operation of heavy equipment at the site under wet conditions can be expected to result in considerable disturbance to the exposed subgrade salls. During wet weather construction, it will probably be necessary to provide temporary haul roads consisting of quarry spalls, crushed rock or pit run land and Bravel, We recommend that earthwork be undertaken during perlodl of dry weather. If feasible. to minimize grading costs, Clearing end Site Prep.rstlon The worle area should be cleared of all .urfacc and subsurface debrll Including underbrush, tree ltumpS. roots and organic-laden 10UI. Ponlons of the project area have previously been OeoBft.lneer. 7 Pllo No. 237s.04-TO'1OJ2IOS I .~ ' :~~ -1.) ,,,,,':";;:,,!.' 'J,.iJi,~~['::'~,:.(~~ ;! I. · . ,~~:,2 .1 [: . ]- ] W t..> ~ o :z <n - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: cC W . -' I- U:Z: W '" :E <n :::> Wt..> -'0 c <n ....W :z: WI- :E <..... e<:o ..... >- , <n I- ........ :z: -' I- < :::> ~O' w I-:Z: Z I- W :EO :::> l- t..> OW Q:::> C W :z: <n I- .... ~!:: w ~ l5 z: ,'\ . ,e '" "", . - . . .. , , cleared. Our observations indicate that the upper 1/2 to I foot of soil has been previously disturbed. Stripping or recompaction of the soils to these depths may be required where previous site activities have softened surficial soils andlor mixed organic debris into the soil. If the clearing operations cause excessive disturbance, additional stripping depths may be necessary. Disturbance to a greater depth can also be expected if site preparation work is done during periods of wet weather. The organic laden strippings can be stockpiled and used later for landscaping purposes or be spread over disturbed areas following completion of grading. If spread out, the organic strippings should be in a layer less that I foot thick, and should not be placed on slopes. Materials which cannot be used for landscaping or protection of disturbed areas should be removed from the project site and wasted, Subgrade Preparation Following stripping, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated prior to placing structural fill, pavement materials, or constructing foundations, During dry weather, subgrade evaluation should consist of proofrolling with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment. During wet weather, subgrade evaluation should be accomplished by hand prObing. Any soft areas noted during proofrolling or probing should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill as outlined below. We recommend that a GeoEngineersrepresentative be present during proofrolling and/or probing to evaluate exposed subgrade soils. Prior to placement of structural fill, the exposed subgrade should be unifonnly compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density (MOD) detennined in accordance with ASTM 0-1557. Where foundations, slabs or pavement are to be founded directly on native material, we recommend that the subgrade soil be compacted to at least 95 percent of MOD, Surficial materials over portions of the site contain enough fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) that compaction of subgrade will be difficult, if not Impossible, to achieve during periods of wet weather. If grading takes place during the wet winter months, it may be necessary to overexcavate and replace native materials with compacted structural fill containing less than 5 percent fines beneath building and pavement areas, Where underlying subgrades are excessively wet, it may be necessary to stabilize the subgrade with a layer of quarry Spalll, clean gravel, or by placing a layer of geotelttlle fabric (such as Mlrafi SOOx) between the subgrade and structural fill. Structural RII All till In embanbnenta and beneath structures or pavements should be placed as Itructural till. Structural fill material Bhould be free of debril, organic contamlnanta and rock fragmenta larger than 6 inches. The workability of material for use as stnJctural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the loll, As the amount of fines (material pasllRl the No. 200 Ileve) Increases, loil becomes Increasingly more seDlIltlve to lmall changes In moisture c:ontenl and adequate completion becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve, If ml maletlal Is OeoEnlln.er. 8 Pili No. 2J7I4U-1ll'J1lI32m '. .' . . 32'~ II: - J-- ". , J W t..> ~ o :z <n ;: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' I- 't..> Z .... <n :E <n => Wt..> -'0 Q <n _W :z: WI- :E <"- e<:o' ..... ' >-~ V11-: ~ :;i f- CC: ::>' ::;0' w, I-:Z: I :Z:I- W 2:0 :::> 1-, t..> ' OW C => C W :z: <n I- ... "-I- -- W t..> i5 :z: ,'\ '- ....;1- o ,. " \. . - . . .. , , imported to the site for wet weather construction, we recommend that it be a sand and gravel mixture, such as high quality pit run, with less than S percent fines. All structural fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts to at least 90 percent of the MDD per ASTM D-lS57, The uppermost 24 inches of subgrade soils below structures, slabs-on-grade and pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent oftheMDD. We recommend that the fill prism supporting footings, defined by a plane extending down from the edges of the footing at 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) to native ground, be compacted to at least 9S percent of MDD. The lift size used during placement and compaction will depend on the moisture and gradation characteristics of the soil and the type of equipment being used. If necessary, the material should be moisture conditioned to near-optimum moisture content prior to compaction. During fill and backfill placement, sufficient testing of in-place density should be performed to verify that adequate compaction is being achieved. Suitability of On-Site Mllterials for Fill During dry weather construction, any nonorganic on-site soil and rock may be considered for use as structural fill provided it is at a suitable moisture content when placed and can be compacted as recommended. If the material is too wet when excavated, it will require aeration and drying prior to placement as structural fill. All Placement on Slopes All fill placed on slopes steeper than 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) should be benched into the slope face and include keyways and subdrains, Bench excavations should be level and extend into the slope face until a vertical step of about 3 feet is constructed, The excavated materials may be pushed out and compacted, into the structural fill as it is brought up if adequate compaction can be achieved. Keyways should be located below fill embankment toe areas where new fills meet existing hillside slopes. Additional keyways may be necessary depending on the extent of the proposed fill and the quality of the soli underlying the embankment, Keyways should be embedded at least 2 feet Into stable material In the toe area. The width of the keyway will depend on several factors, such as the vertical height of the fill above the keyway and the size of the equipment used to construct the keyway, In general, keyways should be at least 10 feet wide or about 1'1.1 times the width of the equipment used for grading or compaction, Fill Slopes Pennanent fill slopes should be constructed at Inclinations of :z to I (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. and should be blended into existing slopes with smooth transitions. To reduce postconstruction sloughing and ravelling, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt where possible and subsequently cut back to expose well compscted fill, Retaining structures should be used where cut and fill slopes 2 to I or flatter cannot be achieved. Oe08n,lnee,. , Plio No. 137S~,T031032S9S '~"UII --~ ',;'!'\:;!~};,i!~\{~i.0~~~,;!.: ~:7~ ' - o I " I ~ 'i .' - . . >') 5.". I I I I I I vld ., - ] w t..> ~ o :z ~ :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e< < ..., . -' l- t..> :z w <n :E: <n :::> wu -'0 c <n - w :::r: WI- ::E ~~ "- >- <n I- ....... :Z:....J I- < :::> :;0' w I- :z: :Z:I- W ::E Cl =>1- t..> ' OW c:::> c ..... :z: en I- - ~t:: To minimize erosion, newly constructed slopes should be hydroseeded as soon as practical. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveIling of the slopes should be expected. Erosion control measures such as temporary covering with clear plastic sheeting, revegetation fabric or jute matting should be used to protect these slopes until vegetation is established. We also recommend that graded areas above slopes be shaped to direct surface water away from the slope face. Fill Drainage Subdrains should be installed at the rear of each keyway and at other locations beneath fill embankments where ground water seepage is encountered during grading. The subdrains can be installed concurrently with fill placement, or in trenches excavated after fiIling, where the trench depth would not exceed about 4 feet. The drains should consist of a free-draining sand and gravel drainage material, placed in a trench about 2 feet wide. fully encapsulated within a suitable nonwoven, geotextile filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N (or similar material). The drainage material should extend the full height of the rear keyway wall. Where subdrains are used to intercept ground water seepage at locations other than at keyways, the drainage material should be at least 3 feet high. A heavy-wall (SDR-3S or heavier) perforated pipe should be installed near the bottom of each subdrain and bedded in drainage material. Pipes should have minimum slopes of I percent and should drain to suitable collector and discharge points, All subdrain lines should include cleanout risers. We recommend that the cleanout risers be covered with tamper-proof locking caps, Discharge pipes should be covered with heavy galvanized wire mesh to prevent rodent access, W t..> ~ o z ,'\ Cut Slopes Permanent cut slopes In soils should be inclined at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. or should be retained with a properly designed retaining structure. Cut slopes should be hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading to prevent erosion, Temporary erosion protection may be necessary as discussed above for newly constrocted fill slopes, ....."..,.-1" I . Temporary Cut Slop.. Temporary cut slopes are anticipated for construction of underground utllities. All temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC. Part N. "Excavation. Trenching and Shoring,' The contractor perfonnlng the work must have the primary responsibility for proteCtion of worlanen and adjacent Improvements. deciding whether to use shoring. and for establishing the safe Inclination for open-eut slopes. Temporary unsupported cut slopes more than 4 feet high may be Inclined at IH:IV (horizontal to vertical) maximum steepness within native till or stroctural fill, Flatter .lapeI may be necessary If .eepage is present on the cut face, Some sloughing and ravell1ng of the eut slopes j O.olln.ln..,. 10 FO. No. 2~a.()34.'nl'IOJ2I9' .. .' . . .. .32 :..;.1 [ .. ] ~~ ^:'l ..J w :::l I- o z <n - :z: I- z < :z: I- C<: < W , -' I- <..> :z w <n :E <n :::> w t..> ...JO C Vl - w :::r: wI- ~ < "- C<:O "- >- ~ t::. ~ -Ji 1-< :::> :z 0: - . I-~! ' :z 1-: w ~O, =>1- <..> OW 0:::>' C W :z: <n 1-- "- I- --' w :::l I- o z r'\ ............,...'''. o . .. -- . . . .. . , should be expected. Temporary covering with heavy plastic sheeting should be used to protect these slopes during periods of wet weather. Permanent Slopes We recommend that any permanent fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H: 1 V. To achieve uniform compaction. we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly and subsequently cut back to expose well compacted fill. To minimize erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and ravelling of the slopes should be expected. These may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw or excelsior matting could be used to protect the slopes during periods of rainfall. Utility Trenches Trench excavation, pipe bedding, and trench backfilling should be completed using the general procedures described in WSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 7-17, or other suitable procedures specified by the project civil engineer. Utility pipes should be bedded in sand and smooth rounded gravel, such as specified in WSDOT Standard Specification.~, Section 9-03,15, Additionally, we recommend that the pipe be covered with bedding material to at least one foot above the pipe, This bedding material should be lightly tamped into place, Backfill placed above the bedding material shall consist of structural fill quality material as discussed above. Utility trench backfill can be placed in lifts of 12 inches or less (loose thickness) below a depth of 5 feet from finish grade. Within 5 feel. of finish grade, backfill should be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less (loose thickness) such that adequate compaction can be achieved throughout the 11ft, Each lift must be compacted prior to placing the subsequent lift. Prior to compaction, the backfill should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, if necessary, The backfill should be compacted in accordance with the criteria discussed above. FOUNDATION SUPPORT General We recommend that residential structures be supported on conventional spread footings founded on medium dense to dense native soli, or structural fill, prepared as recommended In the EARTHWORK section of this report, Shallow spread footings designed and constructed as described below may be used where minimum setback distances can be achieved on moderate slopes, OooBo,looo.. 11 PUe No, 2378.()34-T03IM2S05 I ~ .~ . ,', .' . . ";''''\ )/, Ir, ',.. l'~. '. III ] l2:~tr,;1>.w;iJ'::,l1l .1 w U ;:: o :z Vl - :z: I- :z <( :I: l- e< < w , ..J I- U :z w <n :E Vl :::> W(..) ..JO C Vl - w :::r: WI- :E < "- e< 0 "- >- ~~ :I: -' I- < :::> :::;0' ;: ~; w :EO => I- U OW Q:::> C W :I: VI I- - ~!:: .:; ~ b z 1'\ ...- ,.,....... o . . - . , . . .. " Foundation Design We reconunend that all footing elements be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Where footings are placed on sloping ground, the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to the ground surface should not be less than 8 feet We reconunend a minimum width of2 feet for isolated footings and at least 16 inches for continuous walI footings. Deeper footing embedment may be required where minimum building setbacks cannot be achieved, and we reconunend that design ~riteria for footings located on or near slopes be evaluated by a representative from our firm on a site-specific basis. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-term live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. This value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loadings. Where a crawlspace is used, footing pads for floor support may be cast on the ground, providing that the ground is firm and level. These pads should be designed usil)g an aUowable bearing of 1,000 psf applied to dead and live loads. Structures constructed across mixed subgrade conditions could experience distress because of differential performance of the subgrade materials. "This is a concern at the contact between cuts and fills and at contacts between dissimilar materials within cuts. Whcre contacts between dissimilar materials are exposed at pad or footing grade, we reconunend that the subgrade beneath the structure be overexcavated at least I foot below design grade, and the overexcavation backfiUed with structural fiU compacted to at least 95 percent of the MOD, The limits of the overexcavalion and structural fiU placement should extend at least I foot outside of the building footprint or footing area. Loose or disturbed subgrade soils in footing excavations may result in increased settlement. The native solis are susceptible to disturbance if aUowed to become wet. If footings are constructed during wet weather, concrete should be placed as soon as possible after the footings are excavated. It also may be appropriate to place a lean concrete "mud mat" or a layer of crushed rock In footing excavation bottoms to protect the subgrades from disturbance. We reconunend that all completed footing excavations be observed by a representative of our firm prior to reinforcing steel and structural concrete placement, Our representative will confirm that the bearing surface has been prepared In a manner consistent with our reconunendatlons and that the subsurface conditions are as expected, Lateral Load Rellatance Lateral loads can be resisted by a combination of friction between the footing and the supporting solI, and by the passive lateral resistance of the solI surrounding the embedded portions of the foolings, A coefficient of friction between concrete and solI of 0,35 and a passive lateral resistance corresponding to an equivalent fluid density of 300 pef (pounds per cubic foot) may be used for design. The friction coefficient and passive lateral resistance are allowable values, and Incorporate factors of safety of approximately 1.5, OloE.,I..I'1 11 Pil. 1'10, 2378.o34.1'031032S0' .~ ~ .' . . r,~ ", I r .), t: n, , - ] 4'::~'Itf..r.~'.'iZ::1'J'': J W U ~ o :z: <n - :z: I- Z < :z: I- <" < W . -' l- t..> :z LU <n :E en :::> Wt.> -'0 C <n - w :::r: WI- =<: < "- <"0 "- >- <n I- -- :z: -' I- < :::> ~O'i Wi I- :z: ' :z I- w :EO :::> I- U OW cg; W :z: VI 1-- ~!::; W ~ b z .,'\ ..... ....,~.....~ o ,. - " ~ . - . ... . - . . .. " If soils adjacent to footings are disturbed during construction. the disturbed soils must be recompacted, otherwise the lateral passive resistance value must be reduced, Foundation Settlement We estimate that the postconstruction settlement of shallow footings supported on native till or on structural fill may range from about !4 to 112 inch. Maximum differential settlement should be less than 1,4 inch, measured along 25 feet of continuous wall footing., We expect that settlements for these conditions will tend to occurrapidly after the loads are applied. Immediately prior to placing concrete, all debris and soil slough that accumulated in the footings during forming and steel placement must be removed. Debris or: loose soils not removed from the footing excavations will result in increased settlement. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT Floor slabs may be supported on-grade provided that the subgrade soils are prepared as previously recommended. Any areas disturbed by consttuction activities should be recompacted before proceeding with slab construction. We recommend that slabs-on-grade be constructed on a gravel layer to provide uniform support and to act as a capillary break. The gravel layer should consist of at least 4 inches of clean fine gravel or crushed rock, with negligible sand or silt. A vapor barrier should be placed over the gravel layer. We recommend that the vapor barrier be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction and to aid in curing of the slab concrete. This sand should not be allowed to become wet prior to casting the slab concrete, otherwise curing of the concrete may be adversely affected. In areas where ground water Is near the surface, we recommend that underdrainage be provided to collect and discharge ground water from below the slabs, This can be accomplished by thickening the gravel layer below the slabs to 6 inches, and installing a 4-lnch-diameter perforated collector pipe In a shallow trench placed below the gravel layer, The collector pipe should be oriented along the center, long axis of the structure. The trench should measure about 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep and should be backfilled with clean gravel. The collector pipe should be sloped to drain and discharge into the stonn water collection system to convey the water off site, This pipe should also incorporate a cleanout. RETAINING IInd SUBGRADE WALLS Design Pllrameters We recommend that retaining and subgrade walls be designed using an active lateral eanh pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid density of 3.5 pef. This lateral eanh pressure Is for a wall with level backfill. For walls with backfill sloping up at 2H:IV. the design lateral eanh pressure should be Increased 10 .55 pd. If vehicles can approach the wall to within 11.1 the height of the wall, a traffic sureharge should be added 10 the wall pressure. For car parking areM, the traffic surcharge can be a..Snlln..,. 13 FU. No. 237S.()34-T03103289S := ':0 ~".:~~~:.t}) .. ~ " .' . . I, fO' ,....; -:.~ >-~ I - ]~~'I.i ,...~ ,!i ~; ole W t..> ~ o :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W - -' l- t..> :z: W In :E In :::> Wt..> -'0 C In _W :z: ~t-: oCCl..L.: e<:0, LL.. >-! ' Inl- ~ :;\ 1-< :::> ;::; 0": Wi .- ::E:I :z I- W :EO :::>1- t..> OW C:::> C W :z: In 1-- ~~ w ~ S :z f'" ....,.. ~* ~....- o j " ~ - . - . . .. " approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional I foot of soil backfill behind the wall. For delivery truck parking areas and access driveway areas, the traffic surcharge can be approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional 2 feet of soil backfill behind the wall. These recommendations are based on the assumption that any retaining walls at this project will be provided with backdrainage and will be unrestrained against slight top rotation. If the walls will be restrained, higher pressures will be appropriate. Walls are assumed to be restrained if top movement during backfilling is less than HflOOO, where H is the wall height. The values for soil bearing, frictional resistance and passive resistance presented above for foundation design are applicable to retaining wall design, Backdrainage The retaining walls could be exposed to water from ground or surface water sources, or from landscape watering, As the proposed structures will likely utilize the retaining wall as basement walls, we recommend that the buried portions of the walls be waterproofed. To reduce the potential for hydrostatic water pressure buildup behind the retaining walls, we recommend that the walls be provided with backdrainage. Backdrainage can be achieved by using free- draining material or prefabricated drainage panel products, with perforated pipes to discharge the collected water. Free-draining material should consist of sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fines. The draining material should be 2 feet wide and should extend from the base of the wall to within I foot of the ground surface, The free-draining material should be covered with I foot of less permeable material, such as the on-site silty sand. Prefabricated drainage panel products, such as Mirafi Miradrain 6000 (or similar material), consist of a geotextile filter fabric bonded to a molded plastic drainage element. The drainage panel is placed directly behind the wall, and should extend from the base of the wall to about I foot from finished grade, The panel should be covered with I foot of less permeable material, such as the on-site silty sand. Wall baekdralns should include a perforated pipe with a minimum diameter of 6-inehes. We recommend using either heavy-wall solid pipe or rigid corrugated polyethylene pipe, We recommend against using flexible tubing for wall backdrain pipe. The pipe should be installed with about 3 inches of drainage material below the pipe, or the drainage panel geotextlle filter fabric should extend from the panel to wrap around the pipe, The pipes should be laid with minimum slopes of one percent and discharge to appropriate disposal points to convey the water away from the retaining walls. The pipe installations should Include cleanout risers located at the upper end of each pipe run. We recommend that the cleanouts be provided with tamper-proof locking caps, completed within flush mounted utUlty boxes. We recommend that roof downspouts not discharge into the perforated pipes providing wall backdralnage. a..Bn.ln..r. 14 PD. N., 2'71-ll)4-Ttl31032S95 .... 2:'" ,,",Vi ':.' ",' j"~ 'li"'""",,!~'1:'Y!:::' .' ....~.J .'. 'C'.. " r I I I I I '$ .' . . ,'{:? :" I r: I'lII ]-- j W ~ I- o :z <n - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- u:z: W V> :E: V> :::> wu -'0 Q ~tLJ :z: WI- :E <..... e<:o .... >- ~~ :Z:..J 1-< :::> :z 0' :~; :Zl- w :EO :::>1- u OW c :::>' Q W :c <n 1-- ~t= W ~ 15 :z ,"\ ~... -'''i o . .. . - . ,- . , . . .. ., Construction Considerations Care should be taken by the contractor during backfilling to avoid overstressing the retaining walls. Backfill placed within about 5 feet of the walls should be compacted with hand- operated or small self-propelled equipment. Heavy' compactors or other heavy construction equipment should not be used within about 5 feet of the walls. Rockeries Rockerles may be planned in areas with grade transitions. Rockeries essentially serve as protection against erosion and minor sloughing along existing stable slopes and provide little "retaining" support. Rockeries are best suited for use along stable slopes cut in competent soils, When a rockery is constructed along the face of a fill embankment. adequate compaction of the fill behind the rockery is critical for long-tenn stability; the fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MOD. and the fill height should be limited to about 4 feet. Any surcharge conditions above a rockery or seepage conditions within the fill embanianent b~hind a rockery can lead to distress or failure of a rockery-faced slope. The potential need for maintenance of rockeries should be recognized. We recommend that rockerles be constructed in accordance with the most current edition of "The Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines." For planning purposes. we recommend that all rockeries be limited to a maximum height of Bfeet, DRAINAGE All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks should slope away from structures, Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, benns, drainage swales, and/or catch basins. and conveyed off-site through a storm water collection system. Surface water should not be discharged over slopes or into subdrains. Roof drains should be tightlined to discharge into the stonn water collection system or to an appropriate outlet structure, Roof drain water should not be discharged to footing drains. Footing, wall and underslab drainage systems may be needed depending on final design grades and localized ground water conditions, Footing drains with an invert elevation at the base of the footing are generally effective to limit water seepage into crawlspaces. The crawlspace should not be excavated deeper than the Invert of the footing drains, or additional areal drains will need to be provided, Pennanent drainage system.~ should be Installed at the top and/or bottom of cut and fill slopes to Intercept surface runoff and to prevent It from flowing In an uncontrolled manner across the slopes, PAVEMENT DESIGN AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION Parldng area and aceess drive pavement lubgrades should be prepared as described previously In the EARTHWORK section of this report, We recommend the pavement In areas O.oBnsln..ra 1.5 PO. N.. 237.0034-'ro31032.95 .' . . " 3~;'\<,.1 [ - 'I "',"","",,,,,,,,9 .~ 1 ,,:J w u ~ o :z: <n - :z: I- :z: < :z: I- 0:: < W . -' l- t..> :z w <n :E <n ::> w t..> -'0 C <n - w :::r: WI- :E < "- 0::0 ..... >- ~!:; :z: -' 1-< :::> :z: 0" - w I- :z: ' :z: I- w :EO ::> I- U ow Q:::> C W :z: <n 1-- ~!:; W ~ b z j'\ ~-'r o . . ,;W . . .. " to be used exclusively by automobiles consist of 2 inches of Class B asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. For pavement in access roads and truck parking areas, we recommend providing 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. The crushed base course should comply with Washington Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, 1994, Section 9-03.9(3) "Base Course." The asphalt concrete materials and procedures should comply with specifications in that document for Class B Asphalt Concrete Pavement. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Pope Resources and members of the project team involved in the Teal Lake Village Division II. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or estimating purposes; but our report, conclusions and. interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Our scope does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The project was in the design development stage at the time this report was prepared. We expect that further consultation regarding specific design elements will be necessary, If there are any changes in the grades, location, configuration or type of construction planned, the conclusion.~ and recommendations presented in this report might not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our conclusions and recommendation.~ and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review those ,portions of the specifications and drawings that relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our reconunendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of the explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the project budget and schedule. We recommend that sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations; to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated; and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed In accordance with generall)' accepted practices In this area at the time the report was prepared, No other warranty, express or Implied, should be underatood, .. 0 ~ o.oEn,.""" 16 File No. 2371.IJ34.T031032895 (. .' I I .j I , 1 I I i I. I i i I ~ 'j . .' . . ')~ '? Ir """;:'j' " 'i~,' p ,. :;<,:~1: ".. ,;,y' >;'-.:(:'(,'" ;,-'\, . '. ~; ".::' - '. :!_' " , , :{<-:,," - '~' . ,,"~, 'I,C', ]- .. " J W t..> i5 :z: <n - :z: I- :z: < :z: I- 0:: < W -i -' t-- I. :;: ~ 1:'- ~BI ~gif, ............l; wi=l! ~ ,,-I: 0::01 :;; ~l~ ;: :;1 I- ~I; =~I! I- :z: z t-i w , S ;=! ow! 0:::>1 ~~i t-- ......' "- 1-: ..........\ w !' ~ \ We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project, If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. I EXPIRES: 6/1.' q5 ;;.6J11q.k~~5 ~ Vo /' //l-- Thomas V. May Geotechnical Engineer rJJ~kv.J;J~ Gary W. Henderson Principal ,', TVM:OWH:vc DocumcDlID: 2378034R.R Attachments Four copies submitted cc: Pope Resources 781 Walker Way Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Attn: Mr, Ray Welch 1"1 "'-- ( i . I I I i . .' . . a.oBn.ln..,. 17 PlIo No. 2)7..o34.T03JI)S289S ., .' - ~'f,,~.<'i;,:. -,~;"_"''1 W t..> I- o :z <n - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- t..>1'5 en:::E: i <n :::> Wt..> -' 0 Q <n - w :z: WI- :E < "- 0::0 "- >- ~t:: :::r:...J 1-;5 :z 0' - W I- :z: :z I- w :EO :::> l- t..> OW ciS ....., :z: <n I- - "-I- -- W ~ 1- o :z: \, .1 , . . .. I L.. I:. Reftlre ~ 1 =:v OOUNONff CRrA~~. ~~~ BY SIERRA WCST ptfO'~ HOT REPRE:SOIT ~~~~~~UN AS TO It'S c..s.w. INC. N:;QJRACt. IS mau: DRAWINGS TOf"OGRN'HC IHFOfU,IA.~ ~TOGRAM"'ElRICS. lie. ~~~AS~~UADlU1YAS TO It'S 1CCoJtw:(, I L o I 300 , SCALE IN FEET 13 24 UNPl^lTW POPr. R[SOUJ~C le VI ~ Engi: .. "'i ., ,<" . I r ') ,- . , c . . - ]-- J 1 W t..> ~ 0 :z <n - :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < W -' l- t..> :z W <n :E <n :::> W t..> -'0 <n c _w :z: WI- T- <"- e<:o "- >- <n I- -- :z: -' I- < :::> ;::;0' W I- :z: :z I- W :EO :::> l- t..> ow c:::> W c :z: <n r I- ... 1.&..1- .... ... W ~ l5 z r" "--:r i i . ,. , . . .. " "- Horizontal Setback , "- Dense Native Soil or Properly Compacted Structural Fill NOT TO SCALE GeOeEngineers FOUNDATION DETAIL FlGURI! a , ' .' . . " ... .""I'[~,' 32 - .:I W t..> ~ o :z <n - :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < W 0 -' l- t..> :z W <n :E <n :::> W <.J -'0 Q <n _W :z: ~t-: <,,-, e<:o "- >- ~!:; :z: -' 1-< :::> :z 0' - ,~,a.J I- :z: :z I- W :EO :::> l- t..> OW c:::> c W :c <n 1-- ~t:: W ~ I- o :z f'\ o . , SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL GROUP NAME G RA VEL CLEAN GW WELL-GRACED GRAVEL. fiNE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE GRAVEL GRAIN EO GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL SOILS More Than 50% ot Coarse Flection GRAVEL GM t:tlY GRAVEL Rcteined WITH FINES on No.4 Sieve GC CLAYEY GRAVEL More Than 50% Retained on SANO CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND No. 200 Sieve SP POORlY.GRADED SAND More Than 500.4 of Coarse Fraction SANO SM SIL TV SAND PIOSSC$ WITH FINES No.4 Sievo SC etA VEY SAND FINE SILT AND CLAY ML SILT GRAINED INORGANIC SOILS CL CLAY Liquid Umlt LeIS Than 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT. ORGANIC CLAY More Than 50% SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT Pa.se. INORGANIC No. 200 Sieve CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT CLAY liquid limit 60 or Moro ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAV, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: I, Reid cl...me'llon I. b...d 0" vi.uel IM.mlnellan of .011 Dry- Abllnoe of mol.tur.. dUltV, dry to the touch In gener.1 Iccordanc. whh ASTM 02488.90. Molllo O.mp, bur no vllible wlt.r ~. Soli cll..lftcIllon ullng laboratory tu" II tJ...d on ASTM D~487.90. Wit . Vlolbl. fr.. w.t.r or .llur.t.d, u.lJ.lIy loll I. obt.lned from below water table 3. O.lorlptlonl of loll denlltv or conlle..ncy Ir. b...d on Int.rpr.tatlon of blow count dltl, vllUII .ppI.r.no. of .011., Ind/or t..t datI. . SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTeM Geo Engineers FIGURE 3 . I '.k J .' " - . . )?:"I[ - ]_. J w ~ I- o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z w 1n::E In :::> wt..> -'0 InC _w :z: ~: j 0::0 "- >- In I- -- :::r: -' 1-< :::> ;::;0' w I-:Z: :Zl- w :EO Bl- ow c:::> Q .... :z: In 1-- "- 1-: ...........1 \ 1 ' w ~ 1:5 :z: I I, ,'\ ., I I j .. . - DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL 0.0-5.0 SM 5.0-6.0 6.0-9.0 SM 0.0 - 3,5 SM 3.5-7.0 7.0- 12.0 SP-SM SP 0.0-0,5 0.6-2.5 SM 2.5 - 9.5 SM . .. " LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION ~ Gray silty sand with gavel and wood debris (loose to medium dense. moist) (fLll) Forest duff and decayed wood (original ground surface) Reddish brown silty sand with gravel (dense. moist) Test pit completed It a depth of 9.0 feet on 02120195 No ground water KcpaSt observed " Caving observed between 0.0 and S.O fecI ,TESTPIT2 Reddish yellowish brown silty sand with gravel (medium dense to dense. moul) Gray sarxl willi gravel willi IUI (vel)' dense, moist) (glacial till) Brown medium co coarse und (dense. we&) Test pll completed al a d'pcb or 12.0 fecI on 02120/95 Minor ground water seepase observed at 3..5 feet. npld aecplge It 8.' (etl No elvins observed :mnJ:lU Forest duff Rcddhh brown IUty sand willi gravel (medium dense, mol,,) Gray IUty sand and lravel willi occallonal cobblel (vel)' dense, molll) <llaeW till) Test pit completed at a deplll of 9.5 fec. on 02120/95 SlIlhl lround Wall' ...pale observed "' a d.pth of 2.5 r.e, No cavln, observed THE DE~S ON THE TEST PIT LOO~, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARB BASBD ON AN AV1!Rt\GB OP MllASUlUlMBNTS ACROSS THB TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIllBRBD ACCURATE TO O.S POOT. .' Geo.Engineers LOO OF TEST PIT FIOURE 4 " . . ,32 :~"I [' II - . ]- . .. " -e J w :::l I- o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' l- t..> :z tn~ I In :::> Wt..> -'0 c In _W :z: WI- :E <..... e<:o "- >- ::2!:: :z: -' I- < :> ::;0' ..... ~ i= I w :EO :::>1- t..> 0..... c:::> c W :z: In 1-- !=t::: I LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TESTPIT4 0,0. 1.5 SM Reddish brown sill)' sand with gravel (medium dense, moist to wet) (weathered glacial till) 1.5,10.0 SM Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Grades to gray sand with gravel and a trace of silt Test pit completed at a depth of 10.0 (eet on 02120/95 Slight ground water seepage observed at a depth of 1.5 feet " No caving observed ~ 0.0.3.5 SM Rt1:Idlsh brawn silty sand with gravel (loose to medium dense, moist to wee) (weathered till) 3.5.12,0 SP Brown medium to coarse sand with I trace of gravel (dense. moist to wet) Test pl. completed "' I deplh or 12.0 reel on 02120/95 .:; :::l l; z Minor around waler seepage observed It depths of 8.0 and 10.0 fect No caving observed Jm.m.j 0,0.0.5 0,5.4.5 SP.SM ,'\ 4.5.6,5 SM 6,5.10,0 SM Fo..stdurr BlOwn r... 10 medium II'" wllh 1111 (dense. 1001.1) BlOwn .1I1y line to medium II'" (medium dense. well Lamlnatedblulsh IllY .Uty fine II'" (dense. we.) . Tesl pl. eompleted II I deplh or 10.0 reel on 02120195 ModelllellOU'" wa..r ..eplle ob.erved I. dcpw or 4,5 "'" 6,5 'eel No eavlnaeblOrved 11IB oEPTlfS ON 114B TIlST PIT LOOS. AL11I0UOH SHOWN TO 0,1 FOOT. ARB liMBO ON AN AVIlRAOB OF MBASUIlIlMBNTS ACROSS 11IB TBST PIT AND SIIOUlJ) BB COIISmBRBD ACCURATE TO O.S FOOT. .' . . . Geo.Engineers LOO OF TEST PIT FIOURE IS " . ;3.2),,1 [ '" IF' '] w ~ I- o :z In ;: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' I- u~i V):::E:i In:::> I LIJ U' -'0 C In _w :::r: ~.-! ' ~::s ! "- I >-, ~!::;l) :z: -J i " I- <, :::>>1 ::; c:r! Wi I- :z: I Z' ......1 W :EO, :::> 1-' t..> ' c::l w c:::>' c ~V)' .........i ~!::; i w ~ 6 :z ,'\ . . '-. ... . - DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEETl SOil GROUP CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL 0.0-0,8 0.8 -2.5 SM 2.5-12.0 SP-SM 0.0-0,5 0.5 -2,0 SM 2.0-6,5 6,5 - 12.0 SP SP,SM 0,0-0.5 0.5- 3,0 SM 3,0-10,0 SM LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TESI' PIT 1 Forest duff Reddish brown silry sand with occasional gravel (medium dense to dense. moist to wet) GrayiSh brown sand with gravel and a trace of silt (very dense. moist) (glacial till) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 02121/95 MOderate BCUUIIU ......;.:r seepl1ge observed at a depth of 2.5 (eet No caving observed TESI' PIT 8 Forest duff Reddish brown silty sand (loose to medium dense. moist) Brown sand with a trace of gravel (medium dense, moist) qraylsh brown und with gravel and a trace or silt (dense. moist) (weakly cemented) <8lael,1 till) Tell pit complcled a' a deplh of 12.0 feet on 02121/95 Modcrale sround waler ,..pase ob......ed at I deplh of 6,5 fect No clving observed ~ Forellduff Rcddl,b 'l1dll\110 yellowl,h tan ,UI)I sand (medium dense, nlOllI) Oray ,UIy sand wllh ,rayel 10 sand wllh arayel Ind I trice of ,lit (den,e 10 yooy dense. molll) (sandy alaeW till weakly cemenled) Test pit campleled at I deplh of 10.0 fOCI on 02121/95 Vc.,. ,lIaht around waler ...paae ob..rved It I depth of 3.0 feot No ClYIna ob......ed THB DBP'I1fS ON THB TEST PIT LOOS. ALl110UOH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT. AIUl BASBD ON AN AVERAOB OP MEASURBMBNTS ACROSS 11IB TEST PIT AND SHOULD BB CONSIDBRBD ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. Geo.Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE e I I I, I .' . . 32 j~ I [ -. , . ] -- . .. " J w ~ I- o :z In -- :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < w . ~I- t..> :z w In :E In :::> w t..> -'0 InC _w :z: ~I- < "- e<:O "- >- Inl- -- :z: -' I- < :::> ::;0' w I-:Z: z.... w a1= 0.... c:::> c w :z: In 1-- "- .... -- w ~ 15 z ,'\ . . LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION IFEETl SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 10 0,0 - 11,0 SP Brown firu: to medium sand (medium dense to dense. moist) (weakly cemented) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.0 feet on 02/21/95 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed TEST PIT I I 0.0-0.5 Forestdu(f 0,5-3,0 SP Reddish gnding to yellowish sand and sravel (dense, moist) 3,0- 12,5 SP Grayish brown rme to medium sand with a ttace of gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacially consolidaced) TCIl pit compleced a' a depth of 12.5 feet on 02/24/95 Slight sround water seepage observed at a depth of 7.0 (eel No aving observed TEST PIT 12 O,O-\'O SM Disturbed reddish blOwn aUIy sand with .nvcl \'0-5.0 SM Brown lihy 1100 wid1 . trace of sravel (medium dense ro dense. moist to wet) (wcalhercd .Iacial dill 5.0 - 11.0 SP O..ylsh brown medium SInd and .nvel with occasional cobbles and boulde.. (very densc, moist 10 wet) (advance outwash) Tell pit compleced at a depth or I 1.0 reet on 02/24/95 Rapid IlOund wa..' ..epase obaervecl a. a depth or 5.0 ree, SlIlh' cavins obaervecl above 5.0 reet mB DI!P'I1fS 01'1 nil! TI!ST PIT LOOS. A1.nIOUGH SHOWN TO 0,1 POOT. AJUl8ASI!D ON AN AVJlRAOB OF MllASURl!MI!NTS ACROSS ml! TI!ST PIT AND SHOULD 811 CONSIDBItIID ACClTRATB TO 0,5 POOT. GeOeEngineers LOO OF TEST PIT FIOURE 7 I .' . . ... Ie - ]- . .. ., ] w ~ I- o :z In - :::r: I- LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUNO SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEETI SYMBOL DESCRIPTION , TESI' PIT 13 0.0-0,3 Forest duff 0.3-5,0 SM Brown silly sand willi sravel Ooosc. moist) 5.0 - 11,0 SP Yellowish brown medium to coarse sand and gravel (medium dense 10 dense, moist) (advance outwash) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.0 (eet on 02/24/95 No ground water seepage obler/cd No caving observed niB DBP11tS ON mB TEST m LOGS, ALmOUOH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT. AIUl BASED ON AN AVl!RAOB OP MBASUlUlMBNTS ACROSS mB TEST m AND SHOULD BB CONSlDBRBD ACCUltATB TO 0,' FOOT, Geo e Engineers LOO OF TEST PIT FIOURE 8 " :z < :::r: l- e<: < LIJ -, -' 1-, t..> ~I' In :E In :::>' LtJ (..) ! ....rg! In i _WI' W 1= I :E 1 <,,-I e<:01 "- >-1 In 1-1 ;::;j 1-<, :::>: ~O'i I w' I- ::c : ei 1-: :EO, BI-i ow' c :=t: C' w i=~: L&.. f-i ~_! I 1 , 1, ,I w ~ I- o :z: ,'\ . . .' .. ~i,j, . . 32 x, Ie ]- . .. " .3 . . W t..> ~ o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z w In :E In :::> w u -'0 C In - W ::c W l- X <"- e<:O "- >- ~~ :z: -' 1-< :::> ::;0' W I- :z: :z I- W :EO :::> l- e..> ow c:::> c W :z: In 1-- ~= /- APPENDIX A , i I ~ I -I W ~ 1'5 :z: ,'1 ""-'-/r { ! . . .' . . .. ~ .32 ^ I [ ]- :] w ~ I- o :z In - :::r: I- :z cc x l- e<: < w . ..... t-, O~I ~~r L&J (..)j. -'01 V'l C i - w' :::r:1 w I- i ~,,-I e:ol :->, en t-; =~J 1-<, , :zs-i -wl' t-::t: t ' ei t-i :EO, g::: c:::> c w :z: V'l I- ... "- 1-, --I . w ~ b z ," "-~(r . .. " f;fr{~;% ~.., . Gr..o~??,J:~;'. '.'J1m npers J,\-- t.t:4~i~;j::J .J.'-' b~-"'''- L6 fi""" If'''''' '" r~'J\;;' .. . r. j.~...,...~ .b~ p~'~ "~r-l' Off _ ~ ~"':...J ~ ~..fr.~~ ~ 11 1 T l' (... [~! i\ Ii f~ . j/"-\ ~ fo.. r!: 'h~" ..,.....,ljo.. ....._ _~:o ~.... Co ORDINANCE NO. 05-0509-94 JEFFERSON COUNTY JNTERl]\1 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE " , . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS , ' , Robert Hinton, Chair Glen Huntingford, Commissioner Richard Wojt, Commissioner May 9, 1994 . ~ . ~.' , .' . . I. - .t.. L . &l '" .'j2 .k IE w ] ~Jb= ~I J W t..> ~ o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' I- U:Z W In :E In :::> w t..> -'0 C In _W :::r: W I- :E <"- e<:o, "- >- In I- -- :z: -' 1-< :::> :z 0' - ' W I- :z: :z I- W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> c W :::r: In 1-- ~t: W ~ I- o :z: 1\ ......--""""- o . i:' t. ~ - . . .. " BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS " IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON IN THE J:1ATTER OF ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1.1.-0822-94 ORDINANCE NO. An ord~nance amending the Jefferson County Interior crit~cal AreasOrd~nance, No: 05-0509-94, adding a sunset provision thereto. FINDINGS The Jefferson County Board of County commissioners enter the follow~ng findings: 1.. On May 9, 1.994, the Jefferson county Boar.d of County Commissioners ("BOCC") adopted Ordinance No. 05-0509-94 ("CAO Ordinance") pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.060. 2. A Notice of Adoption was published pursuant to RCW 36.70A.290(2) on June 1., 1.994. 3. On July 29, 1.994, the city of Port Townsend and Shine Community council filed appeals to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ("WWGMHB") of the CAO Ordinance. These appeals were subsequently consolidated by the Board under Cause No. 94-2-001.2. '.. ~ 4 . The parties to the Cli.O Appeal wish to settle the matter and by stipUlation they have committed to specific actions. 5. The county has committed to amend the' CAO Ordinance to allow a public process for consideration of each issue set forth in the petitions for review filed by the city of Port Townsend and Shine community council. 6. In order to accomplish that pUblic process and commit to l ~, ORDINANCE PAGE 1. t .- "''''..".,.,,',;,,;.;,...'' ""'1""1- "'''';'''''',:' "..,' ; ,I!" , \;...) ;.",,,:,.l, . , r 'i .' . . .~ ;? I J ]\afI~ra.~ " } w U I- o :z V> - ::z:: I- :z < :::r: l- e>:: < ..... . ~I- u:z ..... V> :E V> :::> ..... t..> -'0 C V> - w :::r: ~I- <"- e<:O ...... >- ~!:: % --' I ' 1-< :::> :::;0' W I- :z: :z: I- w :EO => I- u OW c:::> Cl ..... ::z:: V> 1-- ~~ w u i= o :z: f" "-..._,+~ r'. 0 I.'. ~ . ~: .. - . t , IJ . , . . .. , , 10. This amendment to the CAO has no substantive, regu1atory effect that diminishes the protections intended by initia1 adoption of the CAO. Rather the amendment provides a procedur<:,-1 process for sett1ing the appea1 and deciding whether additiona1 protection may be necessary- 11. pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(20) and 197-11-880 this Ordinance is exempt from SEPA review. 12. Because this ordinance preserves the status quo pending adoption of amendments and pursuant to RCW 36.70.790 and RCW 36.70A.390 the Board finds that this ordinance may: be adopted without notice and without holding a public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Jefferson County Board of commissioners as follows: ordinance No. 05-0509-94, the Jefferson County Interim critical Areas ordinance shall be amended to add the following provision as section 13.60. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until the 31st day of December, 1994 or until such date as an amended critical Areas Ordinance repealing this ordinance becomes effective, whichever occurs sooner. j;;ffective Date: This Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and' safety and shall , b become effective on ~day of August, 1994. :;;everabilitv: If any portion of this ordinance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate portion of this Ordinance and such holding ORDINANCE PAGE :3 () i I I . I ! i \ .:;. ; , ' .' . . ',;:?- I [ - ] -,.. 1 J W t..> ~ o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z w In~ In :::> w t..) -'0 C In .... W :::r: W I- :E , <"-, '" 0 "- >- In l- x:; 1-< :::> ::;0' W I- :::r: :z I- W ~C) :::> l- t..> 0..... c:::> c W :z: V> 1-- ~t:: W ~ 15 :z: f '\ ...~. ._-.""- . . -- '" - ~ - . . .. . , - - - - - - ~~'~~S== inf6rlTlatian . IT1anagernent Inc. ATTENTION --- The next image may be a duplicate of the previous . Image. _ _ _ 0 the r: ___'lI.fti/.i'-]/iIl~(jfi_R)_l.l;t.~ ____~~~_L~~______ l5laO? 4TH Ave, so. P.O. BOX 24489 SEATn..e. WA SB1124 li!08-?!!I3-li2I2li!C \ . ~-- .T[J,"" """:"~~'''-''\'''' .. ''''.. '''o' ..,:I,N"" "''''''~'''''''',w,;..""... 1I..~ '\' ' , .... : ,. .i'...."'\ H.'''.......,.' "''''.''";'~'''''''''-'!'''~''''''-'''' .. .,' \:-', ";.0" .." .. .'0' .... .., "'.. .. ". .'" .., .. . :<"';:_';.:.:'~"-"~:Il,;;.';-''<;'''i'.'' . , ,~' ;~,~ tt '. j:. ~ ' ;\ i' .'\~' ~, .. \ .. "'o',;,'o' eo''', :S' .' . . .. ,~,,') x Ie ,.. I.... w '''', i <"~; W t..> ~ o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' I- <..> :z wi ~!il W t..> -'0 C In - W :::r: lii!1- <"- e<:O "- >- In I- ;;:;, \ 1-<; :::> ;::;0' w I- :z: :z I- w :EO :::> l- t..> OW c:::> c w :::r: VI 1-- ~!:: W ~ l5 :z: t', ........-..",... o . , subsequent review of the amended CAO pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280 et seq., if necessary, the county has agreed that a sunset provision of December 31, 1994 should be included in the c~o. 7. The county will undertake and complete the statutorily required public process to consider each of the issues raised in th~ petitions for reviewo upon completion of that public process the county wil~ adopt a New critical Areas ordinance pursuant to applicable ~aws. The New CAO may be a readoption of the existing CAO or adoption of modifications and/or additions to the existing CAO. The county shall publish a Notice of Adoption of the New CAO pursuant to RCW 36.70A.290(2). 8. The county express~y agrees to evaluate as part of. the of any development proposa~ in unincorporated Jefferson review to the state county impacts to known aquifers pursuant Environmenta~ policy Act, RCW 43.21C ("SEPA"). The city of Port Townsend and Shine community council shal~ be provided notice and opportunity to comment and appca~ on such development proposals wi th regard to impacts on known aquifers as a part of the SEPA deve~opment review process during the period between dismissal of WWGMHB Cause No. 94-2-0012 and adoption of the new CAO including the date of pub~ication of the notice of adoption. 9. The WWGMHB has scheduled a prehearlng conference on August 24, 1994 at 1:00 p.m. Xn the interests of administrative and judicial economy, it is appropria'te to reach settlement of the appeal at or ber.ore that date. The timeline for decision on petitions to the GMHB requires prompt action. ORDINANCE PAGE 2 ~ . (), -,-~, S([;;l;,+:,.;:;';"". ",~ . .. ~ , ~ i 1}.. , , ' .. . . o{? :,~ I r - ] G:..""NJ!.:!~n1il :J W ~ I- o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z W In :E In ::> Wt..> -'0 c In - W :::r: WI- :E <"- e<:O "- >- ~!:: :z: -' 1-< :::> ;::;0' w I- :z: :z I- .... :EO :::> l- t..> OW c:::> c w :z: In 1-- ~!:: w t..> ~ o :z: ,', 0.., _....,._ o . ". ~ . - , . . .. 10. This amendment to the CAO has no substantive, regulatory effect that diminishes the protections intended by initial adoption of the CAO. Rather the amendment provides a procedur~l process for settling the appeal and deciding whether additiona1 protection may be necessary. 11. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(20) and 197-11-880 this Ordinance is exempt from SEPA review. 12. Because this Ordinance preserves the status quo pending adoption of amendments and pursuant to RCW 36.70.790 and RCW 36.70A.390 the Board finds that this Ordinance may: be adopted without notice and without holding a public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAiNED by the Jefferson county Board of commissioners as follows: .' . ordinance No. 05-0509-94, the Jefferson County Interim critical Areas Ordinance shall be amended to add the following provision as Section 13.60. This ordinance shall remain in effect until the 31st day of December, 1994 or until such date as an amended critical Areas Ordinance repealing this ordinance becomes effective, whichever occurs sooner. I... ~ft'ective Date: This ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and' safety and shall , J. become effective on ~day of August, 1994. severability: If any portion of this Ordinance is held ~J .: invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate portion of this Ordinance and such holding l ORDINANCE PAGE 3 I; --- .~ . (} '.:1" , , . .. . . ~:; "\ ... .oJ',' .. In I - ]- ] W ~ I- o :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w. -' I- u:z:, ~~!i ~u: -'0' c' In _w :z:: ~t-: I cc La..! 0:: 0 "- i (,I')~:: ~~j :::> ~C'! t-~! zl- w :EO Sl- OW c:::> o w :z: In I- ... ~t:;: w u ~ o ::z: ,'\ . . '" - ; . . .. , , shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Adoption: Adopted by the Jefferson county Board of cornmissione.~~ 1;his ..::2.:;:L ~ay of August, 1994.. Approved as to Form: ~ Mark Huth, Jefferson county prosecuting Attorney Jefferson county prosecuting Attorney IoolIO:\t1lOS099C.... ORDINANCE PAGE 4 . , ' .' . . '"2 xl [I 3..." ., - ] --.. J W t..> ~ o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' I- u:z: w In :E In => wt..> -'0 Q V) _w :z: W I- ~l.J...i 0:: 0 "- >- ~t:; :z: -' f- CC i => ' =:;0' wi ~i=: w ::EO :::>1- t..> ow c:::> c W :z: In 1-- "- I- --' W ~ I- o :z: - . . .. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECT~ON 1: PURPOSES 1.10 Findings J..20 Purpose - General 1.30 Fie1d Guide 3..40 Enactment 1.50 Title SECT~ON 2: DBF~N~T~ONS. 2.10 General. 2.20 Tense ,and Number 2.30 Interpretation 2.40 Definitions SECTION 3: SCOPE. ';1 3.J.0 coverage 3.20 Relationship to Existing Regulations General Applicability . 3.30 3.40 E>eemptions 3.50 Nonconforming Uses . , SECTION 4: ADHINISTRATIVB AUTHORXTY AND RESPONSIBILITY . 4.J.0 planning Department. . . . . . 4.20 Department of Public Works 4.30 Hearing E>eaminer ....... 4.40 Board of county Commissioners. .1. : 1 J. 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 17 J.7 17 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 .' . . ,~ , ..~?" I [J . ]- 1 ".,.;J w U ~ o :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w .' -J I-- ~t U~;J ~~I ~gi CI In , _w' xi, ~ I--i ~ <LL..\ <<oi "- , >- I ~~: i=~: , :zs.! ' - ,. t-~i !; f::i t-,' :EO, :::> 1-: u I ow' Q~i we :::r: In, 1---; w ~ l5 z r'\ "--.-':.~ . . '" ~. . - - . . .. " SBCTION 5: PROCESS AND ,ADMINISTRATION 5.10 critical"Area Determination 5.101 Triggering APplication 5.102 Advance Determination 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 ,'. 26 26 26 26 26 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 " . . . . 5.20 Process. . . . . . . . . 5.201 Process - General 5.202 Permit Required 5.203 Exemptions .' 5.30 critical Area Review Requirements . . 5.301 Application Requirements - General 5.302 preapplication consultation 5.303 critical Area Review Requirements 5.304 Public Notice and Hearing . . . . . " . . . . 5.40 critical Area Applications and Reports ., . 5.401 critical Area Review of Triggering permit Appl~cations and Reports - General Findings ............. conditions ............ Appeal of Administrative Decisions Time Period for Review and Approval . . . . Fees ..... 5.402 5.403 5.404 5.405 5.406 . . . . SECTXON 6: WETLANDS . . . . 6.10 Introduction 6 . 20 purpose. . . . . 6.30 Classification/Designation 6.301 Classification ..... 6.302 Designation . . . . . . . . . , 6.303 sources used for Identification 6.304 Wetland Maps ..... . . . . . 6.40 Applicability and w~ivers . 6.401 Applicability 6.402 Waivers 6.403 Waiver conditions . . . . ii I. · . . :l2xl[ - '] ~7Aim -j ., w ~ I- o :z ~ :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < w , -' l- t..> :z: Wi ~~I wU -'0 Q In ' _w :z: ~I- < "- e<:O "- >- In I- -- :z: -' .....< =5' w: I-:Z: ' :z: I- w :E:O Bl- ow Q => Q W :z: In 1-- "-I- -- w ~ I- o :z f '~ ...........-ft-- ,. - ]',"." : . .. l - . . .. 6.50 Protection standards . . . . . . . . . . 6.50J. General . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.502 Delineation . . . . . '6.503 Drainage and Erosion Control 6.504 Buffer Marking ....... 6.505 Buffers - 'standard Requirements 6.506 Reducing Buffer Widths 6.507 Increasing Buffer Widths 6.508 Averaging Buffer widths SECTJ:ON 7: CRJ:TJ:CJ\L AQUJ:l"ER RECH1IRGE AREAS . 7.10 Introduction 7.20 purpose. . . 7.30 Classification/Designation 7.30J. Classification .... 7.302 Designation . . . . . . . . . . 7.303 Sources Used for Identification . . 7.304 Reevaluation of Designation criteria 7.305 critical Aquifer Recharge Area Maps J.',,; . , .. 7.40 Applicability and Waivers 7.401 Applicability . . . . 7.402 Waivers . . . . . 7.403 Waiver Conditions 7.50 Protection Standards '7.501 General . . . . 7.502 Aquifer Recharge Area Report 7.60 conditions ...... 7.601 General ...... 7.602 Basis for Conditions ........ BECTJ:ON 8: l"REQUEN'rLY FLOODED AREAS .... . 8.10 Introduction 8.20 purpose. . . 8.30 Incorporation by Reference 8.40 Relationship to Other Regulations ...... :;. -: ~,. Hi ~~'J 1. ~ . -'- .~. :,.'.~I:":':':"''':'.'~:~ €~' " ....... ........ 30 30 31 31 3J. 32 33 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 '1' $ .' . . .'''. II',,' ,~:;~' " , ... - ]~.t"~. "'t J W t..> ~ o :z In - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < W . -' I- U:Z W In :E In :::> w U -'0 InC - W :z: W I- :E <"- e<:O "- >- In I- -- :z: -' I- < :::> ;::;0' W' I-- :z:: , :z I- ' W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> C W :z: In 1-- "-I- -- W ~ b :z: ,," -.,.1..... o . - -- . . .. SEC'l':I:ON 9: GEOLOG:I:CALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS . . . . . . 9.10 Introduc~ion ........ 9.20 purpose. . . 9.30 Classification/Designation 9,301 c~assification ..... 9.302 Designation . . . . . . . . . . . 9.303 Sources Used for Identification 9.304 Geologic Hazard Area Maps 9,40 Applicability and waivers 9.401 APplicability . . 9.402 Waivers . . . . . 9.403 Waiver conditions 9.50 protection standards 9.501 General . . . . . . 9.502 Drainage and Erosion control 9.503 Clearing and Grading ...... 9.504 vegetation Retention .... 9.505 Buffer Marking . . . . . 9.506 Buffers - standard Requirements . . . . 9.507 Reducing Buffer widths 9.508 Increasing Buffer Widths 9.509 Geotechnical Report ..... 9.60 conditions ..... 9.601 General . . . . . . 9.602 Basis for conditions ..... SECTXON 10: F:I:SH AND WXLDLXFE HABX~A~ AREAS . . 10.10 Introduction 10.20 Purpose . . . . 10.30 Classification/Designation. 10.301 Classification . . . . . 10.302 Designation .......,.. 10.303 Sources Used for Identification . 10.304 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Maps 10,40 Applicability and waivers 10.401 Applicability 10.402 Waivers .,... 10.403 Waiver conditions iv .. . ( ~- €\ "",0:T: 'j":,,,1;i;,~':"', '.,",;;'... """"""~ (",;"~.';,", (j",J-;~j;:';;:,~:i~..,f;".'" i',"" ." fl'.;" '1, , ", "--..' " ..... " . . . . . . . . . . ,. 4:1. ~ 41 I 41 f . ~ 41 41 I 41 42 43 43 43 43 " 43 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 47 " 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 51 I. . . :~2. '~ 1,[ .~ ' )\ . - .] 1lS1':"'Q<r;~<g~Jb.i- LoJ ~ I- o :z: ~ :z: I- :z < :z: I- cr: < W . -' l- t..> :z ~~I wu -' c:> C In - W :::r: WI- :E <"- cr:0 "- >- In I- -- :z: -' 1-< , :::> =0' W I- :z: :z: I- W ::EO => I- U 0..... Q:::> C LoJ :z: In 1-- "-I- -- w u ~ o z: ,', o . \, -1 ~ . . .. , , ~0.50 protection standards . . . . . . . . . . . ~0.50~ General .......... ~0.502 Habitat Management Plan ....... ~0.503 Drainage and Erosion control . . . . . ~O. 504 Grading .......... ~O. 505 Vegetation Retention . . . . 10.506 Buffer Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.507 Buffers - standard Requirements 10.508 Reducing Buffer Widths . . . 10.509 Increasing Buffer widths ~0.5~0 Averaging Buffer widths ...... ~0.60 Conditions. . . . . . . 10.601 General ...... ~0.602 Basis for conditions SECTION 11: SPECIAL REPORTS ..... 11.10 Waivers ~ ~1.20 General contents . ; . . . . . . ~1.201 Scale Map and written Report 11.202 Impacts.Assessment . . . . . 11.203 protection Mechanisms . . . 11.204 Preparer - Proof of Qualifications 11.30 Consultants ... . . . 11.301 Retaining Consultants 11.40 Responsibility. . . . . . 11.401 General ............, 11.402 Determining Accuracy & SUfficiency . . . . . . . . 11.403 Nonacceptance of Inaccurate or Insufficient Reports 11.50 Aquifer Recharge Area Report. . . 11.501 General ...."...., 11.502 Qualifications of the preparer 11.503 Information Requirements 11.60 Drainage and Erosion control Plan 11.601 General ..,..... 11.602 QualificationG of the Preparer 11.603 Information Requirements .. 11.70 Geotechnical Report . . . , 11.701 General .....,..... 11.702 Qualification& of the preparer 11.703 Information Requirements /:." r 1: v ': ,. 1 ;. --.: - ~F"'"'A!:;,:" .',rD Ci I I I I 5~ I 5~ 51 51 I 52 I 52 " 52 I 53 ! 54 54 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 .' . . ',. , '~?,,,Ir] - - ]- J w t..> ~ o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' l- t..> :z w In :E V> :::> wu -'0 C In - W ::z:: W I- :0: <"- 0::0 "- >- In I- -- :z: -' 1-< :::> :;= W I- :z: z: I- W :EO :::> l- t..> ow c:::> c w ' :z: V> , 1-- "- I- ............: w ~ 5 z: f'\ ........-:,~.. o . 0# - - . . .. " 11.80 Grading Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.801 General ............. 11.802 Qualifications of the Preparer 11.803 Xnforrnation Requirements . . . . 11490 Habitat Management Plan 11.901 General ...... . . . 11.902 Qualifications of the Preparer 11.903 Xnforrnation Requirements 11.100 Wetland Delineation Report 11.1001 General . . . . . . .. . 11.1002 Qualifications of the Preparer 11.1003 Information Requirements SECTXON 12: REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE VARIANCE 12.10 Application 12.20 Notice. 12,30 Findings 12.40 conditions 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 63 63 63 64 65 . " , 66 66 66 67 67 68 i ...... SECTION 13: LEGAL PROVISIONS 13.10 Violations 13.20 Remedies ~ . . . . 13.30 Severability 13.40 Effective Date 13.50 Adoption. . . Appendix AI critical Area Review Fee schedule .' . . vi . ., '2 ,j~: If ... , .~ .1JtxUI;f~ -, W ~ I- o :z In :z: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < W . -' l- t..> :z en~; ! V):li' Wt..> -'0 C In _w :z: ~I- <..... e<:0 "- >- In I- -- :z: -' 1-< => ' =0' W I- :z: :z I- w :EO :::>1- u OW Q => Q W :::r: In 1-- ~~ W u i5 :z: r" .... ,..,...... I o . -~ ~ i:h r.;- i ...~ 1. 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 1.1. 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 18 1. 1.9 20 21. 22 23 2. 24 25 26 27 28 3. 29 30 31. 32 33 34 4. 35 36 37 38 39 5. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 IJI . . .. . , SECTION 1: PURPOSES subsections: 1.10 1.20 1.30 1..40 1.50 - .-.. ~~~ . Findings purposes Fie~d Guide Enactment Tit~e 1.. 10 Findinqs The Jefferson findings: county Board of commissioners enter the fol~owing The Washington state Legislature adopted a Growth Management Bil~, Engrossed Substitute .House, Bi~l 2929, now. codified as Chapter 36.70A :ROW, which, in part, requires local governments to designate and regulate to protect critical areas. The Washington state Department of community Development has estab~ished an emergency ru~e establishing minimum guidelines to classify and designate critical areas, codified as Chapter 365- 1.90 'WAC. 6. In October of 1.991., the Jefferson county Board of commissioners organized a citizen work group for the purpose of generating policy recommendations intended to guide the preparation of an interim critical areas regulation, in partial fulfillment of Chapter 36.70A RCW. Policy recommendations of the critica~ nreas work group were forwarded to the Board in December of 1991, and the Jefferson County planning commission submitted recommended revisions to the work group policy recommendations in January, 1992. Following review and revision of the critical areas work group policy recommendations, the Board directed Planning Department staff to begin drafting ordinance language for incremental review by the Planning commission. The Planning commission began incremental review of draft critical areas ordinance sections in March, 1992; the draft sections were designed to be incorporated outside of, and in addition to, the county's existing regulatory framework and procedures. 1 ~ -:" "':;::,,;\"'('.(~ .1 f I I l " .' . . .. 1[,,'.', '-5:? . , , ] ---.. ] W ~ I- o :z In - :z: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < W . -' l- t..> :z W In :E In :::> Wt..> -'0 c In _W :z: liFt I- <"- e<:O "- >- In I- --, ::c -' : 1-<' :::>' :; 0": . ~~i :z: I- : w :E 0' => J-; u OW c:::> c W :z: In 1-- "- I- -- W t..> ~ o :z: ,', . . .. - ~ 7. 2 3 4 5 6 8. 7 8 9 ~O 1~ 12 13 14 9. ~5 ~6 ~7 ~o. ~8 ~9 20 21 22 ~~. 23 24 25 26 27 ~2~ 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 13. 35 36 37 38 ~4. 39 40 4~ 42 43 44 . . . .. " In June, ~992, the Board directed Planning Department staff to follow an alternative approach that would incorporate interim critica~ areas protection measures into the county's existing regulatory fram~work and procedures. In september, 1992, planning Department staff completed a draft. amendment to the county's state Environmental policy Act Implementing ordinance that addressed GMA critical areas (the "SEPA draft"); this "SEPA draft" was forwarded to the planning commission for review and report in october of 1992, pursuant to Chapter 36.70.640 ROW; the planning commission forwarded its report to the Board in late october, ~992. In the fall of 1992 Commissioners Larry Dennison and B.G. Brown failed to win re-election bids. I In November, 1992, the Board held workshops with planning Department staff for the purpose of reviewing both the "SBPA draft" and modifications recommended by the planning commission and staff, and directing final revisions prior to public hearing. On December 7, 1992, the Board conducted a public hearing on the "SBPA draft" for the purpose of receiving public testimony on the proposal, and to meet the procedural requirements of Chapter 36.70 ncw. ApproximatelY four hundred (400) members of the public were present for the December 7, 1992 hearing, a large number of whom voiced opposition to the Board taking action on the "SBPA draft" prior to the newly elected Board members assuming office, as well as to the complexity and substance of the "SEPA draft" itself. on December 31, ~992, Commissioners Dennison and Brown left office without the Board having taken further action on the "SEPA draft." In January 1993, th~ Board, comprised of Chairman Richard Wojt and newly elected commissioners Robert Hinton and Glen Huntingford, held workshops with Planning Department staff in order to review options and determine an appropriate course of action regarding formulation of interim critical areas protection measures. 2 .' . . .3 2 "'.'1 [] - ] (I~;;;"'Z::::''7A , , ..,;. W ~ I- o :z In - :z: I- :z < :c l- e<: < .... , -' l- e..> :z W In :.E In :::> .... t..> -'0 Q In _W :z: wI- :E < "- e<:O "- >- ~t: :z: -' 1-< :::> =:;0' W I- :::r: :z I- W :E 0 :::> I- U OW c:::> Q W :z: In I- - ~!::; .... ~ l5 :z ,', o . - it," 1 15. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16. 11 12 13 14 17. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 19. 30 31 32 33 34 20. 35 36 37 38 39 40 21. 41 42 43 44 45 22. 46 47 48 49 50 51 " - . . .. . , On February 4, 1993, the Board adopted a motion to set aside the "SBPA draft" and to produce a "stand a~one" ordinance; on February 8, 1993, the Board clarified and expanded its original motion and consistent ~ith its perception of community values, directed that "to the maximum feasible extent the new draft ordinance shou~d be limited in coverage to those minimum designations and minimum protection standards permissible under the GHA." ,On March 19, 1993, p~anning Department staff forwarded a "stand alone" draft interim critical areas ordinance to the Board for review and revision. On April 5, 1993, the Board held a workshop with Planning Department staff for the purpose of reviewing the "stand alone" draft and identifying further revisions necessary prior to public workshops; fina~ revisions to the "stand a~one" ordinance draft were directed by commissioners Hinton and Huntingford, individua~ly, during informal meetings with staff on April 8 and 9, 1993. . During the period of April 28 through May 4, 1993, the Board and Planning Department staff held public workshops on the "stand alone" ordinance draft in Clearwater, Chimacwn and Quilcene for the purpose of explaining the operation and effect of the ordinance, and to receive informal public comment on the proposal. On May 28, 1993', the Board forwarded the "stand alone" ordinance draft to the planning commission for review and report pursuant to Chapter 36.70.640 RCW; the Planning commission submitted its report to the Board on July 1, 1993. On July 12, 1993, the Board held a workshop with planning Department staff for the purpose of reviewing both the "stand alone" ordinance draft and modifications recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, and directing final revisions prior to, public hearing. On November 21 and 22, 1993 the Board conducted a public hearing on the "stand alone" ordinance draft t2.-for the purpose of receiving public testimony on the proposal, and to meet the procedural requirements of Chapter 36.70 RCW. On December 22 1993, January 4 1994, January 14 1994 and January 20 1994, the Board held pUblic workshops with planning Department staff for the purpose of reviewing testimony received from the Novomber 1993 public hearing and directing revisions to the draft ordinance based upon this testimony and separately provided legal review. 3 c. -' .e) ~.~- 'l' f .' . . .".?I [ R ]~A':f.'.ih "",i i W t..> ~ o :z In - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' I- U:Z: W' V):E: i In :::> W t..> -'0 InQ _w :z: ~I- <"- e<:O "- >- In l- X:: I- < :::> :::;0' W I- :z: :z I- w :EO :::> I- U ow c:::> Q W :::r: In 1-- ~!:: w :::l I- o :z f" "'-.. - ,:..~ o . - J. 23. 2 3 4 5 6 24. 7 8 9 10 11 12 25. 13 14 15 16 26. 17 18 19 20 27. 2J. 22 23 28. 24 25 26 27 28 29. 29 30 31 32 33 34 30. 35 36 37 38 39 40 31. 41 42 43 44 32. 45 46 47 48 49 33. 50 51 52 . . .. , , On March 29, 1994, the Board conducted a public hearing on the "stand alone" draft #7' for the purpose of rec,eiving public .testimony on the proposal, and to meet the procedural requirements of Chapter 36.70 ROW. . critical areas which require regulation by Jefferson Gounty are: wetlands; areas with a critical recharging 'effect on aquifers used for potable water; fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; frequently flo.oded areas; and geologically hazardous areas. Implementation of appropriate design and engineering techniques and practices are needed to avoid incompatible development in critical areas and prevent harm to the public. Jefferson county ,is currently mitigating projects occurring in these areas based upon the substantive authority granted by the state Environmental pOlicy Act, RCW 43.2J.C. Enactment of these regulations will provide greater certainty and predictability in the county's land use review processes. Jefferson County is currently laboring to implement Chapter 36.70A ROW by initiating a comprehensive planning process in order to formulate and adopt a revised comprehensive plan and compatible implementing regulations. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County, and to prevent the possible conversion of critical areas prior to the development of final official controls, these interim regulations are necessary to protect the integrity of the comprehensive planning process. These regulations will operate as interim ,land use controls preserving the county's planning options and will remain in effect only until such time as the County holds hearings and adopts permanent land use controls implementing the revised comprehensive plan. The definitions and categories of critical areas in this ordinance conform with the requirements of the Chapter 36,70A ROW. . The Jefferson county Board of commissioners has reviewed and considered the ,relevant provisions of Chapter 365-195 WAC in developing the classification' and designation criteria for critical areas within this ordinance. These regulations are designed to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 36.70A Rcwwith regard to all critical areas. Frequently flooded areas are protected through the Jefferson county Floodplain Management ordinance (Ordinanco No. 1-89), which is 4 ( . (} - ~\,' .. '... l'2:..t. ('C'! )'I;,'~ ' \ 'J - .' . . -.,,:;.:, ~ I [ - ]- ] w ~ l- e :z <n = I- :z < :z: l- e<: ..: w . -' I- u:z, '" ~I '" :::> ~g: of <n ' t-t WI :Z:I ~t-! <,,-! "'"'0, LL. >-! V') to- ; -......i %-1; 1-< :z 5i ... ' f-~i :z: I- w ::EO :::> 1-; u ' OW c:::>' c w ::c '" 1-- ~t: w ~ l- e z ,'\ ....-..-,rJ't'- o . . - 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 34. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 35. 17 18 19 20 36. 21 22 23 24 25 26 37. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ,. ...' t - . . .. " incorporated by reference within this ordinance.. The County elected to protect frequent~y flooded areas through this regu~ation due to the Floodplain Management Ordinance requ1ring detai1ed description of proposed deve10pment in a f~ood hazard area using a1l avai1al::!J.e data and it considering base flood f~ow, coasta1 f~ood hazards, and increased f100d flow due to development. . Through studying the materia~s provided by 1ega1 review and fu~l.y considering. formal. publ.ic testimony, together with Chapter 36.70A.020 ROW, the Jefferson county Board of commissioners has determined that these regulations properl.y bal.ance the GMA composite goal.s by al.~owing tradeoffs among economic, social and environmental. va1ues that are appropriate for Jefferson county. These regulations offer effective protection of critical. environmental features. without diminishing the potential. for sustained economic devel.opment in Jefferson county. Of ,the 1,161,644 acres of 1and in unincorporated Jefferson County, approximately 61~ is in Federal. ownership, 17% is in state ownership, 10% is in private ownership c~assified for forestry uses, .7% is in tribal. ownership, and 11.3% is in private ownership not cl.assified for forestry uses. These regulations al.l.ow for deve10pment to proceed in a.manner consistent with the rights of individua1s to peaceful.l.y use and enjoy their property, while simultaneousl.y regul.ating and mitigating development that wil.l. have adverse impacts on property and the environment, thereby benefitting a1l the residents of the county. " , . .' . . 5 .. .)2)< In - ]- J w u ~ o :z ~ :z: I- :z < ::J: l- e:: < w . -' I- U:Z W V> :E V> :::> wt..> -'0 o V> _W :z: wI- ::e: <..... e:: 0 ..... >- V> I- -...., ::J: -' I t-<i: ::J; . ;::; 0': WI I- :z: , :z:: I- ~oi :::>1-' u ' OW Q::J: c w ::J: In, t- .....; ~t:: w ~ b :z:: ," ......-:..". . I. .. 1 2 3 1. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2. 13 14 15 16 17 3. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 .33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 49 . - .' .. . .. " 1.20 puroose - General The pur-pose of .this ordinance is to protect critical areas against development proposals that pose adverse environmental impacts which threaten public health, safety and welfare. In accomplishing this, the ordinance factors the composite goals of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A.020 ROW, and allows for tradeoffs among economic, social and environmental values. None of the protections provided by the ordinance ,seek to confer an uncompensated benefit to the public. . The intent of this ordinance is to facilitate the,processing of relevant land use applications in a timely fashion with minimum intrusion on individual freedom, and with maximum consistency and predictability. In the pursuit 'of fairness and equity for balancing individual and collective interests, this ordinance, is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Jefferson county. " 1.30 Field Guide: To aid the applicant in understanding the purpose and requirements of this ordinance, the county has produced a field guide which concisely addresses these issues. It is important to note for leqal purposes, however, that the field guide is not a regulatory device, beinq purely informational and entirely separate from the "Jefferson county Interim critical Areas ordinance." 1.40 Enactment The Jefferson county Board of Commissioners does hereby ordain and enact into law the following provisions. 1. 50 Title This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Jefferson county xnterilll CritiClal Areas OrcHnanCle. II .' . . 6 , .&~!l1~_,~:t - ] 6:'~'~iiQJJ?~l,i:lj ] W t..> ~ 0 :z <n 1 - :::r: 2 I- 3 :z < .. 4 :::r: I- 5 e<: 6 < w 7 -' I- U :z 8 w, ~51 9 wt..> 10 -'0 <n c 11 _w 12 :z: ... I- 13 :E <..... 14 e<:o "- 15 >- <n I- 16 x:; 17 I- < :::> 18 ~O' 19 w I- :z: 20 :z I- ... 21 :EO :::> I- 22 u ow 23 c:::> ... "" 24 :z: <n 25 I- - ~!:: 26 27 ~ ", 28 ... 29 ~ 30 I- 0 31 :z 32 33 34 35 36 f' 37 38 '.. ...,....... 39 40 41 42 0 43 " 44 ~" 45 46 . 47 , 48 ~. 49 . 50 51 - 10. &.i - . . .. , , BEC~ION 2: DEFrNI~IONB subsections: () 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 Genera~ Tense and Number Interpretation Definitions 2.10 General For the purpose of this ordinance, certain words and terms shal~ be interpreted or 'defined as set forth below. 2.20 Tense and Number When not inconsistent with the context, words used in t~e present tense sha~~ include the future tense, words used in the singu~ar shall inc~ude the plural and the plura~ the singular. 1. 2, 3. 2.30 InterDretation The word "shal~" is mandatory. The word "should" indicates that which is recommended but not required. The word "may" is permissive. 2.40 Definitions 1. ADMINISTRATOR: The official appointed by the Jefferson county Board of commissioners to supervise operation of this ordinance and make required administrative decisions. 2. AGGRIEVED PARTY: One whose legal right is invaded by an' act comp~ained of, or whose monetary interest is directly affected by a decision. 3. ANADROMOUS: FiSh that migrate up rivers and streams from the ocean to breed in fresh water. 4. ~.--;'''' ~ -- APPLICANT: Any person, pUblic agency, or business entity (e.g., corporation or part.nership) that submits a triqgering application to the county (se8 also, TRIGGERING APPLICATION). 7 t; .'{:~ :t""'/ I r , i i I -0' J .' . . ';'" ':' ","- I [I - "1 fZ't.!.\i:1':~:5:;,fJj) w ~ I- o :z: <n - :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < w ' -' l- t..> :z: w ~~! wt..> -'0 Q <n _w :z: !E!I- < "- ""'0 "- >- <n I- -- :z: -' 1-< ::J =:;0' w; I-:Z: ' :z I- w :EO :::> ~- t..> ow Q::J Q w :z: Vl 1-- ~t: w t..> ~ o :z: f '\ .~, "' "Jt-o o . - J. 5. 2 3 4 5 6. 6 7 8 9 10 1J. 7. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 8. 20 21 22 23 24 9. 25 26 10. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 11. 34 35 36 12. 37 38 39 40 41 13. 42 43 14. 411 45 15. 46 47 :48 49 50 16. 51 52 \. . :-7 . . .. , , AQUIFER: A saturated geologic formation that wi11 yield a sufficient quantity of water to serve as a private or pub1ic water supply. ~6UIFER RECHARGE AREAS: Areas where soils and geological materials permit the infiltration of natural or artificial sources of water in rates and quantities sufficient to recharge ground water reserves (see also, CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS) . BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: Conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: a. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxics and sediment; and b. Minimize adverse impacts to surface water 'and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of critical areas. BIOLOGIST: A person who has a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in biological sciences from an accredi:ted college or university, or a person who has equivalent educational training and has experience as a practicing biologist. BOARD: The Jefferson county Board of commissioners. BUFFER: A designated area adjacent to a steep slope or landslide hazard area that protects slope stability, decreases surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably ~ecessary to minimize risk; or, a designated area adjacent to a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem (see also, WETLAND BUFFER). CLEARING: The destruction or 'removal of vegetation by mechanical, chemical, or any other means. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: A legal instrument intended to formalize the use status of a buffer through separately recording i'l:s existence on formal .records associated with a particular real property, COUNTY: Jefferson county. CRITICAL AR.EAS ADMINISTRATOR: See Administrator. CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS: Those aquifer recharge that are highly susceptible to ground water contamination are designated as critical areas by this ordinance (see AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS). areas which als'!, DEGRADATION: A deterioration or degeneration of a designated critical area or critical area functions and values. 8 o :'!"'~2:,J '.,. ~;,~ I I 11 r I]f' S I. ... . . 'oi{ /) I In " - 'I' """""~~""...-. '/',-,< . _........>;t,..:l!.t" W U j:: o :z: <n - :z: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < W . -'I- U:Z: W; ~~i ... u -'0 Q <n _W :z: ... I- ::E <..... e<:o "- >- <n I- -- :z: -' 1-< :::> :;;0' W I-:Z: :z I- W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> Q ... :z: <n 1-- "-I- -.... W ~ b :z .' ~ ~7. 2 3 4 5 ~8. 6 7 :1.9. 8 9 ~O ~~ 20. ~2 ~3 ~4 ~5 21. 16 17 18 ~9 22. 20 21 22 23 24 23. 25 26 27 24. 28 29 25. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 26. 38 39 40 27. 41 42 43 44 28. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 . ~- , . . .. . , DELINEATION (wetland): The process of locating and marking a designated jurisdictional wetland boundary. in the field (see, aZso, WETLAND, JURISDICTIONAL and WETLAND, DESIGNATED). DEPARTMENT: The Jefferson county planning Department. DEVELOPMENT: Any activity relating to the use of land, usually resulting in a change of land use character within the site, requiring issuance of a triggering permit from the County. ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR SENSITIVE SPECIES: All species of wildlife listed as endangered, threatened or sensitive by the Washington State Department of Wildlife. ENHANCEMENT: Actions performed to' improve the condition of existing degraded critical areas (e.g., wetlands or streams) so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. EROSION: The process whereby the land surface is .worn away by the action of water, wind, ice, or other geologi~ agents and by processes such as gravitational creep, or events such as landslides. EROSION HAZARD AREAS: Areas susceptible to erosion that are designated as critical areas by this ordinance. EXCAVATION: The mechanical removal of earth material. EXPANSION: Any enlargement, increase or extension of an existing land use that, in the judgment of the Administrator, measurably increases impacts to designated critical areas thereby threatening the public health, safety or general welfare., Emergency repairs, routine ~aintenance, or operation of a facility shall not be construed as an expansion of the existing land use. FILL: A deposit of earth or other natural or man-made material placed by artificial. means. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS: Areas that are designated as critical areas by this ordinance due to the presence of specified animal species. FOREST PRACTICES: Any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forost land and relating to growing, harvesting, or processing timber, including, but not limited to: road and trail construction; harvesting, final and intermediate; pre- commercial thinning; reforestation; fertilization; prGvention and suppression of diseBSGS and insects, salvage of trees; and brush control. Forest practices do not include preparatory work, such as troe marking, surveying and road flagging, or removal or harvest of incidental vegetation from forest lands 9 c ;~.'; ;----~ .~ ., - .. . . " I, [',", .,~, ,:;:~ "" . - - r ] ~~.m0 """1 I ) w ~ I- o :z <n - :z: I- :z: < :z: l- e<: < w ' -' l- t..> :z W <n :E <n :::> wu -'0 c <n - ... :::r: WI- ~ l.L: e<:0 "- >- ~t:; :z: -' I- < :::> :z: CY - ... I- :z: :z I- W :EO :::> 1-' t..> 0'" c:::> c W :z: <n I- - ~= W t..> ~ o :z: ,'\ "'w. .~ ~',....'_ o ~. ,~ '" -Ill. , 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. 7 8 9 J.O J.1 J.2 J.3 J.4 J.5 30. J.6 J.7 J.8 J.9 31. 20 2J. 22 23 24 32. 25 26 27 28 29 30 33. 3J. 32 33 34. 34 35 36 37 35. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 36. 47 48 49 50 51 - ( . "',1 . . .. .. such as berries, ferns, greenery, mist~etoe, herbs, mushrooms, and other products which cannot normal~y be expected to result in damage to forest soils, timber or public resources (see Chapter 222-J.6-0J.0(2J.) WAC). FUNCTIONS, BENEFICIAL FUNCTIONS, or FUNCTIONS AND VALUES: The beneficial roles served by critica~ areas (typically wet~ands) including, but not limited to: water qua~ity protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; groundwater recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; historica~ and arqhaeological value protection; and recreation. (Note:' These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority). GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS: Areas that are susceptible to erosion, sliding, or other geological events that are designated as critical areas by this ordinance. GEOLOGIST: A person who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university, or a person wHo has equivalent educational training and has four or more years of experience as a practicing geologist. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: A practicing geotechnica~/civi~ engineer ~icensed as a professional Ciyil Engineer with the State of washington who has four or more years of experience as a geotechnical engineer practicing landslide and erosion hazard evaluation. . GRADING: Any excavating, fi~ling or removing of the surface ~ayer of earth or other natural or man-made material. GROUNDWATER: All water found beneath the ground surface, including slowly moving subsurface water present in aquifers and recharge areas. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, or DANGEROUS WASTES: Substances that pose .a present or potential hazard to human health or to the quality of the drinking water supply in the aquifer. system underlying the County when improper~y used, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged. Hazardous substances include those materials identified as hazardous waste in Title 40 C~R 261 or defined as hazardous substances in Title 40 CFR 302, and Chaptor 173-303 WAC. HIGH INTENSITY LAND USES: Any of the following uses or activities that require approval of a "trigqering application": a. A sinqle family residenoe on a legally created building lot of less than one acre in size (including right-of-wayo and utility easements); 10 ~~ c~ '(>i;~,,:,~:. i~ ~, , ,'" ~ .' . . '~:) , I [ 1ft '! ~ or ,,~:i:::,~, j,,;-~::J .~ w ~ I- o :z <n - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w ' -' l- t..> % w ~~i wt..> -'0 Q <n _w :z: wI- :E <"- e<:o "- >- ~t:; :z: -' 1-< :::> :z 0' - w I- :z: :z I- w :EO :::> l- t..> ow c:::> c w :z: <n I- - ~t= w ~ I- o :z J ' "',..-.,.... o . T .. " ~. J. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J.O J.J. J.2 J.3 14 J.5 J.6 J.7 J.8 J.9 20 37. 2J. 22 23 24 25 26 27 38. 28 29 30 3J. 39. 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 40. 39 40 4J. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 4J.. 5J. 52 ,.,., i - '" ~-..,... --- ( . . . .. . , b. Subdivision development with an average density greater than one parcel per acre, including a pro rata share of common open space and roads, and excluding tidelands; c. Any new commercial or industrial development occurring within a designated general commercial, light industrial, or light industrial \commercial zone and regulated under the Je~~erson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. J.-0J.05- 92, that exceeds seven hundred and fifty (750) sguare feet; d. MUlti-family residential development regulated as a conditional use under' section 9, subsection 3(a) of the Je~ferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. J.-0106- 92; e. General commercial development .regulated as a conditional use under section 9, subsection 3 (b) of the Jefferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. J.-0J.05-92; and f. Heavy industrial development regulated as a conditional use under section 9, subsection 3(C) of the Jefferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. J.-0J.05-92. HYDRIC SOIL: Soil that is saturated, flooded' or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic ,conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report No. Y-87-J.. HYDROGEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGICAL OR HYDROGEOLOGIC: The science, or related to the science, that deals with the properties, distribution and circulation of water through geologic material. HYDROPHllTIC VEGETATION: Macrophytic plant life (i .e., plant life large enough to be perceived or examined without instrumentation) growing in water or on a substrate (i.e., a layer of earth beneath the soil ,surface) that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: A constructed, hard surfaced area that either prevents or reta,rds the ,entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development, or a hard surfaced area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: roof tops; walkways; patios; driveways; parking lots or storage areas; concrete or asphalt paving; packed earthen materials; and oiled or macadam surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. LANDSLIDE: The downslope movement of a mass of slope materials inclUding rock, soils, artificial fills and vegetation. 11 L -(-=1 . j \ I I .~ ~ .' . . .;~ '') i ,-' Wi! - - ]~~"'16i "'1' 1 W t..> ~ o :z <n - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < ... . -' I- U:z ~~! Wc..>' -'0 Q <n -.... :z: ~I- <.... C::O,I "- : >- ~!: :::r: -' 1-< => =:;0' .... I- :z: :z I- w :EO :::>1- t..> ow C => Q W :z: <n 1-- ~!: ... ~ I- o ;z: f'\ ""'- '~..r"'" o . ." ~~ - 1. 42. 2 3 4 43. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 44. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 45. 35 36 37 38 39 46. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 .~' . . . .. . , LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS: Areas that are susceptible to sliding which a:e designated as critical areas by this ordinance. LOW INTENSITY LAND USES: Any of the following uses or activities that require approval of a "triggering application": a. A single family residence on a legally created building lot with a minimum lot area of one acre or greater in size; b. Subdivision development with an average density of less than one parcel per acre, including a pro rata share of common open space and roads, and excluding tidelands; c. Any new commercial or industrial development occurring within a designated general commercial, light industrial, or light industrial/comrnercialzone and regulated under ,the Je~~erson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. 1-0106~ 92, equal to or less than seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet; d. . signs regulated as a conditional use under section 9, subsection 3(d) of the Jefferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. 1-0106-92; . ' e. Home businesses regulated as conditional uses under section 9, subsection 3(e) of the Jefferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. 1-0106-92; and f. Temporary activities and structures regulated under section 10 of the Jefferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. 1-0106-92. MARINE BLUFF: A steeply rising slope that abuts and rises from a marine shoreline. For the purposes of this ordinance, marine bluffs,include areas where the slope is equal to or in excess of forty-five (45) percent, or where the ground surface rises forty- five (45) feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of one hundred (100) feet. MINOR PRUNING: The cutting and removal of dead or living parts or branches of a plant, shrub, or tree that, in the judgment of the Administrator, will not measurably increase impacts to a designated critical area or its buffer. MITIGATION: Avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or compensating for adverse critical area (e.g., wetland) impacts, Mitigation, in the following order of preference is: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action .~nd its implementation by usinIJ appropriate technology, or by t'aking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the ilnpact by repair inq, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; and 12 i I .j i I I I l .~ .. . . :'~? .~. I [ IlIPI ,,'r;J!,j.'~,Vt"J?jltA W ~ I- o :z <n - :z: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < ... ' -' I- U:Z W <n :E <n :::> Wt..> -'0 Q <n _W :z: WI- :E <"- e<:O "- >- ~!:; :::r: -' 1-< :::> ;:::;0' W I- :z: :z I- .... :EO :::> l- t..> OW c:::> c W :z: <n 1-- ~!:; ... u ~ <=> z: r' 0 ~, I . r -, a... 1 ~ - J. 2 3 4 47. 5 6 7 8 9 J.O J.J. 48. J.2 J.3 J.4 49. J.5 J.6 J.7 J.8 50. J.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3J. 32 33 51. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 52. 41 42 43 44 53. 45 46 47 49 54. 49 50 51 52 ~- ~,_..-..- .- -- . . .. , , compensating for the impact by replacing, ~nhancing, or pr~viding substitute resources or environ~ents.: MONITORING: The col~ection and ana~ysis of data for the purpose of documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering base~i~e data and follow-up data to eva~uate the impacts of development on biological, hydro10gic and geologic e~ements of ecosystems and features, and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures. d. NATrvE VEGETATION: Vegetation that is indigenous to the North Olympic peninsula. NATURAL CONDITION: The condition of a parcel of rea1 property immediately prior to any site preparation or grading, including excavation or filling. ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK: The mark on all lakes, streams and tidal waters that ,will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in al~ ordinary years, as to mark upon the soi~ a character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June ~, J.97J. or as it may natural~y change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a ~ocal government or the Washington state Department of Ecology: Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be. found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining sa~t water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shal~ be the ~ine of mean high water. PARCEL: A ~ega~~y created ~ot, parce~, or tract of rea~ property in which the boundary is defined by a deed recorded in the Jefferson county Auditor's Office; or, a lega~~y created lot, parce~, or tract of real property that has been defined by a survey recorded pursuant to Washington state surveying or platting laws. PRIO~TY SPECIES: Those species that are state-listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate and monitor species as wel~ as priority game and nongame specIes. PROTECTION: A measure, or set of measures, designed to conserve a particular area and the naturally occurring processes directly associated with it. RAVINE: A small, narrow, steep sided land form generally having little or no floodplain and deeper than ten (J.O) vertical teet as measured from the centerline of the ravine to the top of the slope. Ravines are created by the wearing action of streams. J.3 (.,\ ;....c.!t '''.'-'":'';'1'';'., 1,." it .' . . ",,':,,} <'II I I I r1 1 ':'!f",1SrU)'~,~it "" w ~ I- o Z In :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w . -' I- UZ w ~~I wu -'0 InC -.... :z: WI- :E < "- 0::0 "- >- In I- -- :z: -' I- < => ;::;0' W I- :z: :z I- W :EO :::> I- U 0.... 0:::> Q W :z: In I- - ~!:: W ~ I- o :z /', o . - 1 55. 2 3 4 56. 5 6 7 8 57. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 58. 18 19 20 21 22 23 59. 24 25 26 27 28 29 60. 30 31 32 33 34 35 61. 36 37 38 39 40 62. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 . . . .. . , REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE: A legal use that ha~ been articulated by Federal and state courts in regulatory takings cases. RESTORATION: Actions taken to return a critical area (e.g., wetland or stream) to a state in which its stability, functions and values resemble its unaltered state as closely as possible. ROAD OR STREET: Any vehicular right-of-way that is: an existing state, county, or municipal roadway; a publicly owned easement shown upon a plat or binding site plan approved under the Je~~erson county Subdivision ordinance, No. 4-0526-92, as amended; or a private access greater than fifty (50) feet in length serving more than one property through right of use or easement. The road or street shall include all land within the boundaries of the road right-of-way that is improved. SALMONID: Any fish belonging to the family Salmonidae. In Jefferson county these include: Chinook Salmon; Coho Salmon; Chum Salmon; sockeye Salmon; Pink Salmon; Rainbow Trout; steelhead Trout; Brown Trout; Brook and Dolly Varden Char; Kokanee; and Whitefish. SLOPE: An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio (i.e., percentage) of vertical distance to hori.zontal distance by the following formula: vertical distance horizontal distance X 100 = % slope. SPECIAL REPORTS: Those reports that are required as part of critical area review under this ordinance. Special reports include: aquifer recharge area reports; drainage and erosion control plans; geotechnical reports; grading plans; habitat management plans; and wetland delineations/reports. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY A~, SEPA, OR SEPA RULES: The State law (state Environmental polioy Aot of ~971, Chapter 43.21C ROW) and the State rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) implementing that legislation, STREAMS: Those areas where surface waters flow sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is an area that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes but is not limited to: bedrock channels; gravel beds; sand and silt beds; and ,defined channel swales. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices or other entirely artificial water courses unless they are used by anadromous or salmonid fish or used to oonvey streamS naturally occurring prior to construction. This includes Washington state Department of Natural Resources stream types 1.,5 as set forth in Chapter 222- 16-030 WAC. 14 (~ i I I .1 I 1 1 I I ~ i I I I ,~, , ~:.. t .' . . .> .r\ ~ ,f Ir - ] ~,z!A\l.'!,~\",'!1 ~l W t..> ~ 0 :z <n - :z: I- :z < :z: l- e<: < w -' l- t..> :z: WI <n:E I <n :::> wu -'0 <n Q _w :z: WI- :E <"- e<:O "- >- <n I- -- :z: -' I- < :::> ~O' W I- :z: z: I- W ::E:O :::> l- t..> OW c:::> W 0 :Z:VI I- - ~t:: : ..., ~ b z: t', ......_.~, o . l , - IW" ~ 63. 2 3 4 5 6 64. 7 8 9 65. ~O ~~ ~2 ~3 66. ~4 ~5 ~6 ~ 7 67 . ~8 ~9 20 2~ 68.~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 69. 39 40 41 42 43 70. 44 45 46 71. 47 48 49 50 51 52 L. --~ . . . .. . , STRUCTURE: A permanent or temporary building, or any piece or work artificia1ly built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether insta1led on, above, or below, the surface of the ground or water. SUBDIVISION: Any division of land regulated under the Je;f;ferson county Subdivision Ordinance, No. 4-0526-92, as amended. SUSCEPTIBILITY: The ability of the physica1 environment to transmit contaminants to groundwater (e.g., soil materials and degree of slope). TOE OF SLOPE: A distinct topographic break in slope. Where no distinct break exists, this point shal1 be the 10wer most 1imit of the landslide hazard area. TOP OF SLOPE: A distinct topographic break in slope. Where no distinct break in slope exists, this point shal1 be the uppermost limit of the landslide hazard area. TRIGGERING APPLICATIONS: The applications set forth in subsection 3.30 of this ordinance that are subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Triggering applications include: applications for residential, industrial and commercial structures (including additions and renovations), towers and above ground storage tanks made under the Jefferson county Building Code ordinance, applications for sewage disposal permits made under the Jefferson County Rules and Regulations ;for On- site sewage Disposal systems, approva1s under the Je;f;ferson County Emergency Zoning ordinance, No. 1-0~06-92, or any permanent zoning control adopte,d or amended thereafter; approvals under the Je;f;ferson county Subdivision ordinance, No. 4-0526- 92, as amended; approvals under the Jefferson.county camper Club Ordinance, No. 3-80, as amended; and shoreline substantial development permits and permit exemptions under the Je:fferson- port Townsend Shoreline Management Master program. UTILITIES: Fixed . improvements, including structures and facilities, that convey, generate, transmit or distribute power, gas, oil, water, sewage, surface drainage, or communication signals. VEGETATION: Any and all living plant species growing at, below, or above the soil surface. WETLANDS: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration Gutficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted tor lite in saturated soil conditions (1.e., hydrophytes). wetlands generally include: swamps; marshes; bogs and similar areas. wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland 15 C7 .'.','.~~,;,.,... t,..';'" '" ." , ',:ii'; "'i;,:,,,,~;:;:;,~::,'t;':,, , i \ '>> lr - .' . . "'.~ r.. ,"t!":.. ,iI. Ie u . ]- ] W t..> ~ o :z <n - :z: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: < w . -' I- uz: <n~1 ' <n :::> L&J (..)1, -'0 oi' <n , _w :::r: wI- :E <"- e<:O "- >- ~t=: :z: -' ! 1-< :z:S-: .... , W" I- :I: j ~I- w ::EO :::> 1-' U g~, "" w :z: ." 1-- ~!:: w ~ l5 :z: ,..... . . .. .- !': 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 - . . .. " SEC~J:ON 3: SCOPE Subsections: , 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.50 coverage Relationship to Existing General Applicability Exemptions Non-conforming Uses Regulations 3.10 Coveraae These regulations shall' apply to applications for proposals .requiring anyone of the permits or approvals (hereinafter referred to as "triggering applications") set forth in subsection 3.30, below, for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated critical arEa or its' buffer. In instances where a proposal involves a parcel of real property with more than one critical area or critical area buffer, the standards that pertain to each identified critical area shall apply. When provisions of this ordinance conflict with one another, or when provisions of this ordinance conflict wi~h any other local law, the provision that provides more protection to the critical' area shall apply. No triggering application involving a designated critical area shall be approved unless it is determined to be in compliance with this ordinance. Any action taken in a critical Area designated under this ordinance that is in violation of the standards and conditions contained herein is expressly prohibited. " 3.20 Relationshio to Existina Reaulations Except where a contrary intent clearly appears, the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed to the maximum feasible extent consistent with Federal, state and local law. !. .:.' :.... ,.. t . .. . . 17 ,~~~. )< I [ w , . '] a..'EWllYl!i . .. ' , ] ... ~ 15 z V> - :::r: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: "" w . -' I- (..) Z:. . w, ~~I' ... U' ...,JO; Q! V> ' ..... ... ~i=i <"- 0:0: "- , >- ' V> I- --, ::c -' ' 1-<, ~5! I-~j :z: I- w ::EO :::> I- U 0'" c:::> c ... ::c VI 1-- ~!:: I w ~ 15 :z: J"'\ ......._.~_. o . .. J. 2 3 4 5 6 J.. 7 8 9 J.O J.1 J.2 13 J.4 J.5 J.6 J.7 J.8 J.9 20 2. 21 22 23 24 25 3. 26 27 28 29 4. 30 31 32 5. 33 34' 35 6. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 -",,, 3.30 General Applicabilit~ Applications for the following permits or approvals shall be considered triggering applications under this ordinance: o The following applications for Building Permits made under the Jer~.rson county Building Code ordinance: Mobile; Modulari stick Frame; Additions Duplexes; Fourplexes; Condominiums; Apartment Houses commercial, including additions Industrial, including'additions (Radio and Cellular) Towers Above Ground storage Tanks Additions 'and Renovations single Family Residential: Multi- Family Residential: Applications for sewage Disposal Permits made .under Jefferson county Ordinance No. 277, Rules and Regulations ror On-Site Sewage Disposal systems, or any ordinance adopted or amended thereafter. Applications for approval under the Jerferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, No. 1-0106-92, or any permanent zoning control adopted or amended thereafter. Applications for approval under the Jefferson county Subdivision ordinance, No. 4-0526-92, as amended. Applications for approval under the Jefferson county c~per Club ordinance, No. 3-80, as amend~d. Applications for shoreline substantial development permits and permit exemptions under the Jefferson-port Townsend Shoreline Hanagement Haster Program. (Noee: Applicants for anyone of the triggering applications listed above, should refer to sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of these regulations to determine the precise rules of applicability). 18 ,', .' . . ":,"" ,,1' ['1 .. ,~. x ,1 - ]--- ] ... u ~ o :z ~ :z: I- :z < :::r: l- e<: "'" ~~;i ~i/' ~gj ~. :~!: :!i "- ! e::::Oj "- >-' (,I') I- ~ ;: :;i 1-<' =51 I-~i ~t-; :EOI g:i cs; ... ' :z: VIi f- .....! "- 1-' ..........i ... ~ I- i, li : f ,'\ ~. - -"" J. 2 3 J.. 4 5 6 7 8 9 J.O J.1 J.2 J.3 2 . J.4 15. 16 J.7 J.8 J.9 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 1. 26 r :,;' 27 28 29 30 2. 31 32 33 34 35 36 3. 37 38 39 4. 40 41 42 43 44 'II 45 46 t :~ 49 . . , 1: \ . l..o IJ .. . .. ., 3.40 Exemotions The f0110wing applications for building permits issued under the Jefferson county Bui14ing C040 or4inance, No. 1-0208-93, are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance: Alterations Underground storage Tanks Woodstoves Propane storage Tanks for single family houses or mobile homes Title Eliminations on existing mobile homes Building 10ts created under the provisions of the Jefferson county SUbdivision.Or4inance, No. 4-0526-92, as amended, where the subdivision application for said lots has been reviewed 'pursuant to this ordinance, shal1 be exempted from critical area review and the provisions of this ordinance if documented compliance of the subdivision with th~.., standards of this ordinance is provided at the time application is made' for a building permit. ~.50 Nonconformina Uses Any use or structure in existence on the date this ordinance becomes effective that does not meet the buffer requirements of this ordinance for any designated critical area shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. Any use or structure tor which an application has vested or for which a permit has been obtained prior to the date this ordinance becomes effective that does not meet the buffer requirements of this ordinance for any designated critical area shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. A legal nonconforming use or structure may be repaired or maintained without 1imitation by this ordinance. A legal nonconforming use or structUre that has been damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity may be restored and its immediately previouo use may be resumed. 19 ,> , . .' . . " 32 ^ I [ I ] ~'Lr.t.::~~';,U~%~ .~~ --'! w u i= o 20 V> - :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . -I I- U 20, w ~~i wu -10 o V> .....w :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > V> I- .....- :1:-1 I- <' :::>' ;::;0" .- ~: 51- :EO :::>1- u ow c:::> c w :I: V> 1-- ~t:; w ~ l5 :z: J"'\ o . . - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 1. 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 20 23. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33- 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 43. 2. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 II . I . . .. . , Subsections: SECTXON ,,: ADMXNXSTnATXVE AUTHORXTY AND RESPON8XBXLXTY 4.3.0 4.20 4.30 4.40 . planning Department Department of Public Works Hearing Examiner Board of county commissioners 4.10 Plannina Department The Planning Department shall have overall administrative responsibilities regarding the processing of triggering applications that are subject to critical area review under this ordinance. specifically, the 'critical Areas Administrator or his/her designee shall be empowered, to: Review triggering applications and determine the probable existence of critical areas or critical area buffers on the parcel involved in the triggering application; Make administr~tive determinations regarding waivers and exemptions from these regulations; Verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all special reports required under these regulations, inclu9ing critical area boundary and buffer determinations; Review all triggering applications that are subject to the provisions of, this ordinance for conformance with the standards of this ordinance; condition, or recommend conditions of approval that ensure conformance with the purposes and standards of this ordinance; Process triggering applications subject to these regulations in a manner consistent with the procedures outlined in the ordinance governing the triggering application; and suspend or revoke triggering permits when a permittee has violated the conditions or limitations of the triggering permit, or has exceeded the scope of work approved. . AddJ.tionally, the critical Areas Administrator shall be empowered to construe or interpret vague or incomplete terms within this ordinance, consistent with the overall intent and purposes of these regulations. Furthermore, the Administrator shall have the power to prescribe specific administrative rules and procedures related to the implementation of these regulations. Any interpretation, rule or procedure promulgated by tbe Administrator shall take effect immediately, subject to the provisions set forth below: a. b. c. d.' e. f. g. 20 C: .\ t. ' , " ; . I. · . "{~~,.(Ir I (:w.:,...."'..':.,., j ~,;<.....~..:'."I.. w ~ I- o 20 V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U 20 W VI ::<: VI :::> wu --' 0 VI c, -~, ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > VII- .....- :I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w 1-- :I: 201- w :E 0 Bl- ow c:::> c w :I: V> I- ..... ~t:: w ~ l5 z ,', o . ..( .' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 ].1, 12 13 14 15 3.6 1. 17 3.8 3.9 20 21 2. 22 23 24 25 3. 26 27 28 4. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 1. 37 38 39 40 2. 41 42 43 44 45 46 3. 47 48 49 50 51 {o( 1 ~, fp" lL . - . . .. ", a. within thirty (30) days of the establishment of an ordinance interpretation, rule or procedure, the planning commission shall review the interpretation, rule or procedure and transmit a written report to the Board recommending affirmance, modification, or reject~on; b. within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the planning commission's report, the Board shall examine the report at a regularly scheduled public meeting and affirm, modify or reject the interpretation, rule or procedure promulgated by the Administrator. 4.20 Department of public Works The Department of pUblic Works shall review triggering applications subject to these regulations in a manner consistent with the procedures outlined ,in the ordinance governing the triggering application. The Department of Public' Works shall possess the' same authority and responsibility as set forth in the ordinance governing the triggering application. The Department of Public Works shall establish requirements for the submission of drainage and erosion control plans. . The Department of Public Works shall review special reports that are within the Department's range of expertise, and shall make appropriate recommendations to the Administrator thereon, consistent with the purposes and substantive requirel'Cents of this ordinance. 4.30 Hearina Examine~ The Hearing Examiner shall review triggering applications subject to these regulations in a manner consistent with the procedures outlined in the ordinance governing the trigger,ing application. When the Hearing Examiner is required to hold a public 'hearing by the ordinance governing the triggering application, the Examiner shall consider all relevant critical area issues and shall condition, or recommend conditions of,approval that ensure conformance with the purposes and standards of this ordinance. The Hearing Examiner is hereby assigned the functions, powers and duties incident to holding hearings and making recommendations to the Board on the"approval or disapproval of appeals of administrative determinations made under this ordinance. 21 (; ',. ~ I. . . " 11- ", ,\ ...,.....' J- '] w ~ I- o :z VI ..... :I: I- z < :I: I- ~ I ~~I ;;; 8! ',! ......Ll.Ji ::1:1 !f! I- i: < LL.I e;ol V)~i ;: :;) I-~I =:; c::rl I-~I 51-i !!5 ~i '-' I 8~! LtJC: :I: VI ' I- .....1 ~ t::i ~ I l5 i :z: I f'~ ........';; I ) ,I- I i I j- I I "",' ,:,.' 'i' :;\' ;.{~? ,. ,,)" ;".;. ,-,.;,..,,- ,""c';'; 'i.; 1 ""0',,;:. ,','e..'," ';',..,' ,"i;-',:.i, . . .. " The Hearing Examiner is hereby assigned 'the func~ions, powers and duties incident to holding hearings and making final decisions on the approval or disapproval of reasonable economic use variance applications u~der this ordinance. 1 4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 16 3.7 3.8 3.9 20 2. 21 22 23 24 3. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ,) 4.40 Board of Countv commissioners When required by the ordinance governing the triggering application, the Board shall: a. Generally find whether or not the proposal adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare; b. Ensure that the proposal conforms with the ordinance governing the triggering application and the purposes and standards of this ordinance; and c. Enter written findings demonstrating that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. The Board shall make final decisions regarding appeals of administrative determinations made under this ordinance, upon receipt of a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner. The Board shall hold hearings and make final decisions on appeals of reasonable economic use variance applications approved or disapproved by the 'Hearing Examiner under this ordinance. , . .'. " .. . . 22 01 - ]-= .;1 j W u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' l- t..> 20 ..... VI :E VI ::> Wt..> --' 0 c V> .....W ':I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > V> I- .......... :I: --' I- < :::> ;::;0" w I- :I: %1- W :EO :::>1- u OW c:::> c w :I: VI 1-..... ~!:: W ~ l5 :z: ,'\ ,0 of' . - ~ .' /' ~ t. ~ ::.,'t ~ i ( - . . .. " 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 ~4 15 3.6 17 3.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 SECTXON 5: PROCESS AND ADMXNXSTRATXON subsections: 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 critical Area Determination Process critical Area Review Requirements Review of critical Area Applications and Reports 5.10 critical Area Determination 5.101 Triaaerina APplicati~ Upon submittal of a triggering, application, the Administrator shall determine the probable existence of critical areas on the parcel involved in the application. The Administrator shall review and consider all publicly available information in determining the probable ,existence of critical areas, including, but not limited to: critical area maps and inventories prepared by the. Department; data sources referenced within this ordinance; and the results of field investigations conducted by the Department. If critical areas or critical area buffers are found to exist on a parcel, the provisions of this section, and all other relevant sections of this ordinance' shall apply. 5.102 Advance Determination: To provide assistance in planning for the future development of a parcel for which no triggering application has been submitted nor is anticipated to be submitted in the immediate future, an Advance Determination of the probable existence of critical areas or buffer areas on the site is available. This Advance Determination shall be of two types: binding, and non-binding. 1. ~on-bindina Advance Determination: A non binding advance determination shall be based on an informal interpretation of critical area maps and inventories prepared by the Department; data sources referenced within this ordinance; and the results of field investigations conducted by the department. It is intended to be used for reference only, and shall. not be represented or construed to be legal, official or final. Actual critical areas may be more or less than what is described. 2. Bindina Advance Determination: i. A binding advance determination as to the presence of a critical area or buffer on a parcel of real property may only be obtained by the property owner, or by a firm or individual acting under the clear written authority of the property owner. 23 . .~~ .- :~~:(J " ~ >..\S');i:;;i;;~,,;. (,:.~ I I . ,~ , .' - . .'~,? :.< I [ - ] 'tf.tX1.w::i;1/n;:~ w u i= o % V> ;: I- % < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U20 w ~~! we --'0 ",e .....w :z:: ~I- <..... exo ..... >- V> I- -..... :I: --' I- < :> ;::;0" w 1-:1: 51- :EO Bl- ow e :> we :I: VI I- ..... ~!:: .:; ~ l5 :z: 1"\ .....- -";-;.'-- o - "^ "' I - - - .. . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ii. A binding advance determination shall specifica~ly delineate critical areas and critical area buffers found on"a site. such delinfilation shall involve, as appropriate, a site inspection, study of site characteristics, and production of a summary report detailing the results of the investigation. Any final document submitted to the owner of the subject property, or their authorized representative, shall be clearly identified as being produced for the binding advanced determination. 5.20 Process p.201 Process _ Gene~ Whenever a triggering application is submitted for a project on a parcel of real property and where, available information suggests the presence of a critical area or critical area buffer, the Department shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a site inspection to gather additional information for determining tho eKistence of a critical area or buffer on 'the subject property. Should review of this information, together with any other available data identified in subsection 5.10 above, confirm the eKistence of a critical area or critical area buffer on the property, the provisions of this ordinance shall be implemented in conjunction with the processing of the triggering application. ~. Permit Roauired: Unless exempt from the provisions of this ordinance pursuant to section 3.40, and/or exempt from the requirements of this section, no person, party, firm, corporation or public agenoy shall undertake any development proposal within a critical aroa or its buffer, unless the work is in accordance with a valid permit or approval from the county issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. 5.203 ExemD~ionBI Tho following shall be exempt from the provisions of this section and tho administrative rules: 1. ~ Trigqoring application submitted for projects that are subjoct to SEPAreviow, provided,that the development standards containod within this ordinance are incorporated as SEPA mitiqations \<Ihore appropriate. 2. ~rior 8EPA D~.rpinationl Triggering applications submitted for projeots previously subject to SEPA review, provided that the previoUS SEPA review evaluated the type and extent of development currently proposed for the subject property and its impaots on Ilny critical areas.' 24 . 'i I, - . :'~? >.I[ ]<H~ .. J W u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U:Z: W V> :E VI => WU --' 0 e V> .....W :I: ~I- <..... exo ..... > VII- .......... :I: --' 1-< => ;::;0" W I- :I: :Z:I- W :EO :::>1- u OW e=> e' w :I: VI I- ..... ~~ W ~ l5 % r', "-.-r o - " !' ~ , ~. t... t -- - . .. , , 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 J.1 J.2 J.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4J. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 3. ?rior critical Area Review: Triggering applications submitted for projects previously subject to critical area review, provided that the previous critical area review evaluated the type and extent of development currently proposed for the subject property and its 'impacts on any critical areas, and no substantial change has occurred to the subject property since the time of critical area review. 4. Waivers: Triggering applications for projects that have received' a waiver consistent w~th the requirements of section 6.40, 7.40, 9~40, 3.0.40 and 11.3.0 of this ordinance. 5.30 cr~tical Area Review Requirements 5.303. APPlication Requirements - General: Applicants for projects subject to triggering applications shall be required to identify whether the site involved contains any, ,of the critical areas identified in this ordinance. Where either the applicant' indicates that a critical area or its buffer is present, the area is mapped as a critical area or buffer, or the county has a reasonable belief that a critical area or buffer exists on the site, the below-listed requirements are applicable. 5.30~ preapplication consultation: Any person intending to apply for a triggering application involving a designated critical area or its buffer is encouraged, but not required, to meet with the Department during the earliest possible stages of project planning in order to discuss critical area impact avoidance, minimization, ~ompensation, and the required elements of the critical area review and mitigation before large commitments have been made to a particular project design. Effort put into preapplication consultations and planning will help applicants create projects that will be more quickly and easily processed. 5.303 critical Area Review Requirements: Applicants shall submit the following information upon SUbmission of their triggering application, or, upon,notification that critical area review, is required: 1. Any special reports required pursuant to sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of. this ordinance. 2. A description of the vegetative cover of the critical area and adjacent areas, including the significant species and native vegetation. 3. A site plan for the proposed ac~ivity at an easily readable ,scale Showing the location, width, depth and length of all existing and proposed disturbed areas" structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, sewage treatment facilities, and installations within the critical area or buffer (if applicable); to assist in timely permit 25 . I i I l \ , . .' . . :'~;. )', I [ -- ]_... ] w u ~ 20 ~ :I: I- z: < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- u z: w V> :E V> :::> we..) --' 0 e VI .....w :I: ~I- <..... exo ..... > VII- .....- :I: --' 1-< :::> ~O'; w ~ l5 % ,'\ - .. . - - . i - . .. " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 processing, applicants are encouraged to overlay site plans from aerial photographs, which are available upon request from 'the Department of public Works for certain areas of . eastern Jefferson county. 4. A description of the specific Eeans proposed to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the proposal, based upon the substantive requirements of this ordinance. 5.304 public Notice and Hearinq: 1. If the ordinance governing the triggering application does not require that a public hearing be held as part of the review process, but does require public notice of pending application, the public notice of pending application shall also include notice of any pending critical Area review. 2. If a public hearing is held on a triggering application, such hearing shall include consideration of dritical area issues under this ordinance. 5.40 critical Area APplications and Reports 5.401 critical Area Review of Triqqerina permit Apolications and Reports _ General: The Administrator as part of the review process shall verify information submitted by the applicant; confirm the nature and type of critical area and evaluate applicable reports; determine whether the proposal is consistent with the development standards contained within this ordinance; determine whether any mitigations proposed by the applicant are consistent with the purposes, objectives and requirements of this ordinance; and approve or deny the application. ~.402 Findinas: A decision approving or denying a triggering permit application, based on critical area review, sha1l be strictly based on conformance with the standards and requirements contained within this ordinance. All decisions shall be supported by findings of fact relating to the standards and requirements of this ordinance. 5.403 conditions: 1. A decision approving a permit application involving a designated critical area or its buffer shall incorporate the following conditions: 26 . .' . . " 32 ,x I[ IR ] ". ..... e..> i= o 20 ~ :I: ..... Z < :I: I- IX < W . -' l- e..> :z: w en :IE: VI :::> wu --' 0 CI VI ......W :J:: WI- :e: cs:..... IXO U. > ~t: :>:::--' 1-< :::> %0" ......W I- :I: :Z:I- W :EO =>1- e..> ow Cl :::> e W :>:::l/l I- .... ~~ W ~ l5 % ,'\ "",, _'~"'M" o I J~ .. - . , t., 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 11 3.2 13 14 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 2. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 '!" .... I '- . - a. Approved protection mechanisms addressing specifically ide):1tified adverse environmental impacts of the proposal, based upon the substantive requirements of this ordinance; and b. Buffer marking requirements, if applicable. 2. Conditions of approval required by critical Area review shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in the triggering permit. 5.404 Appeal of Administrative Decisions: 1. Conditions imposed through critical area review of'a triggering application made under any of the following ordinances may be appealed using the procedure set forth in the ordinance governing the application:. The Jefferson county Emergency zoning ordinance, NO. 1-3.006-92, or any permanent zoning control adopted or amended thereafter; Applications for approval under the Jefferson county Subdivision Ordinance, No. 4-0526-92, as amended; 3. Applications for approval under the Jefferson county Camper Club Ordinance, No. 3-80, as amended; Applications for shoreline substantial development permits and permit exemptions under the Jefferson-port Townsend Shoreline Management Kaster program~ Conditions imposed through critical area review of a triggering application made under any of the following ordinances may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, who shall review the application and make recommendations as provided under subsections 4.30 and 4.40 of this ordinance: The Jefferson county Building Code ordinanoe; Jefferson county Ordinance No. 277, Rules and Regulations for OD- site Sewaqe Disposal systems. Appeals of administrative decisions made under subsection 5.404.2 of this ordinance may be made only by the applicant for the triqqering permit or approval. 27 .' . . ","" -.1 r. 1 ",~ ,', . . ~ ]-- ,.......',.. ] .... ~ l5 % ~ :I: I- % < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U% W V> :E VI :::> wu --' 0 VIe .....w :I: ~I- <..... ' 0:::0 \ ..... > VII- .......... :1:--' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w 1-:1: 51- B:= ' ow e:::> Co w :l:V'l 1-.... ~= w u S % ,'\ . - .... - / , ,):~; ",0;,~~tF-'-. ;.," ~:!,.:;}.<:,~::: .,:,,:; ",".. , 'I: . .. " "..~,~. N..."....",...;o;.'<II ...'" '~"4..".'l.','."'~..."I,i_f'!.~.'~"","'''''''''.'''~'''..~~.."''''l:.;,...,,c,~~'..T"'''...........~. ,........~...;,..._'".,.:.~.__:. 3. 5.405 Time Period for Review and APllroval: Any time period specified 2 for review and ,approval in an ordinance governing' a triggering 3 application shail not begin to run until critical area ,review under 4 this ordinance is completed. This subsection shall not be construed 5 in any way to delay vesting under Washington law~' 6 7 5.406 Fees: Fees for critical area review, site investigations and 8 determinations and critical area report preparation,shall be as set 9 forth in Appendix A. 3.0 ~3. 28 " , . I. · . - ] oJ/'~'f~~'......;....~'''''_ ..~,..~""...,...',"'.~ '1 ,..; 1 w ~ I- o 20 V> - :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U 20 W V> :>: V> :::> wu --'0 '" V> .....w, :I: WI- ::<: <l1.i ex 0 ..... > ~t:: :1:--' I- ..:: :::> 20 CT ..... .....~: 20 I- w :EO :::> I- U ow e:::> '" w :I: V> 1-- ..... I- .....- w ~ l5 z ,'\ ..... ." ,.,- o - ... " 1;.. " lA, L (, - . - .. . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.4 15 16 ~7 18 19 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 aEC~~ON 6: WETLANDS subsections: 6.10 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.50 Introduction purpose Classification/Designation Applicability and Waivers Protection standards ' 6.10 Introduction Wetlands in Jefferson County are characterized by hydric soils, water- tolerant plants (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation), and surfaces that are either saturated or inundated with water for a speclfied period of time during the growing season. A wetland positively impacts water quality and stormwater control, by trapping and filterirtg surface and ground water. Wetlands also provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. Because of the difficulty in replacing these rare and valuable areas, these regulations control development within and adjacent to specific high quality wetlands.. 6.20 Purpose To protect the pUblic from harm by preserving the functions of wetlands and streams as recharge for groundwater, flood storage, floodwater conveyance, habitat for fish and wildlife, sediment control, pollution control, surface water supply, and aquifer recharge. The purpose of this ordinance section is, however, subordinate to the overall purpose of this ordinance as stated in 51.201. .' 6~30 Classification/Desiq~ 6.301 Classification: For the purposes of this ordinance,' wetlands shall be classified using the Washington state Department of Ecology's Wetland Ratina System for Western Washinaton, october, 1991 ed. 6.302 Desianation: As determined using the Washington state Department of Ecology's wetland Rating System for Western Washington, october, 1991 ed., class I wetlands, class II wetlands 2,500 square feet or larger in size and class III and IV wetlands, 10,000 square feet or larger in size shall be subject to the standards of this section. 29 ~ '. ~...._---- .... · . (~J) (I i' >,>'i(,::,"~"" . 'I; ~ .' . . - .:r,'} ;'c I [ .. ] CiP.m..Im"a 1 ,JJ w ~ I- o 20 ~~ :I: I- :z < :I: I- ex < w . -J 1-' U :z Wi ~~! W U' --'01 e' VI .....Wl :I: : ~I-i c:c lL. : 0:::'0; ..... >! en I-! ...........i ~ ct: :;:)i' za: . ..... ,', I-~I ' z 1-, w :EO, BI-! oW e:::> e w ::I: V> 1-..... .....1- ' .......... I w ~ I- o z I"~ ......-.,.-- o . .. 3. 6.303 Sources Used for Identification: 'sources used to ,identify 2 designated wet~~nds include, but are not limited to: 3 4 1'. 5 6 7 2. 8 9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3. 13 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 6.403 Waiver conditions: In order to secure compliance with 35 subsection 6.402, above, the Administrator may require conditions of 36 approval which ensure that no portion of the proposed development will 37 encroach upon the designated wetland or its buffer. Conditions of 38 approval may include, but 'are not limited to: partial wetland 39 ,delineations; optional conservation easements; and the graphic 40 portrayal of building envelopes and related improvements on the face 41 of final short or long plats and binding site plans. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 . - . - . . III " United states Department of the Xnterior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventorv. Areas identified as hydric soils, soils with significant soil inclusions and "wetspots" within the United states Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation service soil ~urvev for Jefferson Countv. Washington state Department of Natural Resources, Geoaraphic I..nformation Svstem: Hvdroaraphv and Soils Survev Iiavers~ 6.304 Wetland Maps: T~e wetland maps prepared by the county using the identification sources listed in subsection 6.303 have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this ordinance. 6.40 A~plicabilitv and Waivers 6.401 APplicabilitv: critical area review shall be required for any triggering application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated wetland or its buffer, unless waived under subsection 6.402, beloW. ~.402 Waivers: The provisions of this section shall not apply when the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that all building sites and project related improvements (including any clearing or grading activity) will be located outside of any designated wetland or its buffer. 6.50 Protection standards 6.501 General: A triggering applioation for a projeot on a parcel of real property containing a designated wetland or 'its'buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below. 30 - ,I , ' .' - - 32 :-.1 [ " ]cr__ -"I J W ~ I- o 20 VI ..... :I: I- :z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- , c..> :z w VI :E VI => wu --' 0 e VI .....W :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > VII- .......... ::c --' ' I- c:C: =>, =O'! Wi ......:a::; :z I- W , ~:=: c..> , OW e:::>, e W :I: V> , I- ....., .....1- .......... W ~ l5 z ,'I o - " . - - - - .. " 6.502 Delineation: An applicant ~ubmitting a triggering application shall also submit, and have approved, a wetland delineation report as specified in section 3.1 of this ordinance. Additionally, the following provisions _,shall apply: ' 11 3. 2 3 4 5 6 3.. 7 8 9 10 3.1 3.2 2. 3.3 3.4 15 16 17 3. 18 3.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33. 1. 32 33 34 35 36 37 2. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 3. 45 46 47 Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one 'per parcel or everyone hundred (100) feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: "wetland &. Buffer - Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native vegetation." A notice to title shall be recorded with the Auditor, using the form approved by the prosecuting Attorney (included as APpendix B of this ordinance). The location of the wetland and its boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation utilizing the methodology contained in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report No. Y-87-3.. If the wetland is located off of the property involved in the triggering application and is inaccessible, the best information available shall be used to determine the wetland boundary and class. After approval of the delineation report, the wetland boundary. shall be s~aked and flagged in the fie~d. 6.503 Dralnaae and Erosion control: An applicant submitting a triggering application shall alsp submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan as specified in section 11 of this ordinance. The plan shall discuss, evaluate and recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of designated wetlands during and after construction. 6.504 Buffer Markina: upon approval of the delineation report the location of the outer extent of the wetland buffer shall be marked in the field as follows: A permanent physical separation along the upland boundary of the wetland buffer area shall be installed and permanently maintained. Such separation may consist of logs, a tree or hedge row, or other prominent physical marking approved by the Administrator. t r. , ;:",- " ~ 31 l . .' " : I ..1 . - .1~~ xl [ - ]-- J W u i= o z V> ..... :I: I- Z < :I: I- ex <<: w . --' I- <..>z w V> :E VI :::> Wt..) --' 0 VIe .....w :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > v> I- ........ :I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w 1-:1: zl- W :EO .BI- oW e:::> e W :l:lI) 1-'" ~!:: W ~ l5 z ,r'\ o . .. 3. 4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 8 9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 15 3.6 3.7 18 3.9 20 21 2. 22 23 24 25 26 3. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 4. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 - . . . .. " In the case of short plat, long plat and binding site plan approvals under the Jefferson county Subdivision Ordinance, No. 4~0526-92, as amended, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the wetland and its buffer. The applicant may also choose to dedicate the buffer through a conservation easement or deed restriction that shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor. Such easements or restrictions shall, however, use the forms approved by the prosecuting Attorney that are included as Appendices C and D of this ordinance. The following buffer 6.505 Buffers - standard Reauirements: provisions shall apply: . 3.. 5. .' , . BUffer areas shall be required to provide sufficrent separation between the designated wetland and the adjacent proposed project. The appropriate width of the wetland buffer shall be determined by either: application of the standard buffer widths set forth below; or, an individual or firm meeting the criteria of subsection 3.1.1002, below. Buffers shall remain naturally vegetated except where the vegetation has been disturbed, invaded by highly undesirable species (e.g., noxious weeds), or would substantially benefit from the increased diversity of introduced species. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, replanting with native vegetation shall be required. Minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views and removal of undesirable species (e.g., alders) may be permitted by the Administrator on a case by case basis. All buffers shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Standard wetland buffer widths: Wetland Class. Hic:rh Intensitv J.a,nd Uses ~ow Intensitv Land Uses Class Class Class Class 150 100 50 25 feet feet feet feet 75 50 25 25 feet feet feet feet J: U IU IV .' . . 32 .' ,32~0\.1[ . ] lWNJti~~ '"1 J w ~ l5 20 VI ..... :I: I- Z < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- uz: ~~i wu" --' 0 e VI .....w :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 u.. > VII- .......... :I: --' 1-< :::> ::; 0' i W, I-:r: ! ZI- w :EO Bt- OW e:::> e w ::I: V> I- ..... .....1- .......... w ~ l5 Z t'", ...- .~. .~'.". o . - . . .. , , 6.506 Reducina Buffer widths: The Administrator may reduce the standard wetland buffer widths set forth in subsection 6.505.5, above, when the project applicant demonstrates both of the following to the satisfaction of the ,Administrator: , ' \ "..' 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.. 7 8 9 2. 3.0 11 3.2 J.3 14 3.5 J.6 17 3.8 19 20 2J. 22 23 1. 24 25 26 2. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3. 34 35 36 37 4. 38 39 40 43. 42 43 44 45 46 47 1. 48 49 50 2. 51 52 Tho total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is not less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. 33 standard wetland buffer width averaging as set forth in subsection 6.508, below, is unfeasible. The project application includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation which substantiates that an enhanced buffer, will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide additional protection for functions and values. Under no circumstances shall buffer widths be reduced by more than twenty-five (25) percent. 6.507 Increasina Buffer widths: The Administrator may increase the standard wetland buffer widths set forth in subsection 6.505.5, above, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on local conditions. This determination sha~l be made only when the Department, at its own expense, demonstrates anyone of the following through appropriate documentation: A larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of existing species. " The wetland is used by species listed by the Washington state Department of wildlife as endangered, threatened, or sensitive, or has documented priority species or habitats or essential or outstanding potential habitat for those species, or has unusual nesting or resting sites (e.g., heron rookeries and raptor nesting trees). The adjacent land is susceptible to severe landslide or erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts. The adjacent land has minima~ vegetative cover or slopes greater than forty-five (45) percent. l; 6.508 Averaaina Buffer Widths: The Administrator may modifY the standard wetland buffer widths set forth in subsection 6.505.5, above, by averaging. Buffer width averaging shall be allowed only when an individual or firm meeting the criteria of subsection 11.1002, beloW, demonstrates all ~f the following to the satisfaction of the Administrator: width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values. r. .i.:.. , 1" t ~ ..~...,.- l.'() "",, "''''''''I'':''''''''iI """";,,,,,';';:;. """ ,,::). ~' . 'W~, . . 'if J , . .' . . .,i"'~ '..' ",I. Iq -- . ]- . .. , , ] w ~ I- o % ~ :I: I- % < :I: I- ex < ~~i '-' %' ~~l, ~gl Vlel' _l.&Jj' ~i=i1 <.....1 , 1:::01 ' >- 1-' V'H-1 t ~:;j 1-:5! ' zO'! :~l ~.-1 ~o' ul- OW e:::> e w :I: V> 1-..... ....1- .......... 3. 3. 2 3 4 The standard buffer width has not been reduced by more than fift~. (50) percent or to less than twenty-five (25) feet. w '-' 15 % ,'\ ,,,-._~' i ! Ie ! , I I i j . 34 .. , . I. · . .' ;1.2 ,~.I [ - f:1f:\'H:tl::i,;.GI;; w ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex "" w . --' I- UZ w V> :E V> :::> wu ~g I .....W :I: ~I- <..... exo ..... > ~t:; :I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" ~t:; ..;j ~ l5 :z: 1'\ '.. 0.......... 0 f &,. . I. ,... .,;.,;.. ," ~, I " - . . .. , , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 SECTXON 7: CRXTXCAL AQUXFER RECHARGE AREAS subsections: 7.10 7.20 7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 Introduction purpose Classif~cation/Designation Applicability and waivers protection standards conditions 7.10 Introduction Aquifer recharge areas in Jefferson county are characterized by porous geologie formations that allow percolation of surface water into the soil (i.e., groundwater). Most rural areas in Jefferson county use aquifers as a source for drinking water. This section provides protection measures for aquifers that allow rapid percolation of surface water into the soil in areas that are most vulnerable due to population distribution (i.e., critical aquifer recharge areas). The protection measures in this section are intended to maintain the quality of groundwater by preventing contamination. 7.20 purpose To protect the public health and safety by preventing the degradation of groundwater that is now, or which is likely to be used in the . future, as a source for drinking water. The purpose of this ordinance section is, however, subordinate to the overall purpose of this ordinance as stated in Sl.201. 7.30 classification/Desianation 7.303. Classification: For the purposes of this ordinance, critical aquifer recharge areas shall be classified based upon a combination of: the susceptibility rating system within the Hodified DRASTIC ~~ff;r~~~ countv. Washinaton, November, 1992, ed.i and population density patterns obtained from the united states Dopartment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 United states Censua. 1.302 Desianation: Areas that are characterized by a combination of soils and geologic units with greater than sixty (60) percent susceptibility and a population density of equal to or greater than one person per ten (10) acres shall be subjoot to the standards of this section. 35 ~,~-,..,,,,,,....,,.~ . (, -(..) ~ j- I ! I I I . I I I I I \ ,;, I. . . <;1. l [ - ]__"s;. ] w ~ I- o % ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- c...>% W VI :E VI ::> wu --' 0 e VI .....w :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t:; :I: --' 1-<, ::> ' ;::;0" ..... I- .........., w u i5 % ; ~ j'l .~,,, o . .. - . . .. " Sources Used for Identification: Sources used to identify recharg~ areas include, but are not limited to: 3.,7.303 2 aquifer 3 4 3.. 5 6 7 8 2. 9 10 3.1 3.2 3. :1.3 3.4 15 16 4. 17 1.8 19 5. 20 21 22 23 24 6. 25 26 27 28 7. 29 30 31 8. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 protection Agency, ~STIC: A Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington state Department of community Development, critical Aauifer Recharae Areas. the DRASTIC Approach, June, 1991, ed. United States Department of Agriculture/Soil conservation service; soil Survev for Jefferson cou~t~. United states Department of Xnterior, USGS ouadranale Maps (map showing unconsolidated deposits grouped on the basis texture, port Townsend 30' x 60' quadrangle -map I-1198- D) . Washington state Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geoloaic Maps of Eastern Jefferson County. Washington state Department of Natural Resources, Geoaraphic Information Svstem: soil surve~. , of united States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 united states Census. 7.304 Reevaluation of Desianation criteria: The criteria used within this ordinance to designate critical aquifer recharge areas shall be formally reevaluated by the county for their continued accuracy if this ordinance remains in effect after December 31., 1995. ~2 .. . 7.305 critic~l Aauifer'Recharae Area Maps: The maps prepared by Jefferson county using the identification sources listed in subsection 7.303 have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this ordinance. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Acplicabilitv and Waivers 1.40 for 7.401 APDlicabilit~: critical area review shall onlY be required a triggering application involving one of tho following uses or activities for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated critical aquifer. r.echarge area: 36 . I. · . - ~ 'X I,' [, ,5.-::. - 1 ~"~:~~<(,;:li1;:'~;n 1; "I j w ~ I- o :z: V> :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U 20 w' tn:E:: VI:::> ' WU --' 0 e VI .....w :I: WI- ::<: <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t: :I: --' I- < :::> % 0" ..... w I- :I: % I- W :EO =>1- u 0.... e:::> e w :1:'" I- ..... ~!:: w ~ l5 % l \ .... .-. ""'~" 0 ):' J 1 ~. r '" b:. 1 ..' JF . . .. " J. 1. 2 3 4 2. 5 6 7 8 3. 9 10 11 '12 13 4. 14 15 5. 16 17 18 J.9 20 21 22 L 23 24 25 26 2. 27 ,28 29 30 3J. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The construction, or expansion of landfills and solid waste disposal facilities. The construction, expansion or repair (excluding emergency repair) of major energy transmission and ge~erating facilities, including pipelines and substations. The construction or expansion of industrial or commercial developments that, when completed, .wouJ.d handle or store hazardous substances or dangerous wastes, including fuel or chemical storage facilities. The construction or expansion of golf cour~es. SUbdivision development that would create parcel.s of less, than one gross acre in size. 7.402 Waivers: The provisions of this section shall not apply when the applicant demonstrates both of the following, to the satisfaction of the Administrator: There is adequate geologic information available for the pr.oject area to determine the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures, if any. The proposal would not cause significant adverse impacts on water quality or'quantity in the underJ.ying aquifer. 7.403 Waiver conditions: In order to secure compliance with subsection 7.402, above, the Administrator may require conditions of approval which ensure that the proposal will not degrade groundwater quality and quantity. conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to: upgrading available on-site spill response equipment; employee spill response training; emergency service coordination measures; and groundwater monitoring. 7.50 Protection standards subject to the provisions of real property containing a shall. adhere to the 7.501 General: A triggering application this section for a project on a parcel of designated critical aquifer recharge area requirements set forth below. 7.502 ~auifer Recharae ~rea Report: An appJ.icant submitting a triggering appJ.ication subject to this section shall also submit, have approved, an aquifer recharge area report, as specified in section 11 of this ordinance. and 37 . Cr ,~ f I, · . ....1 [' '~~- .;~~- ]- '] w u i= o :z: ~ :I: I- :z: < ::J: I- ex < Lr.J .: --' I- ' 020 VI~I VI :::> ~gi el VI ' ......~:, ~I-I cca.i EO! >-, U) 1-: ;: :;1 1-<' ;::;i5! .-~! .z t-i w ' xo g:i', C ::J; .....0, ::J: VI t-~i ... I- , ~......\ w ~ b z f' . . '" /.' '/ .. . .. " 1 7.60 Conditioris' 2 3 7.601 General :" in granting approval for a triggering application 4 subject to the provisions of this section, the Administrator may 5 require mitigating conditions that wiJ.J., in the Administrator's 6 judgment, secure the objectives of this section. 7 8 7.602 Basis for conditions: All conditions of approval required 9 pursuant to this section shaJ.l be based upon the recommendations of a 10 quaJ.ified professional, contained within an approved aquifer recharge :1.1 area report. conditions, of approval may i.nclude, but are not limited 12 to: upgrading available on-site spill response equipment; employee 13 spill response training; emergency servi.ce coordination measures; and 14 groundwater monitoring. ' 15 " . . .., , I. · . 38 I .32..~.IIl - '] ewr..mr~l$ 1 "f, w ~ I- o 20 VI ..... :z: I- z < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- UZ w V> :E V> :::> w(..) -10" C' VI .....w :I: WI- ~LL..! ex 0 ..... > VII- ;;:; 1-< :::>, ~ 0': w I- :I: Z I- W :EO ::> I- U 0.... c:::> c W :z: V> I- ..... .....1- ......... W ~ l5 Z I" ......,-,.'l~ o ,e .. :. " i', -. 1 - . . .. , , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1:1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 SECTION as FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Subseot~ons 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 Introduction Purpose Incorporation by Reference Relationship to other Regulations 8.:1.0 Introduction Frequently flooded areas in Jefferson County are areas subject to periodic inundation that results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditure for flood protection and re1ief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 8.20 purDose To protect the public from harm by regulating a11 development activities requiring issuance of a county permit that are proposed for location in a flood hazard area. The purpose of this ordinance section is, however, subordinate to the overall purpose of this ordinance as stated in 51.201. 8.30 Incorporation bv Reference The Jefferson county Interim critical Areas Ordinance hereby incorporates by reference the classification, designation and protection provisions contained in the Jefferson Countv Floodp~ Manaaement Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1-89) with the following addition: In addition to the insurance maps identified in the Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1-89), ,flood hazard areas shall be identified with reference to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain designations. Such flood hazard areas shall be subject to the criteria of the Floodplain Management ordinance. The Floodplain Management ordinance conforms with the intent of the Minimum Guidelines (~C 365-190-080(3)) through directly considering the efrects of flooding on human health and safety, together with effects on public facilities and servic&S, through its protection standards. 39 . -r.. 1:. ~, f I I I, ! r '. I, t' - . . :~ 2- I [ .. ]- . .. ., '] .',." ..,., ."" ,..,-......,.,,"',.', .~.-.-.,..,,~.,~ ~~,.' W u i= o 20 In ..... :I: I- :z: < :I: I- ex cc W -I d~' wi ~~! WU~ ;;: 81 --~: : ~I-i . ~~I V') ~: ..........1 ~~r :::>; ~O'i WI 1-:1: I ~""i :E 0 :::> I- u ow c:::> c W :I: V> I- ..... .....1- .....- 1 8.40 Rela:tj.onshio to other Reaulations 2 3 Whi1e the Jefferson county F100dplain Management ordinance requires 4 consi.stency with ,all other applicable 1a:ws, in the event that a 5 conflict should 'exist the stricter standard shall app1y to the 6 regulated development. 7 8 w ~ l5 z f'\ . . 40 .. .."'" .' . . " I ~-s'2)( . [ -- . - 1 ~.!:~r::tl~~ ~ ,.;;; W ~ I- 0 2: VI :I: 1 I- 2 20 < 3 :I: I- 4 ex 5 < W 6 --' l- e...> z 7 w 8 en:E i VI::::> ' 9 wu --' 0 c 10 VI .....w 11 :I: WI- 12 ::<: <..... 13 ex 0 ..... 14 > VII- 15 .......... :I: --' 16 1-< ::::> 17 :;0' 18 W I- :I: 19 ZI- W 20 :EO ::::> I- 21 e...> c:> w 22 c::::> W c 23 :>:: V> 24 I- ..... ~~ 25 26 , . 27 W 28 e...> i= 29 0 30 Z 31 32 33 34 35 ('\ 36 37 38 39 40 41 0 42 43 44 45 ~J'. 46 47 i: 48 . 49 50 51 L 52 ~ ,) I'II_~' J" . - . . .. , , SECTXON 9: GEOLOGXCALLY- HAZARDOUS AREAS subsections: 9.10 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 9.60 Introduction Purpose Classification/Designation Applicability and Waivers protection standards Conditions 9.10 Introduction Geologically hazardous areas in Jefferson county are characterized by slope, soil type, geologic material, and groundwater that may combine to create problems with slope stability, erosion, and water quality during and after construction or during ~atural events such as earthquakes or severe rainstorms. The following regulations will guide development in these -critical areas. ' 9.20 Purpose To maintain the natural integrity of geologically hazardous areas and ' their buffers in order to protect adjacent lands from the impacts of landslides, mudslides, subsidence, excessive erosion, and to safeguard Ii the public from these threats to life and property. The purpose of this ordinance section is, however, subordinate to the overall purpose of this ordinance as stated in 51.201. I 9.30 classification/Desian~ 9.301 Classification: For the purposes of this ordinance, geologically hazardous areas shall be classified based upon a combination of erosion, landslide and seismic hazard. 9.302 Desianation: The following erosion, landslide and seismic hazard areas shall be subject to the standards of this section: 1. ~rosion hazard areas: 2. a. Areas containing soils or soil complexes described and mapped within the United states Department of Agriculture/soil conservation Service soil survey for Jefferson Cou~ty a8 having a severe or vary severe erosion hazard potential: ~ndslide hazard areas: Araas potentiallY subject to mass movement due'to a combination of geologic, topographic and hydrologic factors including: 41 li/ill () - ~ " ':i::::.:<" '.. f;~ i \ ';" J I. · . .J I. 1..- 3:( ~ -. 'J ~m~:7.I.f.a ] w u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- :z: < :I: I- ex < w . --' l- e..> :z: V')~!~ V) :::>< We..> --' 0 c V> .....w ~i=: <..... exo ..... ' > V> I- .......... :I: -' I- <, ::> =0" w I- :I: ZI- w :EO Bl- ow c::> we :I: V') I- ..... ..... I- .......... w ~ I- o 20 ,'\ ....._.,~ o . .' 9.303 sources Used for Identification: Sources used to identify geologically hazardous areas include, but are not limited to: . - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2. 46 47 48 49 SO 4. 51 52 1. 3. . - . . .. , , a. Areas of historic failures or potentially unstable slopes, such as: ' (i) areas described and mapped as having severe or very severe building limitations for dwellings without basements within the united states Department of Agriculture/Soil conservation service soil Survev for Jefferson countv; areas described and mapped as recent or old landslides or slopes of unstable materials within the Washington state Department of Ecology ~oastal Zone Atlas of Jefferson count~; and areas described and mapped as areas of poor natural stability, former landslides and recent landslides by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources; (H) (Hi) b. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, or undercutting by wave action; and c. Areas with any indications of earth movement, such as: (i) (il) (iH) (iv) rockslides; earthflows; mudflows; and landslides. seismic hazard areas: Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a, result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These areas are identified by the presence of: poorly drained soils with greater than fifty percent (Sot) silt and very little coarse material; loose sand or gravel, peat, artificial fill and landslide materials; or soil units with high organic content. united states Department of Agriculture/soil conservation Service, ~oil surveY for Jefferson CountY-. Washington state Department of Ecology, ~oastal zone Atlas. Washington state Department of Natural Resources, al2RA atabilitv and Geoloaic Ma~s of Eastern Jefferson,Coun~. Washington state Department of Natural Resources, v8oaraohic Jnformation svstem: Soil ~urvev. 42 - .' . . . ') , [ .:SL · 1''''' , j ~;:l';,{41:("~~:1:1ij,~ "'~ , j w U l- e:> 20 VI ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: 1-, ex < w . --' I- U 20 W VI :E VI => We..:> --' 0 C VI .....w :I: ~I- <..... exo ..... > ~= :I: --' I- < => ;::;= w I- :I: ZI- w :e: 0 Bl- ow c:::> c w :I: V> I- ..... ~t:::; w e..:> i= o Z , , "'-- -- ~II- o · L. - f ii. 1 5. '2 3 4 5 6. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 J.. 33 34 35 36 37 2. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 . . .. , , Washington state Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Maps of Eastern Jefferson county, compressibilitv of Earth Materials in Eastern Jefferson Countv. united 'states Department of the xnterior, USGS Ouad Maps. 9.304 Geoloaic Hazard Area Maps: The maps prepared by the County using the identification sources listed in subsection 8.303 have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this ordinance. 1. critical area review s~all pe req~ired for any triggering application fo~ a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated erosion or landslide' hazard area, unless waived under subsection 9.402, below. 9.401 9.40 Applicabilitv and Waivers APplicabilitv: critical area review shall be required where a triggering application is made for construction of any publicly owned facility in a designated seismic hazard area. 9.402 Waivers: The provisions of this section shall not apply when the applicant demonstrates either one of the following, to the satisfaction of the Administrator: All building sites and project related improvements (inclUding any clearing or grading activity) will be located outside of any designated geOlogic hazard area or its buffer. There is adequate geOlogic information available for the project area to 'determine the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures, if any; and the proposal would not cause adverse geological impacts on or off the project cite. 9.403 waiver Condition~: In order to secure compliance with subsection 9.402, above, the Administrator may require conditions of approval which ensure that no portion of the proposed development will encroach upon a designated geOlogic hazard area or its buffer. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to: optional conservation easements; tho graphic portrayal of building envelopes and related improvements on the face of final short or long plats and binding site plans; drainage and erosion control plans; and notices to title. , .... i.. ,~ ' ( . 43 .,,- · :J) fj ,'.",,:::;,;;.;/;;, - 'i .' . . '"j' ,r" ",r., ! I I .. I rJ - ] i\:t!Id.i!CI.YJj!Jri~ ^j ,. w ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U20 W VI :E VI ::> WrJ --' 0 c, VI ' _W: :I: ' ~I- c:c La.. ; exo ..... > ~t; :I: --' ' 1-< ::> ;::;0" .-~l :z I- W :EO Bl- ew c:::> c W :I: V> I- ..... ~t; W ~ l5 z J"\ ......__..,~e.. o ,. . . - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2. 20 21 22 23 24 3. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 . . .. , , 9.50 protection standards ,.501 General:" A triggering application for a project on a parcel of real proper~y containing a designated geologically hazardous area or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below. 9.502 9.503 1. . Drainaae and Erosion control: An applicant sub~itting a triggering application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control p1an, as specified in section 11 of this ordinance, when the ~riggering application involves either of the following: a. The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or b. The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area. 'Drainage and erosion control plans required under this section shall discuss, evaluate and recommend. methods to minimize sedimentation of adjacent properties during and after construction. Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a marine bluff, landslide hazard or ravine. Xf drainage must be discharged from a bluff to adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the face of the bluff and directed to the water by tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the shoreline. Xn addition to any erosion control methods specified in the drainage and erosion control plan, the Administrator may reguir~ hydroseedinq of exposed or disturbed areas. Clearina and Gradinq: The following provisions regarding clearing shall apply: a. Clearing within geologically hazardous areas shall be allowed only from April 1 to November 1, . unless the applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection requirements herein. b. only that clearing necessary to install temporary sedimentation and erosion control measures shall occur prior to clearing for roadways or utilities; c. Clearing limits for roads, septic, water and stormwater utilities, and temporary erosion control facilities shall be marked in the field and approved by the Department prior to any alteration ot existing native vegetation; 44 (.. " 1,~ . f , . .' . . ',~ '~. :. I r - , C:: ::'i'il!;;:';': i';;,~'i W u i= o 20 VI ..... :I: I- :z: < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U20 W V) :E: VI ::::> WU --' 0 C V> .....W :I: wI- =<: <..... ex 0 ..... > VII- .......... ::c --' I- < :::> ;::;0 W ....::z::: 20 I- w :EO ::::> l- e..> OW c:::> c w :I: V> I- ..... ~t:; w ~ l5 z ! \ ,~. .. -:'..-- o . ~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1. 31 32 33 34 35 36 2. 37 38 39 40 3. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ~ II . .. , , d. Clear~ng for roads and utilities shall'remain within construction limits which must be marked in the' field prior to commencement of site work; and e. The authorized clearing for roads.and utilities shall the minimum necessary to accomplish project specific engineering designs and shall remain within approved rights-of-way. The following provisions regarding grading shall apply: be a. An applicant submitting a triggering application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in section 11 of this ordinance, when the triggering application involves either of the following: (i) The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area; (il) b. Excavation, grading and earthwork construction regulated under this section shall only be allowed from April 1 to November 1, unless the applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection requirements herein. 9.504 Veaetation Retention: The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply: i~" ~. l'~ r ~. ; --- . 9.505 hazard 1. Dltring clearing for roadways and utilities, all trees and understory lying outside of approved construction limits shall be retained: provided that understory damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned (see also, subsection 9.503(1)(c), above). Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing , activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained. Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such clearing is necessary to complete the pro~osal involved in the triggering application. Buffer Markina: The location of the outer extent of landslide area buffers shall be marked in the ,field as folloWS: A permanent physical separation along the boundary of the landslide hazard area shall be installed and permanentlY maintained. Such separation may consist of logs, a tree or hedge row, fencing, or other prominent physical marking approved by the Administrator. 45 c - r ! i I I i " I, I I I . . -.' ,t",. S r '" .. It , (';f.:.";:t:lfh~~:~',~'t w u i= o :z VI - :I: I- :z "'" :I: l- e<: "'" w . --' I- UZ: W V') :::E: i VI :::> wu --' 0 C VI _w :I: ~I- <..... e<: 0 ..... > VII- -..... ::r: --' I-- < :::> ~O" W I-- :I: ~I- ::E 0 ::> I- u OW c:::> we :I: en I-- ..... ~t:: w ~ 6 z ,', o . - - . . .. , , 1 2. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3. 9 10 11 4. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3!5 36 37 38 :39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 49 50 51 52 Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per parcel or everyone hundred (100) feet, which~ver is less. signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following,statement:. "Landslide Hazard Area &. Buffer _ Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native vegetation." A notice to title shall be recorded with the Auditor in a form approved by the prosecuting Attorney. In the case of short plat, long,plat and ,binding site plan approvals under the Jefferson county SUbdivision ordinance, No. 4-0526-92, as amended, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the landslide hazard area and its buffer. ~.506 Buffers _ standard Reauirements: The following landslide hazard area buffer provisions shall apply: Buffer areas shall be required to provide su~ficient separation between the landslide hazard area and the adjacent proposed project. 2. The appropriate width of the landslide hazard area shall be determined by either: application of the buffer width set forth beloW; or, an individual or meeting the criteria of subsection 11.702, below. buffer standard firm 3. Buffers shall remain naturally vegetated. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, replanting with native vegetation shall be required. Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition, however, minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views may be permitted by the Administrator on a case by case basis. All buffers shall be measured perpendicularly from the top, toe or edge of the landslide hazard area boundary. A standard buffer of thirty (30), feet shall be established from the top, toe and all edges of landslide hazard areas. 4. 5. 6. ?507 Reducina Buffer widths.: The Administrator may reduce the standard landslide hazard area buffer width specified in subsection 9.506.6, above, when the project applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the reduced buffer will adequatelY protoct the proposed project and the landslide hazard area. Under no circumstances shall the buffer width be reduced to less than ten (10) feet. 46 ~ .._~..ra . {. ',:' ..(~ i I I I ~' 'i I, . . ". ~~. I r ., ~ ,~ 1$ , IF ] t~?1~::J:S'~},:tJ:' '..1 w ~ I- o :z V> ::J: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w , --' I- '-' :z w, (I')~I' VI :::> wu --' 0 VIe .....w :I: ~I- <..... exo ..... > ~t: :I: --' I- < :::> ;::;0' w 1-:1: zl- W :EO Bl- ow c:::> c w :I: V> I- ..... ~t: w ~ l5 z t', o . I' ~ l.', t7 .... ~ ;;If - . . .. , , 9.508 Increasina Buffer widths: The Administrator may increase the standard landslide hazard area buffer ,width specified in, subsection 9.506.6, above, '.when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the proposed project and the landslide hazard area. This determination shall be made only when the Department, at its own expense, demonstrates anyone of the ,following through appropriate documentation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. 10 11 2. 12 13 14 15 3. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 The landslide hazard area is unstable and active. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe landslide or erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively protect the proposed project or the landslide hazard area. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover. 9.509 Geotechnical Report: An applicant submitting a triggering application shall submit, and have approved, a geotechnical report, as specified in section 11 of this ordinance, when the triggering application involves any of the following: a. The alteration of ~ landslide hazard area or its buffer; b. The creation of a new parcel within a known landslide hazard area. c. The construction of a publicly owned facility in a designated seismic hazard area. Where a geotechnical report is required for a landslide hazard area, the triggering application shall not be approved unless the geotechnical report certifies all of the following: ' a. There is minimal landslide hazard as proven by a lack of evidence of landslide activity in the vicinity in the past; b. An analysis of slope stability indicates that the proposal will not be subject to risk of landslide, or the proposal or the ,landslide hazard area can be modified so that hazards are eliminated; , c. The proposal will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; d. The proposal will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and e. All newly created building sites will be stable under normal geologic conditions (if applicable). Where a geotechnical is required for a seismic hazard area, the triggering application shall not be approved unless the geotechnical report deMonstrates that the proposed project will adpquatelY protect tho public safety. 1. 2. 3. 47 . 'I".-~ :~::,~, ,.(:,~ c i I I I' i I \ ';'" , I- . . ."~~ '? In .. ]- '] w ~ I- o % ~ :I: I- % < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U :z: v>~l ~~! --'01 (l')ci-,r ....w' :::c: l' ~.....: ~. CClL..i.' exo, .....>1, V) I-- i ;;~i! t-~i . Z 0"1 ::~; ~I-! " :EO: Bt-; ow! ~Si :r.: VI t--: l.L. 1--1 ~""'i w u ..... l5 :z: r'\ '---.,-", i . . .. - . . .. 1 9.60 conditions 2 3 9.601 General.:" In granting approval for a triggering application 4 subject to the provisions of this section, the Administrator may 5 require mitigating conditions that will, in the Administrator's 6 jUdgment, sUbstantially secure the objectives of this section. 7 8 9.602 Basis for Conditions: All conditions of approval required 9 pursuant to this section shall be ~ased upon either the su~stantive 10 requirements of this section or the recommendations of a qualified 11 professional, contained within a spec~al report required under this 12 section. 13 48 ~. .. . . Ci2, ,:I(.lr - ] <l.li."C, J W u i= o :z: V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U 20 w, ~5j wu --' 0 c VI ' .....w :I: WI- =<: <..... ex 0 ..... > ~!:: :I: --' I- < :::> ;::;0" w: 1-:1: ' ZI- W :EO :::>1- u OW c:::> Q LLl :I: VI I- ..... ~~ w ~ l5 Z .('\ .... .. .~.- 0 ~, j;; .., .~;. . .:.; 'I --.... - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.4 15 :1.6 17 18 :1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2. 46 47 48 49 50 . . .. , , SECTXON 10: FXSH AND WXLDLXFE HABLTAT AREAS subsections: 10.10 10.20 10.30 10.40 10.50 10.60 Introduction Purpose Classification/Designation Applicability and waivers Protection standards Conditions 10.10 Introduction Fish and wildlife habitat areas in Jefferson county are areas that are critical to the preservation of specifically identified species. The following regulation~ will guide development in these critical areas. 10.20 Purpose To protect and conserve the habitat of specific fish and wildlife species and shellfish, thereby maintaining or increasing their populations in Jefferson county. The purpose of this ordinance section is, however, subordinate to the overall purpose of this ordinance as stated in 51.201. 10.30 Classification/Desianation 10.301 Classification: For the purposes of this ordinance, fish,and wildlife habitat areas shall be classified based upon their association with priority species, as listed by the Washington state Department of wildlife. 10.302 Desianation: ,The following areas shall be subject to the standards of this section: 1. ~ft 1 ( . ---- A11 seasonal ranges and ha~itat elements with which Federal and state-listed ~ndangered, threatened and sensitive species have a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. All seasonal ranges and habitat elements with which state- listed cand~,date and.. monitor species or priority game and nongame species have a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce ove~, the long term. 49 -- , <,;. '::ii .1':o,:.,~-: :..,. f.:) L' i r I, f , . .' . . ~?,I[] .. ] C&(.1~);:i:;t~ '''1 J W u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- % cC :x: I- ex cC W . --' I- UZ W VI :E: VI :::> WU --'0 C VI .....W :I: WI- :E: cC..... exo, ..... >- VII- .......... :x: --' I-cC, => ' ;::;0" ....~: ZI- W ::E 0 => I- U OW Q:::> C W :I: V'> I- ..... .....1- -......: W ~ l5 % ,', ~. ....;:- o . - 1 3. 2 3 4 5 6 4. 7 8 9 10 11 12 1- 13 14 15 2 . 16 17 18 3 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 2. 45 46 47 48 49 50 . . ~ All habitats with which species of 10cal importance have a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. Those waters that meet the criteria for type 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 waters as set forth in Chapter 222-16-030 WAC. 10.303 Sources Used for Identificat;on: Sources used to identify fish and wildlife habitat areas include, but are not limited to: united States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife service, National Wetlands Inventorv. Washington state Department of Natural Resources, Water Tvpe Index Maps. washington state Department, of Wildlife, Non-Game and prioritv Habitats and species Data Bases. 10.304 Fish and wildlife Habitat Area Maps: The maps prepared by the county using the identification sources listed in subsection 10.303 have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this ordinance. 10.40 APplicabilitv and waivers 10.401 APplicabilit~: Critical area review shall be required for any triggering application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated fish and wildlife habitat area, unless waived under subsection 10.402, below. 10.402 waivers: The provisions of this section shall not apply when the applicant demonstrates both of the following, to the satisfaction of the Administrator: 1. ~ . All building sites and project related improvements (including any clearing or grading aotivity) will be located outside of any streamside buffers and away from criticallY important plants and trees. There is adequate information available for the project area to determine the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures, if any; and the proposal would not cause adverse impaots to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. 50 T 'c:' -.,;:, !',;(I,",iii.,.(0.t " " .' . . '," 1[",', :.;? " - ,t ~:2,~:;:.<:,"':::>:i, W u i= o 20 V> - :I: I- 20 <( :I: I- ex <( W . --' I- U 20 W V> :E V> => WU --'0 C V> _W :I: WI- =<: <..... ex 0 ..... >- ~t: :I: --' I- < => =0" W I- :I: Z I- W :E 0 :::> I- U OW Q => C W :I: V> I- ..... ~~ W ~ l5 :z , , 0 .' " t. . {. - r - - . . .. . , 10.403 Waiver conditions: In order to secure compliance with subsection 10.402, above, ~e Administrator may require conditions of approval which ensure that no portion of the proposed development will encroach upon criti.cally important plants and trees or streamside buffers. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to: the graphic portrayal of building envelopes and related improvements on the face of final short or long plats and binding site plans; seasonal restriction of construction activities; and optional conservation easements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 1.8 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 2. 40 41 42 43 44 3. 45 46 47 48 49 50 10.501 of real area or below. 1.0.50 protection standards General: A triggering application for a project on a parcel property containing a designated fish and wildlife habitat a streamside buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth 10.502 Habitat Manaoement Plan: An applicant submitting'a triggering application shall also submit, and have approved, a habitat management plan, as specified in section 1.1 of this ordinance. The habitat management plan shall identify how development impacts from the proposed project will be mitigated. 10.503 ... l Drainaae and Erosion control: An applicant submitting a triggering application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan, as specified in section ~1 of this ordinance, when the triggering application proposes one hundred (100) cubic yards or more of excavating or grading and involves either of the following: a. The alteration of a fish and wildlife habitat area or its buffer; or b. The creation of a new parcel within a known fish and wildlife habitat area. Drainage and erosion control plans required under this section shall discuss, evaluate ~nd recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of adjacent properties during and after construction. Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a marine bluff, landslide hazard or ravine. If drainage must be discharged from a bluff to adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the ~ace o~ the bluff and directed to the water by tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the shoreline. 51 ~ . c ". () .~ I , I ! I I I . I '.., ; - I, · . , , ..",~ " r" ,i ..., ' f! I : III 'f \i1i'''''''l''tiJ~'t?;J ,( -.."" .,",., "'1 I w ~ I- o :z: ~ :I: I- :z: < :I: I- ex <C w , --' I- uz w V> :E V> :::> wu --' 0 VlCl .....W :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > ~!:: :I: --' I- < :::>' ;::;0" w I- :I: Z I- w :;:0 => I- U ow c:::> Cl w :I: V> I- ..... ~t:;. w u i5 z J"'~ o . I '. )it" - . . .. . , 1 4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. 12 ~3 14 15 ~6 17 18 19 20 ~. 21 22 23 24 25 2. 26 27 28 29 30 3~ 32 33. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 2. 44 45 .' 46 47 48 49 50 3. 51 52 In addition to any erosion control methods specified in the drainage and erosion control plan, the Administrator may require hydroseeding of ~xposed or disturbed areas. iO.504 Gradina: An applicant submitting a triggering application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in 'section 11 of this ordinance, when the project proposes one hundred (100) cubic yards or more of grading and involves either of the following: 2. The alteration of a fish and wildlife habitat area or its buffer. The creation of a new parcel within .a known fish and wildlife habitat area. ~0.505 veaetation Retention: The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply: ~O.506 Buffer Markinq: Upon approval of the habitat management plan, the location of the outer extent of required streamside buffers shall be marked in the field as follows: 3. 1. All trees and understory lying outside of road rights of way and utility easements shall be retained during clearing for roadways and utilities: Provided that understory damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned. Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained. Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such clearing is necessary to complete the proposal involved in the triggering application. A permanent physical separation along the boundary of the streamside buffer area shall be installed and permanently maintained. Such separation may consist of logs, a tree or hedge row, or other prominent physical marking approved by the Administrator. Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per parcel or everyone hundred (100) feet, whichever is less. signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: "streamside Buffer - Do Not Remove or Alter Existinq Native Vegetation." A notice to title shall be recorded with the Auditor in a form approved by the Prosecuting Attorney (A copy of which has been attached to this Ordinance as Appendix B). 52 ( . f) ; , . .:;z: I~. "Ii" i... f21) i I ,! ! ! I I j I I i i ! I I I ~ I :1 '';'' J I, . . .,1"""'" I r .". .'. , - ]-- J W u i= o Z ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . --' l- t...> :z: W VI :E VI => WU --' 0 c VI .....W, :I: ' w..-: ' ~ LL.' : exo ' ..... > ~!:: ::r --' 1-< => ;:; C" I J-~i ZI- W :EO => l- t...> OW c=> c W :I: '" I- .....' ~!:; w ~ l5 Z ,'\ 0 ~'" . i.., ~ .. 1 4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. 18 19 20 21 2. 22 23 24 25 26 3. 27 28 29 30 4. 31 32 33 34 5. 35 36 37 38 6. 39 40 41 5. .. ~: . - . . .. " In the cas~, of short p~at, long plat and binding ~ite plan approvals under the Je~~erson county Subd~v~s~on ordinanoe, No. 4~0526,'92, as amended, the applicant sha~l include on the face of any 6uch instrument the boundary of the streamside l'uffer area. ' The app~icant may also choose to dedicate the buffer through a conservation easement or deed restriction that shall be recorded with the Jefferson county Auditor. Such easements or restrictions shall, however, use the forms approved by the Prosecuting Attorney that are included as Appendices C and D of this ordinance. 10.507 Buffers - standard Requirements: buffer provisions shall apply: The following streamside Buffer areas shall be required to provide sufficient separation between thed~~ig~ated stream and the adjacent proposed project. The appropriate width of the streamside buffer area shal~ determined by either: application of the standard buffer widths set forth below; or, an individual or firm meeting the criteria of subsection 11.902, below. Buffers shall remain naturally vegetated. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, replanting' with native vegetation shall be required. Buffers sha~l be ret.ained in their natura~ condition, however, lIIinor pruning of vegetation to enhance views may be permitted by the Administrator on a case by case basis. be r All buffers shall be measured perpendicular~y from the ordinary high water mark, or the top of the bank where the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified. streams with adjacent riparian wetland habitats shall be subject to the buffer widths which apply to their wetland class or the standard streamside buffer widths set forth be~ow, whichever is more restrictive. 53 I, · . .. ';""1 X, I [.... ".,' J!.. - w u i= o 20 ~ :I: I- :z ocC :I: I- ex ocC w . --' I- U 20 W VI =<: VI :::> wu --' 0 VIe .....w :I: ~I- <..... exo ..... >- VII- .......... :I: --' 1-< :::> :::;0" w I- :I: ZI- W :EO => I- U ow c=> c W :I: V> I- ..... ~t::; w u i= o Z l'\ o . }0.508 Reducina Buffer widths: The Administrator may reduce the standard streamside buffer widths specified in subsection 10.507.7, above, when the project applicant demonstrates both of the following to the satisfaction of the Administrator: 10.509 rncreasina Buffer widths: The Administrator may increase the standard streamside buffer widths specified in subsection 10.507.7, above, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect habitat functions and values based on local conditions. This determination shall be made only when the Department, at its own expense, demonstrates any one of the following through appropriate documentation: ,7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4 1 ].. 42 43 44 2. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 1. i " . - ~he following standard streamside buffer widths shall be app1ied to each side of the stream: Buffer widths ptream TvneL Hiah Intensity LoW Intensitv p.veraae width Land Uses Land Uses Type 1 & 2 100 feet 100 feet Type 3 50 feet 25 feet Type 4 25 'feet 15 feet Type 5 15 feet 15 feet (Note: stream type shall be determined using the criteria set forth in Chapter 222-16-030 WAC). standard streamside buffer width averaging as set forth in subsection 10.510, below, is unfeasible. The project application includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation which substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the habitat to provide additional protection for functions and values. Under no circumstances shall buffer widths be reduced by more than twenty-five (25) percent. A larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable popUlations of existing species of anadromouS or salmonid fish. The habitat area is used by species listed by the Washington state Department of wildlife as endangered, threatened, or sensitive, or has documented priority species or habitats or essential or outstanding potential habit:at for those species, or has unusual nesting or resting sites (e.g., heron rookeries and raptor nesting trees). 54 (, . {' 'J i ~ .~ i 'j, ~ I. · . ~-'~ t r .... ]- ] w u i= o % ~ :I: I- % < :I: I- ex "" w . --' I- U% ~~i: wu --'0 VlQ .....W :I: ~I-; <..... exo ..... >- VII- .....- :I: --' 1-< :::> :!;O" .-~; ZI- w EO' Bl- ow c:::> c w :1:11I 1-- ~t: w u 15 % ," "'~'-r~ 0 ~ . ~ .. :0.... i. - . . .. " 1 3. 2 3 4 5 4. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. 19 20 21 22 3. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 The adjacent land is susceptible to severe landslide or erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse habitat and water quality impacts. . The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slope~ greater than 'forty-five (45) percent. 10.510 Averaaina Buffer widths: The Administrator may modify the standard streamside buffer widths specified in subsection 10.507.7, above, by averaging. Buffer width averaging shall be allowed only when an individual or firm meeting the criteria of subsection 3.1.902, below, demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the Administrator: 1. Width averaging will not adversely impact the functional values of the designated stream. The total area contained within the streamside buffer after averaging 'is not less than that contained within' the standard buffer prior to,averaging. The standard buffer width has not been reduced by more than fifty (50) percent or to less than twenty-five (25) feet. 10.60 conditions ~: In granting approval for a triggering application subject to the provisions of this section, the Administrator may require mitigating conditions that will, in the Administrator's judgment, SUbstantially secure the objectives of this section. 10.602 Basis for conditipns: All conditions of. approval required pursuant to this section shall be based upon either the substantive requirements of this section or the recommendations of a qualified professional, contained within a special report required under this section. 5S . ~'" ( . " I, · . .. :~ 2 x I [ .. ] $"~r'.Jtiu) ..~ , W u i= o 20 VI ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex "" W . --' I- UZ w' ~~! WU --'0 C V> .....W :I: WI- :E <..... exo ..... ,... VII- .......... :1:--' I- < :::> ;::;0" W: I- :I: 20 I- W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> c W :I: V> 1-- ..... I- ..........' W ~ l5 :z: ,'\ '-,~.~_.... o . .. ~ -;__;r- - -- . . .. , , .." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 11- 12 13 14 15 16 3.7 3.8 19 20 23. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 SECTXON 11: SPECIAL REPORTS subsections: 3.1.3.0 ~1.20 3.1. 30 ~1.40 ~1.50 3.1. 60 3.1.70 3.1. 80 ~1.90 3.1.100 Waivers General Contents consultants Responsibility Aquifer Recharge Area Report Drainage and Erosion control Plan Geotechnical Report Grading Plan Habitat Management Plan Wetland Delineation Report 11.10 waivers The Administrator ?hall waive the requirement for a special report when an applicant demonstrates all of the following: 3.. The proposal involved in the triggering application will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes and objectives of this ordinance. 2. The minimum protection standards required by this ordinance are satisfied. 11.20 General content~ 1Jl~01 Scale Map and Written Report: special reports for critical areas shall include a scale map of the development proposal site and a written report. 11.202 Imoacts Assessment: The special report shall identify and characterize any critical area as a part of the larger development proposal site, assess impacts of the development proposal on any critical areas on or adjacent to the development proposal site, and assess the impacts of any alteration proposed for a critical area. 11.203 protection Mechanisms: The special report shall propose adequate protection mechanisms that may include mitigation, maintenance and monitoring plans, and performance surety. 11.204 PreDarer _ Proof of Oualifications: special reports shall include documentation certifying the qualifications of the preparer. 56 (.1 ;i""., t]) " 1';;I),,'4,:f - . 'J ,', , . I. · . ,"~..'2 '~ I [j .. W ~ I- o 20 V> ..... :I: I- Z < :I: I- ex <C W . --' I- UZ W V> :E V> :::> wu --' 0 c VI .....W :I: WI- =<: <..... exo ..... > VII- .......... :I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0' W I- :I: ZI- W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> c W :I: VI 1-..... ..... I- .......... W u i= o Z I' - o . ~ . - - . . .. " , , 1 11.30 consultants 2 3 11.301 Retainina consultants: Jefferson county may retain 4 consultants to 'assist ,in the review of special reports outside the 5 range of staff expertise. Jefferson county shall pay for the costs of 6 retaining said consultants. 7 8 11.40 Responsibilitv 9 10 11.401 General: All special reports shall be the responsibility of 11 the applicant, including payment of costs incurred for report 12 preparation. 13 14 3.1.402 Determinina Accuracv & sufficiencv: The Administrator shall 15 verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all special reports within ten 16 (10) working days of their receipt. This review period may be 17 extended only when dry conditions prevent the confirmation of a 18 wetland delineation and the applicant consents to. th~ .extension. 19 20 3. .403 Nonacce tance 0 naccU ate or Insu fic.ent Re rts: If the 21 Administrator finds that a special report does not accurately reflect 22 site conditions, or does not incorporate appropriate protection 23 mechanisms, the Administrator shall issue a report within twenty (20) 24 days of receiving the applicant's special report citing evidence 25 (e.g., soil samples, well log data, etc.) that demonstrates where the 26 special report is insufficient or in error. The applicant may then 27 either revise the special report and submit another special report, or' 28 appeal the administrative determination pursuant to subsection 5.404, 29 above. 30 31 32 3.1.50 Aapifer Recharae Area Report 33 34 11.501 General: This report shall identify the risks associated with 35 the proposal that will potentiallY degrade the groundwater beneath the 36 site, and shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding 37 conditions of approval intended to maintain the quality of 38 groundwater. 39 40 11.502 oualifications of the Preparer: Aquifer recharge area reports 41 shall be prepared by either a licensed professional engineer or 42 geologist qualified to analyze hydrogeological information and 43 systems. 44 45 11.503 Information Reauiremonts: 46 47 1. A description of the hydrogeologic setting of the aquifer 48 region, based upon readily available data, including: 49 a. site location, topography and surface water bodies; 50 b. soils and geologic units underlying the site, 51 c. Groundwater characteristics of the area, including flow 52 direction and gradient, and groundwater quality; and 57 t';; ~' ,... If . .' ~..-...- - .) ( , $ iii I, · . ~ r] - , j "0':.;,,""0", w ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: 0- :z < :I: I- "" < w . --' I- e..> 20 W, V') ::E i VI:::> ' .....U --' 0 VIe .....w :I: ~I- <..... exo lL. > VII- -..... ::t: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w I- :I: ZI- ..... :EO Bl- ow c:::> c w ::t: V> 1-- ~!:; ..... e..> i= o 7- 1'\ o . . - 1, 2 3 4 2. 5 6 7 3. 8 9 10 11 4. :1.2 13 14 5. , 15 16 17 18 19 6. 20 21 22 23 7. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 _ n ~,_ '- - . . .. , , d. The location and characteristics of wells and springs within one thousand (1,000) feet of the site. An evaluation of the existing groundwater recharge potential of the site. A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon area groundwater quality over a two to five year period. A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon on-site groundwater recharge. A discussion and evaluation that details: available on- site spill response equipment; employee spill response training; appropriate exposure minimization techniques; and appropriate emergency service coordination measures. Recommended best management practices (BMP's) to minimize expos,ure of permeable surfaces to potential p911utants and to prevent degradation of groundwater quality and quantity. Recommended groundwater monitoring measures. }l. 60 Drainaoe and Erosion control plan ~1.601 General: This plan shall addresS best management practices which are physical, structural or managerial practices, that when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce pollution of water. 3.1.602 Qualifications of the Preoare~: Drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. 11.603 Ynformation ReayJrement~: The design standards and information requirements for submission of drainage and erosion control plans shall be established by the Department of public Works. j.l. 70 Geotechnical Report 11.701 General: This report shall include a description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposal, and opinions and recommendations on the suitability of the site to be developed. 11.702 Qualifications of the preoarer: Geotechnioal reports shall prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer, a professional geOlogist, or a licensod professional engineer knowledgeable in regional. geOlogic conditions with professional experience in landslide, erosion, or seismic hazard evaluation. 58 . c> .(~ 1 be r '1 .' . . "'j""i I r ., ' , IF '] a:!~,(i.'2~r~:2d' w U I- o z V> :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U 20 w ~5! wu . --' 0 c VI _w :I: ~..- <..... ex 0 ..... > ~= :I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w I- :I: ZI- w :EO Bl- ow c:::> c w :I: V> I- ..... ~!:: w u i3 Z r' "- '~.~....... o o . . - 11.703 1;;, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2. 12 13 14 15 16 3.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 1. 37 38 2. 39 40 41 3. 42 43 44 45 4. 46 47 48 49 50 1. 3. 4. . . .. " Information Requirements: A description of the geologic setting of the region, based upon readily avail:~ble data, including: a. site location and topography; b. Soils and geologic units under1ying c. The location and characteristics of thousand (1,000) fee of the site. the site; and springs within one An evaluation of the potential landslide and erosion hazards on the site. A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon existing geological hazards. Recommendations on appropriate protection mechanisms, if necessary, to minimize the risk of erosion or landslide. 11. 80 Gradinq Plan 3.1.803. General: This plan shall project including the,movement of proposed and existing contours of thereof. identify the proposed development material on-site, along with the the site, and cross sections 13..802 Qualifications of the Preparer: Grading plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or an individual with at least three years of experience in the preparation of grading plans who is knowledgeable of soil conditions and geology in Jefferson' County. 11. 803 r: l& ... l Information Reauirements: A description of the general vicinity of the proposed site. The property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area 'drainage. Limiting dimensions, elevations of finish contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage channels and related construction. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work together with a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the area served by any drains. 59 ~ . c. .t~ .'~.. .~-- I \ \ I ',; t - .' . . ,,' ,I r - ] (':;~~;i1l$'.1ZfJ:.:!.n -. W ~ I- o 20 V> ..... :I: I- Z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- '..>z w VI :EI VI::::> ' Wt..> --' 0 C VI .....W :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > V> I- .......... :I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w ~::I:; ZI- W :EO ::::> l- t..> OW c::::> C W :I: V> I- - ~t:; W u i= o Z f" .. o . . - - 1 5. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 7. 3.1 12 3.3 3.4 15 3.6 3.7 ~8 3.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 2. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 6. . . .. " The location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any build~ngs or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within fifteen (15) feet of the property or which may be affected by proposed grading operations. A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed grading upon designated critical areas. Recommendations on appropriate protection mechanisms, if necessary, to prevent 4egradation of designated critical areas and to ensure public safety. ~L90 Habitat Manaaement Plan 11.901 General: This report shall identify how the development impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated. The Washington Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and sDecies Manaaement Recommendations shall be the basis for this report. 11.902 Oualifications of the PreDarer: Habitat management plans shall be prepared by persons who are educated in the field of biology and who currently derive, or who previously have derived, their livelihood from employment as wildlife biologists, habitat management consultants, or botanists. .J"L903 ~ ..._..L-'-- . Information Reauirements: A map(s) prepared at an easily re~dable scale, including the following information: a. The locat~on of the proposed development site, including property limits; b. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and cultural features; c. The nature and density of the proposed development or land use change; d. proposed building locations and arrangements; and e. The boundaries of forested areas. A legend that includes the following information: a. A complete and accurate legal description as prescribed by the triggering application form (the description shall include the total acreage of the parcel); b. Title, scale and north arrows; c. Date, including revision dates, if applicable; and d. Certificates by a professional biologist as appropriate. 60 (" " ~..'.c,~ bt'b. \ 1 1 i 1 'J ;j , [ I . :j ;;f ,.~ J I, · . '., :) I IU - J 1~~'2i:;.;~:n "I j w u i= o 20 V> - ::J: I- ::z: < ::J: I- ex < w , --' I- U20 Wi; en:E ! V):::;) j WU --' 0 C VI .....W :I: ~I- <..... C<O ..... >- VII- .....- ::J:--' 1-< :::> ;::;0" w I- :I: 20 I- w :EO ::> I- U OW c:::> c w ::J: Vl I- ..... ~~ w ~ l5 % f" . - 3. 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13. 12 13 14 15 16 4. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 - . . ~ , , A report that contains the following information: a. A description of the nature, density and intensity of the 'proposed development in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon identified wildlife habitat; b. The applicant's analysis of the effect of the proposed development, activity or land use change upon the wildlife species identified by the washington Department of wildlife within the identified priority habitat, utilizing the management guidelines; c. A plan by the applicant that shall explain how any adverse impacts created by the development will be mitigated. possible mitigating measures that may include, but are not limited to: 3. Establishment of buffer zones; b. Preservation of critically important plant~ and trees; c. Limitation of access to habitat area; d. seasonal restriction of construction activities; and e. Establishing a timetable for periodic review of the plan. 11.100 Wetland Delineation Report 13..1001 General: This report shall be required when a proposed' development encroaches upon a designated wetland or its buffer, and shall be used to identify the boundaries of the designated wetland. 11.3.002 Qualifications of the Preparer: Wetland delineation reports shall be prepared by either a biologist with wetlands expertise, or an individual or firm who has been certified by the United states Army corps of Engineers, Region 10, to perform wetland delineations. 11.1003 1. 2. .' ."'".,...~- Information Reouirements: A m3p(S) prepared at an easily readable scale, including the following information: a. Wetland boundaries; b. Sample site and sample transects; c. Boundaries of forested areas; and d. Boundaries of wetland classes if multiple classes exist. A legend that includes the following information: a. A complete and accurate legal description as prescribed by the triggering application form (the description shall include the total acreage of the parcel) ; b. Title, scale and north arrows; 61 - {) ~ct .';':!L;<(. '.. l]J 't' . I, · . i I I ',; ,7- I rj I ]-- J W U i= o :z: V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . d~,l ~~j' WU' -10: C' ~La.Ji :I:! ~t-i CL.l..! e: 01 >' V') f- ! _~i' :z:: -J! I- "", :::>' :z: 0": ::~! . % I- W :E 0 =>1- U QW CIS' W :I: V> 1-..... , ~t: W ~ l5 % /'\ '-'._'~ . . ... .- 1 2 3 4 3. 5 6 ,7 8 9 3.0 3.1 12 13 14 15 3.6 17 18 . - . . .. , , -.-;.-.~-;';:'::.":- c. Date, including revision dates, if applicable; and d. certificates by a professional biologist as appropriate. A report that contains the fo11owing information: a. A discussion of the delineation methods and results, with special emphasis on technique used from the Corps of Engineers wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report No. Y-87-3. ; b. A description of relevant site information acquired from the National Wetland InventorY maps and the soil Survev for Jefferson County; c. The acreage of each wetland on the site, based on the survey, if the acreage will i~pact the buffer size determination or the project design; and d. All completed field data sheets numbered to correspond to each sample site. 62 , . .' . . :32:" In ..... '1 (j";;(~'!i:iit~.""",, I ", ~,,',d w u i= o 20 V> :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex <C w . --' I- U% W ~~i wu --'0 c V> .....w :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~!:; :1:--' 1-< :::> ;::;0" W I- :I: % I- W :EO :::> I- U 0''''' c:::> c w :l:V'l 1-- ~~ w u i= o % J" o . . r' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 i:: 46 47 f 48 fi.: 49 50 51 r 52 - \ io. ~ L ."=- - -" . . .. " BECTXON 12: REASONABLE ECONOHXC USE VARXANCE subsections: 12.10 12.20 12.30 12.40 Application Notice ' Findings Conditions 12.10 APP1ication 1. If an applicant for critical area review demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Hearing Examiner that application of the standards of this ordinance would prec~ude reasonable economic use of the parcel, a variance to such standards may be permitted if the applicant demonstrates, and the Hearing Examiner finds, that the application meets, all of t~e criteria set forth in subsection 3.2.30 below. 2. variance applications shall be submitted prior to any public hearing required by the ordinance governing the triggering application, and shall be submitted in writing on forms provided by the Department, together with the triggering application and all critical areas information requirements, where feasible. 12.20 Notice Notice of a reasonable economic use variance request shall be given in conjunction with the notice required for the tri.ggering application: provided, that if the triggering application does not require a public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall conduct a 'pUblic hearing on the variance request. consistent with the Jefferson county Hearing Examiner ordinance, No. 1-0318-91, decisions of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed to the Board (see subsection 3.2.1 of ordinance' no. 1-0318-93.). When the triggering application does not require a public hearing, the following notice shall be provided: 1. The Department shall arrange for at least one publication of the notice of hearing to appear in a newspaper of general circulation within the county at least ten (10) days before the hearing. payment of all publication fees shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The Department shall send notice to adjacent property owners advisJ.ng them of the hearing. The not-ice shall be mailed to the owners of record of all property lying within three hundred (300) feet of the property a~ issue, at least ten 63 2. ..-- '{i .~ ,,', t I, · . ,? · I rl w '~ J "'!i~~.w;;.t:t'~tI " ;, w u i= o % ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex ""' w . --' I- U 20 W' V>:E 1 V') :;:) : WU --' 0 c V> .....w :I: ~I- <..... ex 0 ..... > ~= :1:--' I- < :::> ;::;0" w, 1-:1: ' ZI- w :E 0 =>1- u OW c:::> c w :I: V> 1-- ~t:; w ~ l5 % ," ...- -.-:.- o . - 1 2 3 4 5 3. 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 3.6 17 18 4. 19 20 23. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 3. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 . . .. , , (10) days before the public hearing. Names and addresses of adjacent property owners shall be provided to the Department by th~ applicant, subject to Department approval. The Department shall provide the applicant with at least five copies of the hearing notice, and one copy of an affidavit of posting. The applicant shall post the notices and maintain them in place for at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, not including the day of posting or the day of the hearing. The notices shall be placed in conspicuous locations on or near the property and shall be removed by the applicant after the hearing. Notices shall be mounted on easily visible boards that meet, Department requirements. The affidavit of posting shall be signed, notarized, and returned to the Department at least seven days prior to the hearing. All hearing notices shall include a ~egal description of the property involved, and a concise description of the variance requested in nonlegal language. 12.30 Findinqs A reasonable economic use variance may be granted only when the Hearing Examiner finds that the application meets all of the following criteria: 3.. 4. No reasonable economic use with less impact on the critical ,area or its buffer is possible. There is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to' critical areas or critical area buffers. Feasible on-site alternatives shall include, but are not limited to: reduction in density; phasing of project implementation; change in timing of activities; and revision of road or parcel layout or related site planning considerations. . ' The proposed variance will result in the minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the critical areas functional characteristics and existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions. Disturbance of critical areas has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration in critical area buffers to tho extent possible. 64 -V7~ ~ . - ',\',(','; ",~ r 2l. 6, }; -1 ~ ~ 1 1 I ! \ i' I ~ ~ 'I' . , . I, · . ".;, .2.. I r - . - - . ]-- . .. " ] 1 w u !5 :z VI ..... ::t: I- Z < ::t: I- ex < w . --' t- U20 ..... VI~ VI :::> wu --'0 c VI .....W :I: ~t-l , < t.r..: '" 0' ..... , > VII- ..........' i=~1 :::> :; O"! t-~i ZI- w ~;=i U ow c:::> o w ::c VI t- ......i ~~ w u !5 Z ,'\ .....,..,~,..., . , . l .. 1 5. 2 3 4 5 6 6. 7 8 9 7. 3.0 11 12 13 3.4 15 8. 16 3.7 18 3.9 9. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3.. 28 29 30 3i 32 33 2. 34' 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 .:..:.' j.. l . The proposed variance will not jeopardize the continued existence of any species of wildlife listed as endangered, threa~ened or sensi~ive by the Washington state Department of Wildlife. The proposed variance will not cause degradation to surface or ground water quality. The proposed variance cc~plies with all Federal, state and local statutory and common law, including statutory laws re1ated to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on site wastewater disposal, and common law relating to property and nuisance. There will be no material damage to nearby public or private property and no material threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property. The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in zcgragating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this ordinance. 12.40 Conditions Xn granting approval for reasonaple economic use variances, the Hearing Examiner may require mitigating conditions that will, in the Examiner's judgment, SUbstantially secure the objectives of the ordinance standards or requirements so varIed. Xn granting approval for reasonable economic use variances involving designated wetlands, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following mitigating conditions: a. provision of a mitigation plan demonstrating how the applicant intends to substantia11y restore the site to predevelopment conditions fo11owing project completion; and b. The restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's actions; the overall goal of any restoration, creation or enhancement project shall be no net loss of wetlands function and acreage. 65 -' , . I. · . ,".(?)(Ir .. ]~ ~! I -, W ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: I- % cC :<: I- ex cC W . --' l- e..> 20 W VI =<: VI :::> we..> ~o c VI .....W :I: WI- ~l..L. ex 0 ..... > VII- .......... %-11 I-cC, ==-: : =01 W ~ I- o % ,,"\ o . . - - . . .. " 1 '2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 3.2 13 14 15 1- 16 3.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 M 35 36 37 2. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 SECTiON 13: LEGAL PROVXBXONS subsections: \. . .".-- 13.10 13.20 13.30 13.40 13.50 2. 1. violations Remedies Severability Effective Date Adoption 13.10 Violations No triggering application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated critical area or its buffer shall be approved until critical areas review has been approved as provided in this ordinance. Any owner, or agent of the owner of such land who initiates any development activity related to a triggering application prior to critical area review shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Whenever the use of a parcel of real property containing a designated critical area or its buffer subject to this ordinance violates any term or condition of critical areas review, then the prosecuting Attorney may commence an action to restrain and enjoin such use arid compel compliance with the conditions of approval. 13.20 Remedies Jefferson County prosecutina Attornev: Toe prosecuting Attorney shall have access to all remedies provided in this ordinance . Gene.ral Penal tv: In addition to incurring civil liability as identified above, any person found to have wilfully engaged in activities in designated critical areas in , violation of the provisions of this section, or any other ordinance where permit application or approval requires critical area determination and review, shall be punished by a fine of not les~ than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation continues to exist. 66 .. ,i',,? - .~ ,(; ..'.......',.,.,., ~ ; ,i.~L~:;)!i~i\..f. .. . t.,J, , r '. J , I i \ ~ ;.1<,' 'J ,. I. · . ",,? :'. I n - ]- ] w ~ I- o Z V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . ...J 1-: . U2O, w' ~~! WU! ;;; 2W _ wi i :I: I ~t-! <Lr...' ~~! V> 1-; -~i :I: --' I I-Ci ::> I :z c::Y: ..... " wi J-X! , ZI-, w XO! :::>1- gwl ~5i :I: VI, 1--: LL. ...; --j w ~ l5 Z I II ~ i , . . \ ' I". I 1<Ir . . .. " 1 3. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 3.~ 3.2 13 3.4 ~5 3.6 H ~8 4. 19 20 21- 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Violators' Liabilitv: Any person subject to the Jefferson county Interim Critical Areas Ordinance who violates any provision of the ordinance, or permit issued pursuant thereto, shall be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to violation. The Jefferson county Prosecuting Attorney shall bring suit for damages under this section on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by a violation, the court shall make provision to ensure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including money for damages, the court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. Any permit or approval issued under the terms and conditions of this ordinance may, after a hearing with notice to the permittee and the pUblic, be rescinded by Jefferson county upon the findings that a permittee has not complied with the conditions imposed with the permit. A public hearing may be held after 10 days notice to the permittee, interested parties, and the public. I' I 13.30 severability If any section, SUbsection, or other portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, or portion shall be deemed a separate portion of this ordinance anq the holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. 13.40 Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective on the 8th day of July, 1994. 67 " I. · . 32 :~I [ r ]~ '] w u i= Cl z V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex ~ .! ....J 1-\ <.>:z: : VI~I t:lB:,~ -'gJl (,I') j.' :~: ~ ~.....!! e:oi; >-1 i VII-I ~~!; zgl ..... I wi 1-:1:: I . Zl-' w , ::EOr =)t-! <..> r ow: Q :Ji wc: :l:tI'l' I- ....1 .....1-' ............1 ' ~ ~ l5 :z: T" . . .. . . - - . . .. " 13.50 Adoption Adopted by the Jefferson county Board of commissioners this 9th day of Hay, 3.994. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3.4 15 16 17 3.8 3.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FoRM: .8, Mark Huth, Jefferson county prosecuting Attorney ....-'...... 68 . ,I , . .' . . 32 ), I [ - ~ - T . ]- . .. " J w ~ I- o Z ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex L5 .' --' I- UZ' VI~i ~B!! ...J8il V) I 'r ......La.I: :1:' ~I-I ; ~",-I LL OJ V)~l ............i :I: --' ' ....~! ~cr: I-'~! f:j ..... i :EO, g::! Q::;): c w :c V)! I- .....1 La.. ......1 ............\ , Appendix A: critica1 Area Review .11ee ,fl~he~u1e ~~ ~" ~. critica1 Area Review: 1. waiver granted to applicant: No Charge special reports required: $100 plus $25 per hour over 5 hours of staff time 2. Advance Determination 1. Non-Binding: No charge ,2. Binding: $150 site Visit by Sta~~: 1. First visit or visit for map clarification: NO charge Additional visits required by the critical Area review process: $35 p~r hour . " . . 2. w u ..... l5 :z: ,'\ r-.',";;r ! ! 0 i I I I b I I I I 1. I , . ! I ~ ~ i ;., L . <II . I. · . ;~~2x.1 [ - ~ . -- . . .. . w u i= o A Portion Of Section 21, Twp. 28 N.. Rge. 1 E., W.M. , \ \ \ , \. 89 \ ~\\ ~\ ~ \ ( \ \ 98 7 ~~, .~ ~ ~~2 ,/ " I \ \ I ,-' .. - . ]-- . .. " ] . w ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: I- :z < ' .~..-;=_:......~. Cu...~u) 1\i\{:{nOr""Y\J!.iJrY\r',"'__........:-....~..._ >a".,',' \ \.~ ~ I I 1 J I :~ ,,'I, , ' i' :: I" ;" ; ;" ',.'; . '; , , 1; :rJ' }1 \:;:,1 I,i'~ ~- ~~-; . . 32 )< I [] .. ~ - 'I J W u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- Z "'" :I: I- ex < W . --' I- UZ Lo.J' ~~i ~g'J o VI .....w :I: WI-- ::E <..... exo ..... >- ~t:: :t: --' , I- cr:: :::>' ;::;0- t-~{ ZI- W ::E 0 :::> I-- U OW c:::> o W :I: V) I- ..... ~!:; W ~ I- o Z f '\ '--....v'~l~ o . !If. - ,~~~;~i~~, '?:,..,~,~ ~-:.. ' m :J:.:~ t:-:J,'I ..~ ", ~~""".t~. "';f;'W'~ ~~;Z.II' ,:"::,~ h~ . ~ f'O..... .~...~r ~:jj ~.. ~!~ _ ~I=: ':~f/ I"Q-~,~' ,~;. " _ ::11:'_ ~ ....~:.~~~..J:~ JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHouse NATIONAL HISTOll..C SITE POAf TOWHaENO. WASrIIHGTCN Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P,Q, Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-91 DO . 1-800-831-2678 ROBERT H, HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 May 17, 1995 TO: Permit Center staff FROM: David Goldsmith, Director of community Services Observations and Expectations RE: A lot of water has crossed under the bridge over the past several weeks. The Permit Center continues to be the center of focus at the Commissioners Monday morning open session. The Board is questioning what is going on and why their investments have not paid off. And yet progress is being made on a number of fronts. Over the course of these weeks I have had a chance to observe, reflect, and get a feel for the center and its operation. I have had a chance to meet with the Board to discuss their expectations as well as to give them my own. In addition, I meet regularly with the Management Team to provide a run down of Permit Center activities. There is no question you work in a fish bowl. What goes on in one part is reflective of the whole. When a plat goes sideways, the Permit Center gets blamed. When the Permit Center goes sideways, the County gets blamed. And visa versa. blame, instead of fixing it in return. We want And we are all guilty sometimes we are our own worst enemy. We fix the problem. We want support, but won't give it to go away, instead on helping it go away. to some degree or another, including myselt. So here are my expectations, the criteria I will use when evaluating individual, section, and Center performance: Customer Service: Telephone: 1. No-phone should ring more than six (6) rings without being picked up, even if it is not ,your call. It you do not have a consul phone punch "group piCk-Up" and answer. 2. No forwarding the phone unless the person you are C" '00'10 Recycled Paper . f I I .. . I, · . '" ....'\ I r :'l.'!.,' .,~, - ] e;'.-~li~;3;~--:::!ll W ~ f- o 20 V> - :I: f- :z: < :I: f- ex "" W . --' I- U20 W V> :E: V> ::> WU --'0 C V> _W :I: WI- ::e: "" u.. 0::0 ..... . > V> l- X:; f-< ::> ;:!;O" W f- :I: % I- W ::e:O :::> I- U OW Q ::> I:::> W :I: V> f-- ~t:: w U ::: Q :z: " ...... ""'_. o . J .' - . . .. forwarding it to knows your are forwarding it. Two hour max without prior arrangements and under special circumstances. 3. DRD will have someone to answer the phone at all times. This may inc~ude anyone in the Center, but DRD wil~ get agreement to have a message taken or do it themselves. No more assumption that it will automatically be taken care of. 4. The standard for te~ephone call returns is no more than 24 hours, preferably the same day. All calls will be returned. Public Contact; 1. Technical questions which are not answerable in the front will be referred to someone in the back. You may ask them to wait for up to 15 minutes or ask them to schedule an appointment. It will be the customers option to speak to someone with technical knowledge even though the project planner may not be available. 2. If the front asks for support on answering a customers question, the back will respond in a positive fashion. 3. The Board of commissioners goal is to have each permit tracked and customers contacted on a regular basis to be informed of progress or hang-ups. They expect each application will be tracked by a designated Permit Coordinator. While this is not possible at present, this is a expectation which can partially be met with the use of permit plan. 4. Pre-app process will include only essential personnel and one Permit Coordinator. Permit Coordinators will rotate on a regular basis so that each attends every fourth pre-app day. Project Review and Tracking; 1. All projects requiring a permit will be tracked through permit plan, no exceptions. Each action item will be filled out by the party taking the action or delegated to assign the step, no exceptions. 2. The Action status Report will be published on the first and third wednesday of each month. The status report will be reviewed and updated following the thursday morning staff meeting. 3. All permit applications and files will be such that they are able to be located by any staff at the center without asking another staff person for direction. In other word., the filing system will be user friendly and understood by everyone. 4. Control time lines will be established for each permit type. This time line will include the average (or mean) time for review, the upper and lower limit of project control which is the average (or mean) of the 50' of applications above and below the average. TheBe timelines will be updated quarterly. Any permit ,------- c' "" .(~ - ~ . I ) I '" f - I. · . ~~ ~.? Ie - lIP '\ to 1o~E;):[,d:(..r...':'1~~~ " w ~ I- o 20 V> ..... :I: ,.. Z < :I: I- ex "" W . --' I- U% W V):E ! V> :::> Wt.> --' 0 C V> .....W :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t: :I: --' I- < :::> % 0" ..... W I- :I: % I- W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> c w :1:<1> 1-..... ~!: W ~ I- o % f'\ o . .- - . . .. , , application exceeding the upper control limit will be given special attention, including discussion at bi-monthly project review meetings. 5. Substantially complete determinations wi~l occur within 14 days and the notice of project will be published on the 15th day of receipt (or sent to file to be modemed), or letter of incompleteness, no exceptions. Persona~ support: 1. Each person is a value contributor to the efforts of the center, and will be treated with as much respect as you would want yourself treated. 2. Talking about individual performance should not occur except on a one on one with the individual. If a third party is needed to mediate or facilitate that can be arranged by the consent of both parties. Talking about anything derogatory about individuals, sections, departments, the county, the government etc. should not occur, and never occur where the public is present. 3. Each person is to let the Permit Coordinators and Receptionist know where they are at a~l times. If for any reason you will be longer than anticipated you are to call in and let people know. This is critical for people in the bac]c who may forget that the rest of the center has to cover for them in their absence. 4. If someone needs and asks for help, even if its out of your are of expertise, it is expected that you will help. You may need the same someday. There is no "its not my job". Short Term Goals For The Permit Center: 1. Fully integrate all divisions of the Center and integrate as much as possible Public Works DRD and Environmental Health. Integration means the same level of support, effort, knowledge, and control is provided to each permit process in the Center. 2. Instantaneous information retrieval and project control. Meaning, we know where everything is in the system at all times and can retrieve same if necessary. 3. Responsive and responsible public service. Commissioner and public inquiries are tracked and responded within 24 hours. Applicants are informed as to where they are in the process, who is handling their project, estimated time for completion, and projects continue to moves ahead if the assigned staff is out on vacation, illness or at a training. . i , I I I l I j I 'I I I 1 I i ',to t I. · . .~ ',~\ If 1 tiT.m\&"t:iKi,:,:.:.Yi' w ~ I- / 0 z ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w --' I- U 20 W V> =<: V> => wu --' 0 c V) .....w :I: WI- =<: <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t: :I: --' I- < => ;::;0" W I- :z: % I- W :E 0 => I- u ow c => c W :I: VI I- ..... ~t: W ~ l5 % f' .. !....- o . ...--J \. -'. ~' - . . .. , , May 5, 1995 TO: FROM: Permit Center, All Divisions RE: David Goldsmith, Director of commun~ty Services vesting and Substantially Complete Applications There is still some confusion around the issue of vesting and substantially complete applications. I recently spoke witb the Prosecuting Attorney's Office on this matter and have developed the following interpretation: Applicants are required to submit certain information in order that the review process may be initiated. These are as follows: Building Permits: Two Sets of Plans Universal Plot Plan Building Permit Application Water Availability Info Energy Code Information Sheet Approved Septic Plan/on-site Sewage Disposal Permit Critical Areas Questionnaire Xerox copy of Contractors License Site Address/911 Number Road Approach Building Permit Fee Short Subdivisions Completed and Signed Application 8 Copies of Preliminary Plat Map (15 with Env. Review) Completed and Signed Environmental Checklist (if required) Adjacent Property owners List Payment of Application Fees Long Subdivisions completed and Signed Application 8 Copies of Preliminary Plat Map (15 with Env. Review) Completed and Signed Environmental Checklist (if required) Adjacent Property OWners List - C . (') ..~ ,'1' "I :~ i ';; ~ )~ :] A /, i { '1 ~ '~ ~ ,',; '~ J ;1 ,~ j ".~ ':'~ 1. J ) ) .. I. · . ',I ~'-"~" I r . - " ! ]_!D J W '-' i= o :z: VI ..... :I: I- % <: :I: I- 0:. < W . --' I- '-' :z: w' ~~! ~Ui -'8: VI ' _w :I: WI- :E: <:..... <>:::0 ..... > ~ t::; %-11 1-< => ' :z: CT; -wj, I- :I: ' :z: I- W :EOi => I- '-' ' ow c=> c W ::J: V> I- ..... ~t:: W ~ l5 % r" . . .. ~ - . . .. " ,.; Payment of Application Fees Large Lot Subdivisions completed and Signed Application 8 copies of Preliminary Plat Map (15 with Env. Review) Completed and Signed Environmental Checklist (if required) Adjacent Property Owners List Payment of Application Fees Shoreline Substantial Development Permits (to be developed) Zoning COnditional Use Permits (to be developed) The permit coordinators in accepting applications will determine that each piece of information is included in the submittal, filled out, signed, etc. Xf all the parts are there and appear to be complete, the application packet is then date stamped and fees paid. This date is the vesting date unless it is determined that the information provided is erroneous, in which case the application is not substantially coaplete. It is assumed that additional 'information vill' be needed as the review proceeds. However, the need for additional information is not part of the application process rather the review process, and therefore is not part of the determination of substantially complete. " ..' . . " . .)2 x. It ,~ .. ". 1 "':~'i--;::i:b";f';1.'~J:,[.l w U I- 0 20 V> :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w --' I- '-' 20 W V)~i VI ::> wu --' 0 c VI .....w :I: WI- =<: <..... exo ..... > ~!:; :I: --' 1-< ::> zo" ..... w I- :I: %1- w :EO ::> I- '-' ow c::> "" w :I: V> I- ..... ~!:: w ~ I- 0 Z ( '\ ...-.....,10-. o . ,,' - . . .. r: qr--c J.t-:,;, !. ':0' " ,~I 1+- ,{1ii,~~. ~~Mli. I: . J':~J ~: ~~t, ~~ i'J ,!t..,>< ~,' Ill, I~. ~~t~~~::s~~k:~~:' JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HIS10RIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND, WAS..,INGTON Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-9100 . 1-800-831-2678 ROBERT H, HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 TO: June 13, 1995 Permit Center; Coordination/Development ReView.~ David Goldsmith, Director of community services~ Administrative Determination; Multiple Dwelling Units on a single Parcel of Record, Jefferson county Zoning Code, Jefferson county Subdivision Ordinance FROM: RE: ordinance #09-0801-94, Jefferson County zoning Code and Ordi.nance #04- 0526-92, Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance do not clearly articulate whether more than one dwelling unit may be constructed on a single parcel of record. However, close analysis of the codes and supporting Washington State Law indicates that multiple dwelling units on a single parcel of record are permissible only as specifically authorized under the terms of these codes. Until the language in the codes is clarified the following analysis and conclusion will be applied to circumstances where more than one family unit is proposed for a single parcel of record. The question of a second dwelling unit lies in the definition section (Section 3) and use table (Section 4) of the Zoning Code; and the purpose, definition and applicability sections of ROW 58.17 and the Subdivision Ordinance. Zoning Code Analysis: The zoning ordinance defines circumstances where a second dwelling unit is allow on a single parcel of record by exemption (accessory dwelling unit) or by permit (mUlti-family and transient accommodations). The presumption is that these are the only circumstance where multiple units would be allowed. The use table provides for single family homes as permitted uses and exempts accessory dwelling units or "separate accessary structure an the same lot as the main dwelling unit" from further compliance with the ordinance. The single family home (and its accessory unit) is subject to the standards of the ordinance, including a minimum lot size. The presumption is that had multiple single family dwellings on a single parcel been anticipated by the ordinance, then the use table would have provided for some minimum standards to accommodate the o 100% Aiflcycled Paper . (.1 I I ! I I i J j t I I 1 . I , ~ o. f I, · . '-: ')" I r II" ] IfIt'>:W&'&JtlreJ -j J W u i= o 2: ~ :I: I- z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- e..>z 1.&.1: en ::E:: V)~: WU --'0 C', VI .....W :I: WI- :E <..... exo ..... > V> I- .........., :I: --' ' 1-< :::>' :; 0'; W] 1-:1: ' Z I- W :EO ::::> l- e..> OW c:::> C W :z:: VI I- ..... ~t: W u i= o :z: ,''\ ...........,~ o i el I ..J - e e .. , , second unit. The ordinance goes on to define multiple dwelling units on a single parcel as multi-family residential development or transient accommodations. Both of these residential applications are subject to certain development standards. Transient accommodation are lodging houses for thirty days or less duration and multi-family includes lodging houses for more than thirty days duration. The definition of family and dwelling unit indicates the ordinance anticipates a discrete family unit occupying a single structure to be classified as single family. More than one family occupying more than one single structure (such as cabins at a retreat center) would be considered multi-family. Subdivision ordinance/RCW 58.17 Analysis: ROW 58.17.040 (Platting Subdivision Act) requires all "divisions or redivisions of land ... for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership..." to comply with the provisions of the act and local ordinances developed pursuant thereto. The act goes on to state "the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to..... a number of circumstances, including the lease of property via binding site plan or mobile home park provisions. As a second unit on a single parcel is affixed to the ground and considered real property, interpretation of the ROW would require this unit to be incompliance with the ROW (Subdivision, binding site plan, mobile home park, etc.) to enable the unit to be sold or leased. This chapter goes on to state that in all cases, divisions (sale or lease) must also comply with local zoning codes and other land use regulations. Conclusion: There is no exception for a second unit to be placed on a single lot of record in the ROW or local subdivision ordinance nor in the zoning code, except as an accessory dwelling unit. Given the above analysis, building permit applicfttiQn~ for a second dwelling unit on a single parcel of record1 unless classified as an accessory unit, or permitted as a transient accommodation or multi-family residential development, cannot be issued as a permitted use in any zone. Additionally, such requests would require compliance with ROW 58.17 and the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. Appeal: Parties aggrieved by this administrative determination may appeal to tho Jefferson County Hearings Examiner following the provisions of. Seotion 20 of the Ordinance 109-0801-94, Jefferson county zoning Code. . r'., ~. - .' . e .J2 :~,.I[ - 1 >.',..:':'-"--';,' .1' w ~ I- o 20 V> :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- u:z w: V'> :::c: i VI => wu --' 0 c V> .....w :I: WI- =<: <..... ex 0 ..... >- ~t:: :I: --' I- < => ;::;0" W I- :I: ZI- W :EO => I- U cw c:::> c W :I: V> I- ..... ~t:; W '-' i= o Z ( , "'-- ...,.... 01 . --..) ~~.."~- \. . - . . .. , , ROW 58.17.020 De~iDitioDS. As used in this chapter, unless the context or sUbject matter clearly requires otherwise, the words or phrases defined in this section shall have the indicated meanings. (1) "Subdivision" is the division or redivision of land into five or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership, except as provided in subsection (6) of this section. (2) "Plat" is a map or representation of a subdivision, showing thereon the division of a tract or parcel of land into lots, blocks, streets and alleys or other divisions and dedications. (3) "Dedication" is the deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat or short plat showing the dedication thereon; and, the acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat for filing by the appropriate governmental unit. (4) "Preliminary plat" is a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of. a subdivision consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The preliminary plat shall be the basis for the approval or disapproval of the general layout of a subdivision. (5) "Final plat" is the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the county auditor and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this chapter and in local regulations adopted under this chapter. (6) "Short subdivision" is the,division or redivision of land into four or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership: PROVIDED, That the legislative authority of any city or town may by local ordinance increase the number of lots, tracts, or parcels to be regulated as short subdivisions to a maximum of nine. (7) "Binding site plan" means a drawing to a scale specified by local ordinance which: (a) Identifies and shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open spaces, and any other matters specified by local regulationo; (b) contains inscriptiono or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the use of the land as are established by the local government body having authority to approve the site plan; and (c) contains provisions making any development be in conformity with the site plan. (8) "Short plat" is the map or representation of a short subdivision. (9) "Lot" is a fractional part of divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts or parcels. c ., ) -- , \. 1 I .1 ! 1 ,1 1 >> j I I i \ ! i l ." I I, · . I'~ J). 'r ]-- cc....,.......'., '] W ~ I- o Z ~ :I: I- Z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- (..) Z W VI :E VI ::l W(..) --' 0 c VI .....W :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~~ ::I: --' 1-< :::> ;::;0" W I- ::I: ZI- W :EO ::l I- (..) OW c:::> c W ::I: VI I- ..... ~= W ~ l5 Z r'\ ~- . I. I I ....) t.:;'-',::',::_':> f:"" i-::-;' I".' ,::'J; ~':'; "i :;f' i/:'>,:-:-)>; '" ':'.,,'" j', ""',1 ;::,','<,;::::i,; ,o..<"i'-' , , ; :,,1';,,::,:'/ ~;:\:, .< ;-t"., ,;",';:f>"; :!. ":,-".',.",,..,-, ;., ,~. :>'i~ ,'t.,; " ~ '. ....... ',. .. " r ! (10) "Block" is a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within well defined and fixed boundaries. (11) "county treasurer" shall be as defined in chapter 36.29 ROW or the office or person assigned such duties under a county charter. (12) "County auditor" shall be as defined in chapter 36.22 ROW or the office or person assigned such duties under a county charter. (13) "county road engineer" shall be as defined in chapter 36.40 ROW or the office or person assigned such duties under a county charter. (14) "Planning commission" means that body as defined in chapters 36.70, 35.63, or 35A.63 ROW as designated by the leqislativB body to perform a planninq function or that body assigned such duties and responsibilities under a city or county charter. (15) "County commissioner" shall be as defined in chapter 36.32'RCW or the body assigned such duties under a county charter. [1983 c 121 3.. Prior: 1981 c 29~ 2; 1981 c 292 1; 1969 ex.s. c 271 2.] BOTES: " S.verabilitY--1'Sl 0 2'3: See note following ROW 58.17.010. Campinq resort contracts--Nonapplicability of certain laws to--Resort not subdivision except under city, county powers: ROW 19.105.510. ,I ,I I I "1- · . , ' .. - - . ~S~~-Z:;S:'k;: : ,'j9 . . , w u i= o :z V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex "" w , --' I- U :z w V> :E V> :::> wu --'0 c V> .....W :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t: :1:--' 1-< :::> :z CT ..... W 1-:1: % t- W :EO :::> t- U 0..... C:::> C W :I: V> 1-- ~!:; RCW 58.17.040 Chapter inapp1icab1e, when. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Cemeteries and other burial plots while used for that purpose; (2) Divisions of land into lots or tracts each of which is one-one hundred twenty-eighth of a section of land or larger, or five acres or larger if the land is not capable of description as a fraction of a section of land, unless the governing authority of the city, town, or county in which the land is situated shall have adopted a subdivision ordinance requiring plat approval of such divisions: PROVIDED, That for purposes of computing the size of any lot under this item which borders on a street or road, the lot size shall be expanded to include that area which would be bounded by the center line of the road or street and the side lot lines of the lot running perpendicular to such center line; (3) Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of descent; (4) Divisions of land into lots or tracts classified for industrial or commercial use when the city, town, or county has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local regulations; (5) A division for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land when the city, town, or county has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local regulations; (6) A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines, between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, pa=cel, site, or division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a building site; and (7) Divisions of land into lots or tracts if: (a) Such division is the result of subjecting a portion of a parcel or tract of land to either chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW subsequent to the recording of a binding site plan for all such land; (b) the improvements constructed or to be constructed thereon are required by the provisions of the binding site plan to be included in one or more condominiums or owned by an association or other legal entity in which the owners of units therein or their owners' associations have a membership or other legal or beneficial interest; (c) a city, town, or county has approved the binding site plan for all such land; (d) such approved binding site plan is recorded in the county or counties in which such land is located; and (e) the binding site plan contains thereon the following statement: "All development and use of the land descrJ,bed herein shall be in accordance with this binding site plan, as it may be amended with the approval of the city, town, or county having jurisdiction over the development of such land, and in accordance with such other governmental permits, approvals, regulations, requirements, and restrictions that may be imposed upon such land and the development and use thereof. W u i5 % t' o 8 .....J T - ! 1 I l. I ! ~ '1 ~ :t 1 { I I r I .' 8 8 .~":~.- ) .' j ,- t 8 C' . . ", , , , . - ]u~;.:.JJl J W ~ I- o :z V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U20 W V> :E VI => WU --' 0 c VI .....W :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~~ :I: -' 1-< => ;::;= W I- :I: :z I- w :EO => I- u OW c:::> c W :I: V) I- ..... ~!:: W u 15 % 1", ......-1"'~,~ . . J " . - . . .. " Upon completion, the improvements on the land shall be included in one or more condominiums or owned by an association or other legal entity in which the owners of units therein or their owners' associations have a membership or other legal or beneficial interest. This binding site plan shall bebinding upon all now or hereafter having any interest in the land described herein." The binding site plan may, but need not, depict or describe the boundaries of the lots or tracts resulting from subjecting a portion of the land to either chapter 64.32 or 64.34 ROW. A site plan shall be deemed to have been approved if the site plan was approved by a city, town, or county: (i) In connection with the final approval of a subdivision plat or planned unit development with respect to all of such land; or (ii) in connection with the issuance of building permits or final certificates of occupancy with respect to all of such land; or (iii) if not approved pursuant to (i) and (ii) of this subsection, (7)(e), then pursuant to such other procedures as such city, town, or county may have established for the approval of a binding site plan. [1992 c 220 27; 1989 c 43 4-123. Prior: 1987 c 354 1; 1987 c 108 1; 1983 c 121 2; prior: 1981 c 293 3; 3.983. c 292 2; 1974 ex.s. c 134 2; 1969 ex.s. c 271 4. ] " NOTES I severability--Efrectivo date--1989 c 431 See ROW 64.34.920 and 64.34.930. SeverabilitY--1'81 c 2931 See' note following ROW 58.17.010. .' . 8 ,32 )( If - ] eJ:iNa'.elI1/..mt J w u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- :z: < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U:Z: ' v>~1 VI =>1 wu; ...JOi C, VI , ......wj :I: I ~I-i <.....1 ~~II .......... :I: --' I- < => :;; :-1 I- :I: ~ :;;11 => I- u ow c => wCI :I: VI' I- .....\ ~~l I I \ w ~ I- o z .,', ......-...- . ,. ..- 1 t . - - . . .. ... t:.,','~," ~~,,;-~r;c~1 ':,'~~~;;;i~ )(! }.~~ III' : "';::,1 ~'i" .1 ~'" ,.l "t ~l",~~'~:: ~', ~Il'. ,'~'" -:t~"""~~:::'~~:;: JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL. HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNStNO. WASHINGTON Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O, Box 1220 Port Townsend. Washington 98388 Phone (360) 385-9100' 1-800-831'2678' Fax (360) 385-9382 ROBERT H, HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTING FORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E, WOJT, DISTRICT 3 June 13, 1995 TO: DRD Section, Permit Center David Goldsmith, Acting SEPA Responsible Environmental. Review Procedures FROM: RE: The following procedures are intended to standardize the approach to the administration of SEPA rules in keeping with the goals of: 1) assuring relevant environmental issues are addressed and, 2) reducing the staff time spend in reaching a environmental determination. The standard of SEPA review is "probable significant adverse environmental impact". Meaning,' if the project after complying with all of the standards which are required of the project through the application of existing ordin,ances will have a "probable significant adverse environmental impact" than a EIS is required. WAC 197-11-310 (3) states that a threshold determination should not exceed fifteen (15) days except in cases where additional information is required. This is a realistic timeline when the standard of review is "probable significant adverse environmental impact". Mitigation may be applied to reduce impacts to a degree which would not require the issuance of a ElS. Mitigation may come from agency imposed conditions based on existing policy, or applicant modifications to the proposal (WAC 197-11-350). Given the above, the following procedures shall be used in SEPA review of individual projects: First cut, is there enough information to review the proposal, checklist, and supplemental materials? utilizing in-house information verify the site conditions and checklist. If additional information is necessary after in-house review, ask applicant for specific needs in writing. Second cut, what environmental issues are not covered by existing o '00% Rocycled Papo, ,. ~..,... " "~,. :"':;('i:~i,';:...',lf~ , ) VT o . r ,I, 'i .....-- I, · . 'i~' I ~ I [j .... C$:t"',!!~i~~'.;a W u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U2O, W V>:E I V> =>, WU --' 0 C V> .....W :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... >- ~t: :I: --" 1-< => ;::;0' W I- :I: :z: I- W :EO :::> I- U OW c:::> c W :I: VI I- ..... :;t::: W ~ l5 z /,', ....-.......... o . ,J 1 . - - 8 8 .. , , ordinances or are not addressed by specific standards? If the project is unclear as to what is being proposed, clarify with applicant. Have applicant be specific: for example, will they be using DOE's stormwater manual to address stormwater issues? Identify environmental issues not addressed by existing ordinances and ask the proponent to modify or clarify the proposal to address them. If the applicant is unwilling or unable to modify the proposal then develop mitigation to address them. Third cut, recommendation on threshold determination. DNS. For a majority of our projects we should be looking at a unmitigated DNS with the written understanding the project will comply with all applicable and adopted development standards, including but not limited to the CAO, Zoning, Shorelines, Subdivision or other ordinances applied to the project. MDNS. only those projects that would otherwise be a DS and where existina develoDment standards do not address the specific environmental condition will mitigation be applied. MONS means that the "probable significant adverse environmental impact" has been addressed (i.e. the project modified by the applicant or specific mitigation measures applied) to the degree a OS is not necessary. The impact causing the mitigation must be specific enough that without the mitigation there is no choice but to issue a OS. OS. Large, complex, multi-facetted projects where "probable significant adverse environmental impacts" are imminent will be OS'd. Applicants will be noticed in writing and given the opportunity to modify their projects. Timing: The goal is to complete the threshold determination process within fifteen (15) days from the date of "substantially complote" application determination. SEPA Review Process: 1. If the project has gone through pre-application review then the information used in this initial screening will be available for review. Critical area maps, type of improvements required, etc. should provide substantial information towards completing the threshold determination process. 2. The ORO Permit Coordinator will attach all information from the pre-application conference to the application. If the packet of information doss not include maps of applicable critical areas, then the Permit Coordinator will reproduce and attach relevant maps. In the Bubstantially complete review, the first cut environmental review (seo above) should also be completed. 3. The environmental review threshold determination process will be completed within fifteen (15) days following the date of . c I I I 1 t I, '.V 8 . .,f', \ ,.1" Ir - ........ - ;..i,,:.<', . ~ .,'t;,'~ ~ ;.,:: '.""... :..<.'."', :,',,,-, ~.':<" ~:'~.'. ,.;-,-<, -.'-', ::,>~'/'" ." r J ""',;,., ','":_:,~,:,, ]- . .. . , ] r' W u i= o :z: VI - ::I: I- :z: CC :I: I- IX < W . --' I- UZ W, on :E VI :::> WU -'0 C VI _W :I: WI- :E: CC ..... IXO ..... > ~t= :r.: --' 1-< :::> =:;0' W I- :I: ::z: I- .... ,!il= u OW Cl :::> c ~V) (, I- ..... :;!::; "Substantially complete" determination, or if additional information is required w~ich would put the environmental review on hold, this a~so must be completed within the fifteen (15) day time period. If additional information is required the applicant will be notified in writing, including the date the information is required. Permit plan will 'be updated and the project will be monitored to assure once the information is received project review will progresses. The permit coordinator will develop a tickler file to assure the fifteen (15) day time limit is met. 4. Any project which identifies impacts which, when complying with the standards found in specific ordinances, still may result in "probable significant adverse impacts" will be reviewed with the responsible official within ten (10) days following the "substantial~y complete" determination, or within ten (].O) days following reply to the request for additional information. The permit Coordinator will assure this meeting is scheduled. " ,0 W :::l 6 "" Public and Applicant Information: A issue raised concerns the applicants know~edge of al~ the requirements to complete the project. Often SEPA is USQd as an early warning device to let applicants and the public know what's to be expected. To resolve this problem, it seems a checklist of the standards which will be applied to the project could be referenced in the part of the SEPA checklist which asks what approvals and permits are applicable to the project. I would like to monitor this need to Bee what is necessary to satisfy concerns. If it is necessary, a checklist can easily be devised. ,'\ . . 'I, · . '" I ] ~""mJ ~l .11 W u i= o :z: VI ..... :I: I- :z: <: :I: I- ex <: ~.....:.~ U:z: " Wi' ~~i WLJ --' 0 C V> .....W :I: WI- ::E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~=. :J: ~ i 1-< ~ ;::;0' W 1-:1: % I- W :EO ~ I- u OW C~ C W :I: '" I- ..... ~!:: W ~ l5 % t'" ...v.._"."....._~ o . .' ~i . - 8 8 .. , , Land Use Mediation Consulting Services Irv Berteig Hearing Examiner Services .;. -.. MEMORANDUM TO: FR: RE: May 24, 1995 David Goldsmith. Community Services Director f'.1F"';' %. 1"("': Irv Berteig, Hearing Examiner SEPA Procedural Changes ~-r Thank you for faxing your draft SEPA procedural changes. It looks good as is, Incidentally. a ccpy of Chapter 34i, Laws of 1995 (Regulatory Reform) was in the mail when I returned from our staff seminar last Tuesday, It was reassuring to note that the new law virtually made my arguments redundant, Your procedural changes comply with the new law. I'll go through your memo in sequence with comments: 1st four paragraphs: Good, This is a sound basis for what is to follow. Y au could also reinforce further with references to the Regulatory Reform statute, First cut".. "in writing" is important, It can be an informal note, A pre-printed memo following a sort of checklist and then annotated with a hand written note has worked for me when there is concern over extra work (typing) or being too formal. What is important is the record, Fewer complaints follow. P~nctual response is critical too - also noted later, Second cut"" Good, Clarifying with the applicant can be subsequently reinforced with public notices stating ".., th'! applicant has committed to following DOE's ..," Third cu!,." Good, The MDNS will probably require coaching in order to change habits and raise comfort levels. You know your environmental community better than me, but after the staff has receh'ed this, it would probably help to share with particular community and industry leaders. SEPA Review Process: There seems to be a natural tendency for cases that receive more attention (like those going through pre.application review) to then continue to receive more scrutiny and take longer, Those applicants going throulfh pre.app (and then followinlf the instructions) should be rewarded! Stafl'should make special efl'ort to process such cases in a timely nlanner. . The coordination/combininlf of SEPA and substantially complete Ilrst cuts is excellent! 3, Ifput on hold, stnfl'must notify the applicant in writing immediately, Do not ponder, 1, 2. 9025 .2nd Avenue NorthBalt. Sootlle, WA 98115 PHONE: (2061525.0123 FAX: 12061 522.3236 emoll: be'leloClioccBllone,com r I , I I I " .. 8 8 :'~::? >, I [ - 'l,-.; ]- J W u i= o :z: ~ :I: I- Z < :I: I- a:: ~ ..' --' I- UZ W VI :E VI ::::> WU --'0 C VI .....W :I: ~I- oec ..... exo ..... > VII- ... .... :I: --' 1-< ::::> ;::;0' W I- :I: ZI- W B1= OW c:::> c ,w :z:: VI I- ..... ~= w ~ l5 :z: I'~ , 8 .1 .~~ .., . ::- ~ ....: :: """.""i"""}", ,,-,'. "-,:'T,~ ; '~", ~" ./ :).~:; ~"./':(.'. '~,~. -~ .^~ ".~<~:~/;:~~A+J,:;;H"~'/':' ..,' ,~.., '(:;"~;': . ,-",,-~-:::,,:- /1'; ""J "....':;....,' 8 .. . , ~- ; ,'_, .;. ,,;,_,_,\; '_' -,l ,', ";"'N .,'~;."-",,.' ''''''., ..... ,'-;"'''~''_''''''':~''':'A'''.'' :....,W.'y.1,.; ',J',",~,]',"'u,",r_ I'U" .'''."...._. -___. . Dave Goldsmith. SEPA Procedures. May 24. 1995 r '. I Page No, 2 ! 4, A specific procedure for handling the tough cases is good. I concentrated on talking about speeding the handling of the easier cases during the staff seminar. Having a "next step" defined makes the responsibility clear. Which raises a 'question . .. How will these procedures be coordinated with other departments? And with the County's notice requirements? Have you plotted out a time.line for the various steps? Public and Applicant Information: The use of SEPA as an early warning device is a point that we didn't discuss, SEPA will continue to serve as an early warning device simply because the Checklist and Notices will come first. However, the goal here will be to redirect the extensive processing that followed (that which was duplicative of existing regulations). This part of your procedures should be considered as more flexible or experimental than the rest of the procedures, Get everyone to monitor and point out both ' problems and successes, This kind of procedure is one where you must rely on many to work in the same direction. .' , , Regarding the current version of the SEP A ordinance, please send a copy. I have an early version that I know has gone through more review, Also, if you think it would be helpful, I would like to meet \vith the Board for a discussion similar to the stafIseminar so that I can learn of their experiences with SEPA appeals and they can hear my philosophies, Let me know. Thanks again. I hope this helps. I. · . II ]""'"""~ ~. ,j; W u i= o 20 ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- 0:: < W . --' I- '-' :z: WI V) .:E i V') ::::l: W'-' --' 0 o VI ......... :J: WI- ~ <..... exo lJ_ >- ~t: :J: ....J 1-< => zO' ..... WI I- :J: ZI- W ~o => I- '-' OW c=> c W :I: '" 1-- ~!::; W '-' i= o Z ,r'\ '-.. ......... o 8 - 8 . .. " Kcci- Yytc~, land Use Mediation Consulting Services Irv Berteig Hearing Exominer Services .... .... March 28. 1995 ~~~\ ;:' !.~: ':': David Goldsmith, Director Jefferson County Community Services P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend. W A 98368 flPR 0 ;:s 1935 ' j :F;: E~S;~::.: '::;...._': ;';"( 50/3:: OF f.O~1,:\;j3::;;:'i\;:::;';' RE: SEPA Procedures Proposal Dear Dave, This is a follow-up to our telephone conversation last week regarding SEPA administration at Jefferson County. Our conversation was short, but I understand some of the problems; namely, the SEPA review takes too long and the appeals to the Board are burdensome. These are typical, but solutions require both policy and political changes, The reason I am writing is to suggest that I can help, A draft ordinance is being prepared now that would restructure the SEPA appeal process to have appeals heard by the Examiner. This will be a good change that I would encourage, I hear SEPA appeals in other jurisdictions where my decisions are appealable to Superior Court, The system works well probably because SEPA is highly technical- both scientific and legally. It should not be treated as if political or legislative. One way to reduce lengthy SEPA reviews is to make fundamental policy changes. The problem you described of Jefferson County's history of using SEPA mitigations instead of new regulations is typical. Staffs then learn the flexibility of creating mitigations where environmental regulations do not exist. But SEPA envisioned environmental regulations replacing mitigations. The problem is worse where SEPA staffs are separate organizations; however, all staffs will often continue writing mitigations even once duplicated by new regulations, In fact, one common philosophy is to be duplicative deliberately, The most dramatic effoct on processing time will be to change such policies, SEPA is really an ingenious system of environmental protection. It allows looking quickly at a wide range of proposals. yet stopping for a more thorough review where there is an indication of possible environmental impact, Given reasonable underlying regulations, a very high percentage of the proposals can receive a DNS and a short turn.around time, Mitigated DNS's should be few, The point here is that if the regulation will control the impact - the mitigation is not ne('.o8sary. Thr.re is another nece88ary change. There must be a nexus between the mitigation and the proposal. The impact cauRing the mitigation mll8t be significant enough that - witheut t.he mitigation - t.here i8 no choice but to issue a DS, That test applies to each and every mitigation, 9025 42nd Aver.ue Northeast. Seattle. WA 98115 PHONE: (206) 525.0123 FAX: (206) 522.3236 . r I I I 1 l ,~ , I, · . .~ 2 ,.1 [ - . - - 'f"';: ~ I;-t!,;;~ ./'; I", {':";~\--;' ,.:,',- ,', , . ,'" ";'-.) ","i\/~;'-- ;"'<:/j/ "/.',:'.(, ~.-.-', ,-;-'; ".;:':<i." 1;,"':'.,",';<' ,:;,);,i' i,.':',:;'" 'F ,..:.....:..,..,; ."/,";'1 -, ., I ~-l ~ , .f.......:., . '"., ]- . . .. " , . J w u i= o :z V> ..... :I: I- 20 < :I: l- e>< < w . d!zi. v>~I.. (,I')::;)! L&.IC,,); ~O, U') Of" -~! :c: w....1 ~I.&-l e:ol >, cnf-~ ........., :z: --,. t- <I :z: g. j :~l ffi ....! !!5 10: ul-i ow; os; w ' :c en! 1--; Dave Goldsmith, March 28.1995 Page No"2 These are some high points of needed changes and my philosophies. I would like to propose a special project where I would assist you in making the changes. In rough outline: A. Analyze the existing procedures, Most could be accomplished in a one day on.site series of interviews and collection of materials, then followed by a concise. documented report, B, Prepare a conceptual outline listing ordinance changes, policy adjustments, and specific procedural measures, C. Meet with the. Board, Gary and you. D. Work with the staff in revising the procedures and training, E. Prepare draft sets of administrative procedures, policy amendments, and ordinance changes for adoption. .' w u 15 :z: This work can be accomplished under our present contract as a special assignment, All or parts ofthe above can be included, I am very flexible. If you are interested, we can talk some more 80 that I could give you a better estimate. I am looking Corward to hearing Crom you, Sincerely, ~~ Irv Berteig ,'\ 8 8 [. ..' . . '" - ]- . .. " ] w u i= o z ~ :I: I- z cC :I: I- ex :5 . ~ 1 d~i ~~I: ~g!', el, ~ LtJi ~i=! ' CLa..:1 e: 01 :>oj (/) t-! ....._1 :I: --' I I-cCl :z:5! :~i ::z f-i w ~~i u 1 8~1 Q ~U); I- .-: lA.1-: -.....i ".'\ SEPA REVIEW PROCESSES COMPARISON TABLE o PROCESS JEFFERSON COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY CITY OF SEATTLE Submit Complete Detcnninc:d substantially Same Same :Applleatlou complcle byageoey staff. Nollee Requirement Planning Dcpaz1meut Not applicable Not applicable for Application and responsible for smding Pending Threshold notices to adjacent property Determination owacrs, ami publish in a papeI' of geocral circulation. Applicant posts two signs on subject property, Commeat Period The COIDJIICIIt period shall be Not applicable Not applicable the same as lhat required by the liCCllsc, pennit or approval a: IS days woddng days, whichever is grcatt:r. . . Request for earl,. If a DS is likdy, a rcqucat If DS is likely, a rcqucat for If OS is Iikdy, a rcqucat for aotlee fcJr cady dcIamiDaliOll may cady ddamiDaliOll may be cady ddc:rminaUOIl may be bcmadc, Dctc:rmination IIIlIdc. made. must be made wilbia IS wcrlDng days of requeet Th.....hold Should be issued wilbia IS Should be iuued wilbin IS Should DOt ext.ccd seven (7) Determlaatlon days of submillioo of days of submillioa of days or loager with complex complelc cbccldist. complete cbccldiat. project or IllIditioaal iafOl'llllllioo ia required, Notice I'IanniJI& Dqwtmcol r-or DNS and ms. the Publish in SEPA Publi" Requlremellts raponsible for smding County sball publish notice Information Caller for one for Tbreshold notices to adjaccol property in a acwspapc:r of ,CDCI'a1 year; Determlllatlon owaen, and publish in paper c:in:uJmioo ia the County, of aencn1 circulalion, Notice oCDNS and appeal proceaa sbaU be publllhcd in Applicant posts two alp 011 at leal ODe community subject propc:rty, acwlplpc:t'. and IC'III to eacacles withjuriadictloa. OOE.llfl'cctcd hibea. the SEPA Public Infonudoa Cenla'.8Dd each locm Il&aIC)' or polldClllaubdiviaJOII wbosc public IeI'VIccsllVOUld be cIuu1jzcd as . result of ImpI_tadoa of the JlI'OIIOU!, Commeat Period IS days for M!)NS or DN9 15 days 15 days for DN9 and MONS 11 days for OS lIftIess C'q)IIICIcd amp!1lI oceun, ,. ... u i5 :z: ,'\ "'-'-;:r;/"'" . I. · . oil It PROCESS JEFFERSON COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY CITY OF SEATT E Final Threshold Based onlimdy Based 00 timely Based on timely Determination considaalion aud CODIII1CI1Is, considaalillO ldlll c:ommcnls. considaalillO 8Dd CXlIDIDCIIIs, Responsible Official may Responsible Official may Responsible Official may " relain ~~fy lbraboJd relain or modify dm:shdd relain 01' modify thn:aboId drlfnmftSltioo. detennioalion. dctamioalion. Modified'1'bR8bold ModirlCd ThrcshoJd Modified Threshold DctcnninaIion sba11 be sent Delamination sba11 be sent DctmuiDation IIhaII be scnt to agencies witbjurisdictioo. to agencies "ilbjurisdicuon. to agcocies wilb jurisdiction, Appeals Appcalable to County Appeals to FElS in writing FcxTbmlboJd DetamiJllllillll CommissiOllClll by giving within 15 days of iss\llllKC of aad FElS, appeals made to written notice to the FElS. Hearing Eiumin&:l" DO laItr Responsible Official wilhin .tban 15 days following the 10 days of the decision being Appc:ds to DNS in writing . fding or the decision in the appealed. Review by the within 10 !laYs of the Final SEPA Public Information County CommissiollCtll shall DNl!;, - Calla' or publication in 0 , be on a de novo basis, IICWspope>', ' . , Appeal to MONS within 10 The Heminll Examinca- day. or the final d<<iIliOllto Can appcaI Harinll reviews appeals within 10 condition or deny a propoul. Exa1Jincr'. decisiooto City days of wrillal rcccipt of Council by a party to the rcqllelt for appcaI by be&riDg DO laItr lhan 15 day. DqJarlmatl of Dcvdopmcllt ana- the dale the decillion Review. eppcaIed from is fded with the SEPA Public InfonnatiOll Cadet, J:"] w ~ I- o :z .4 V> I ..... :I: I- i ~ 1 ~ I ~ 1; < I, ~...:L' :;: ~j ~Bii' ~~I x' WI- :E <..... exo ..... >- ~~ :I: --' 1-< :::> ZO'i ;:~l, ~I-I :EOI BI-I g~! ~ enl f- .....i ~ t:;[ I 1 I ! oScpa Review Processes - Comparison Table Prepared for Jefferson County Planning Commi.sion March 23,1995 w ~ l5 z ,'\ .......... i J I Ie I 1 I 1 1. I Ie !,J ., r I' · . - ]~~~ J W '-' i= e:> 20 VI ..... :I: I- :z: < :I: I- "" < W . --' I- '-' % W V> :E VI :::> WU --' 0 c VI _w :I: WI- :E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t:; :c --' 1-< :::> 20 CT - w I- :I: :z: I- w :EO => I- '-' C.... 0:::> C W :c VI 1-- ~t:: W ~ l- e:> % ,', '-.,..--,.J-" o 8 ,-I . - '\I _ ':.' /II' '~,'. 8 . .. , , '," /?tel 5Zf'tc ~/ .. Land Use Mediation Consulting Services Irv Berteig Hearing Examiner Services >Co <- March 28, 1995 twn 0 JIS35 David Goldsmith, Director Jefferson County Community Services P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 j~ q:[~<,< ;;'.; I,,; '.,U: 'i 80/}':~: Cii" c.C:i::..1;~:;~_;:c;\)~.r~;:' RE: SEPA Procedures Proposal Dear Dave, This is a follow.up to our telephone conversation last week regarding SEPA administration at Jefferson County, Our conversation was short, but J understand some of the problems; namely, the SEPA review takes too long and the appeals to the Board are burdensome, These are typical, but solutions require both policy and political changes. 'fhe reason I am writing is to suggest that I can help, A draft ordinance is being prepared now that would restructure the SEPA appeal process to have appeals hoard by the Examiner, This will be a good change that I would encourage. I hear SEPA appeals in other jurisdictions where my decisions are appealable to Suporior Court, The system works well probably becauso SEPA is highly technical - both scientific and legally. It should not be treated as if political or legislative, One way to reduce lengthy SEPA reviews is to make fundamental policy changes, The problem you described of Jefferson County's history of using SEPA mitigations instead of new regulations is typical. Staffs then loarn tho floxibility of creating mitigations whero environmental regulations do not exist, But SEPA envisioned environmental regulntions rllplncing mitigations, 'I'he problem is worao whore SEPA staffs are separate organizations; however, all staffs will often continuo writing mitigations even onco duplicated by now regulntions, In fact, ono common philosophy is to be duplicntive deliberately, 'I'he mOllt drnmntic effoct on procossing time will bo to change such policies, SEPA is really an ingenious system of environmental protection, It nllowslooking quickly lit n wide rango of proposals, yet stopping for a moro thorough roview where there is an indication of possible environmental impact, Given reasonable underlying regulations, a very high perccntnge of the proposals can receive a DNS and a short turn-around time, Mitigated DNS'sshould be few, The point, hore Is that If the regulation will control tho imllRct - tho mitigation is not nocossary, 'I'hOl'O is another necossnry chango, There must, be a nexus botwoon tho mitigation nnel t.ho prolloRnJ. Tho impnct causing t.ho mitigat.ion must be sillnilicant onough that - wit.hout the mltignt.ion - thore is no chol('.o but to issue a DS, That t~\st allplioFl to each 111111 overy mit,ignt.ion, 9025 42nd Avenue Northeast, Seattle. WA 98115 PHONE: 1206) 525.0123 FAX: (206) 522.3236 . tl ~ r I 'i I, i I 8 . ,'~ 2" I [ ;.'j .". ]-- '] w ~ I- o z ~ :I: I- z < :I: I- ex ! ~ .i .J t- ( Uf5! ~~I WU1 --' 0, cl V> ' ....tl.&.l; w~1 ~",-i e: ~I ~!::~ ~~! =:; 5i t-~! 51-I :E 0: . B t-i ow! Q:;)i ~~: t- .....: !t; ~i i w ~ l5 :z: ,'\ ...,-,,.... / je . .. , , r '. ,.. , Dave Goldsmith, March 28, 1995 Page No.2 These are some high points of needed changes and my philosophies, I would like to propose a special project where I would assist you in making the changes, In rough outline: A. Analyze the existing procedures. Most could be accomplished in a one day on.site serie!! of interviews and collection of materials. then followed by a concise. documented report. B, Prepare a conceptual outline listing ordinance changes. policy adjustments. and specific procedural measures. C, Meet with the Board. Gary and you, D, Work with the staff in revising the procedures and training, E, Prepare draft sets of administrative procedures. policy amendments. and ordinance changes for adoption, This work can be accomplished under our present contract as a special assignment. Allor parts of the above can be included, fam very flexible, If you are interested. we can talk some more so that I could give you a better estimate, I am looking forward to hearing from you, Sincerely, ~~ Irv Herteig . ',1' · . , . .II x.lt .. JW" ~ , \' :(J :', i \,),:..-, ~. '/ ". 'h>.:.' :: ~(:. -;'::,.>'>' .. ....; .. ,.., '",;,; ',.;,>;";',:,~ "',,/.",; '-';'\,' 'C,', ',' ':":,',.~,' ..~:j " '..;:...",.......';.:.-., ',"",:.>':,'; " ",".'::;,.<:, ":..~.. ~ 'j;t >"',;-; c.;.,.... .. .'-\. . ]- .. " J 'W .~ l5 :z W u i= o :z: VI ..... :I: I- z cr: :I: I- ~ I d;ii ~~I;' We..> --' 0 01 ~Lt.Jl wi=1 ~....I e:ol :!l E! :z: -' I I-Ci %51 .... I ... ~i ~ :;;! g:l CIS! W , :I: II) I 1-'-1, ~=j' I I I i I I f: , D.wS~n ~ r JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATIORNEY LJ - Courthouse - P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073 Paul McIlrath, Chief Deputy Walter H, Perry. Deputy IllClie Dalzell, Deputy Richard Suryan, Deputy " FROM: v-::: David Goldsmith, Director of Community serVi~ Paul E. McIlrath, Deputy prosecuting Attorne. June 1, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: " j DATE: RE: City Comments: Critical Areas ordinance AMendments - Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence we recently received from the city of Port Townsend's attorney regarding suggested changes to the county's Critical Areas Ordinance. I am referring them on to you for your review and any appropriate action. Mr. McMahan does make an interesting'argument pertaining to recent legislative changes. There does appear to be a shift in thinking, as represented by the passage of EHB 1724, toward comprehensive rather then sequential review of land use applications. However, whether it would be appropriate to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance at this time is something we are not able to answer. Indeed, it is my understanding that the county is only reviewing the aquifer recharge provisions of the Critical Areas ordinance, and that this does not impact section 5.203. I leave the decision on this issue to you. Please provide me with a copy of any response to this letter. PEM/mm Encl. ,"\ -I ...J cc: Gary Rowe, Director of Public sorvices Suzanne Drumm, public Works ..' . . ,. .. - .- - . ]~~~Jl:'I . .. " ] W ~ I- o 20 VI ..... :I: I- z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- UZ W V> :E V> => WU --' 0 c VI .....W :I: WI- =<: <..... exo ..... > ~t:; :z: -I ! 1-< => ZO' ..... W I- :I: ZI- w :EO => I- u OW, c => c W :I: V> I- ..... ~t:; City of Port Townsend Office of the City Attorney 540 Water Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-5991 Fax: (360) 385-5248 j ).. f../~' -;" . Jl" ~~~: : J:."." Timothy L. McMahan City Attorney Mary A. Winters Assistant City Attorney May 25, 1995 mm MAY 3 U 1995 Mr. Paul McIlrath, Esq, Chief Deputy Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 9836"8 JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Re: Critical Areas Ordinance: Ii 5.203 (SEPA ExemDtion) W ~ I- o Z As written fi 5.203 states the following: Dear Paul: This letter is a follow-up to my discussion with you on April 20 regarding the SEPA exemption contained within the County's Draft Critical Areas Ordinance. The most recent version of the CAO, which I understand is scheduled for publication, does not amend fi 5.203. I want to focus on why I believe this is an important issue, and why the City's position in this matter is in fact consistent with the County's overall policy direction, and consistent with the interests of landowners in Jefferson County, 5.203 Exemptions: The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this section and the administrative rules: r', 1. ....,-.r 0 2, SEfA: Triggering application submitted for projects that are subject to SEPA review, provided that the development standards contained within this ordinance are incorporated as SEPA mitigations where appropriate. Prior SEPA Deterl11inati.Qn: Triggering applications submitted for projects previously subject to SEPA review, provided that the previous SEPA review evaluated the type and extent of development currently proposed for the subject property and Its impacts on any critical areas, . ,J My understanding of the policy reason for this exemption Is that the DOCe does not want to require a developer to twice "jump the hoops" through the critical areas ordinance, both In complying with the regulation Itself, and redundantly going through the SEPA process, This is .. ,,' "'{',""Ihi:,','i"'" .... 1';~ ,'.."", """,!.";:"",;,:, . .... ~',:;'[~ (1 -""" ,'F,';,." ( . ,- i 1'1< , . I. 8 . ,"{,?: '~ Id ~ " ~ $'!:J)J,;r;..:;;';"~'fd.;i! ,j W ~ I- o :z V> ..... :I: I- 20 < ::I: I- ex < w , --' I- U20 "-, V):E i VI~' wu --' 0 C VI .....W :I: WI- E <..... ex 0 ..... > ~t:: :I: --' 1-< ~ ZO" ..... W; I- :I: ' ZI- W :EO ~I- u OW C~ Q W :I: VI I- ..... ~!:; W ~ l5 z , \ ..., .J<_ o j - . 8 III " Mr. Paul Mcilrath, Esq. Chief Deputy Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office May 25, 1995 Page 2 certainly a laudable goal, and one which I have been mindful of in my background representing developer clients. It is senseless for a developer to comply with rigorous requirements set forth in environmental regulations, only to be subjected to a discretionary, somewhat subjective SEP A process, where a developer is at risk at being dragged through citizen and neighborhood appeals on impacts addressed through environmental regulations, It is precisely because of this practice of regulatory "double dipping" that the State Legislature in House Bill 1724, signed into law by the Governor, eliminated this duplication of environmental review. In HB 1724, SEPA (RCW-43.2l(C) ) has been amended to read as follows: (1) If the requirements of subsection 2 of this section are satisfied, a county,' city, or town reviewing a project action may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the county, city, or town's development regulations and comprehensive plan as adopted under Chapter 36,70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the requirements apply. (2) A county, city, or town may make the determination provided for in subjection (1) of this section if: (a) in the course of project review, including any' required environmental analysis, the local government considers the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed actions and determines that the specific impacts are adequately addressed by the development regulatio'ns or other applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan element of the comprehensive plan, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws; and (b) the local government bases or conditions its approval on compliance with these requirements or mitigation measures. (3) If a county, city, or town's comprehensive plans, subarea plans, and development regulations adequately address aproject's probable significant adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the county, city, or town shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter during project review. Project review shall be integrated with environmental analysis under this chapter. A comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the county, city, or town, through the planning and environmental review process under Chapter 36,70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse (4) . c I i > ! , >> ." .' 8 . ,.-~~ -~;, .~ I [ - 'j J ~~~~ "', , .,21 1 W ~ I- o 20 VI ::J:: I- ::z cC ::J:: I- ex cC w . --' I- U ::z W en :e: i V> ::::> w '-" --' 0 c ~Wl :I: WI- =<: cClL. ex C> ..... >- ~~ ::J:: -' I- cC ::::> ZO' ..... .....~i ZI- W ::E: C> :::> I- '-' 0.... c::::> c W :I: VI I- -. ~t::; W u i= o z f" .........-.... o o .. n ~._ _ ~ - . . .. " Mr. Paul Mcilrath. Esq. Chief Deputy Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office May 25, 1995 Page 3 environmental impacts and: (a) the impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or (b) the legislative body of the county, city, or town has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards, and other land use planning required or allowed by chapter 36.70A RCW. Section 5.203 "Exemptions" goes in precisely the opposite direction of the State law adopted in House Bill 1724, The SEPA exemption in the County's Critical Areas Ordinance states .that if a project goes through SEPA, it is exempt from requirements of the development regulation, State law now requires that if a project is reviewed under a development regulation adopted pursll8Dt to the Growth Management Act, it is exempt from SEPA review. In adopting HB 1724, the State Legislature recognized that landowners are most benefited by predictable environmental review set forth in applicable environmental regulations. The legislature further recognized that, compliance with specific development regulations is adequate, and further review under SEPA is UMecessary. This removes discretion, subjective analysis, and inconsistent application of environmental .standards, and avoids the risk that a developer can be held up for years based upon purported environmental impacts already addressed through compliance with applicable development regulations. In summary, it is beneficial for the County and the landowners in the county to make the Critical Areas Ordinance consistent with HB 1724. I would suggest that theSEPA exemption should be removed in its entirety, and the County's SEPA ordinance should be amended to state that any project submitted which has complied with the standards set forth in the Critical Areas Ordinance will not be reviewed for the same impacts under SEPA. Further, the "prior SEPA determination" paragraph set forth in paragraph (2) of Section 5.203 should not exclude all applications "submitted for projects previously subject to SEPA review," but should adopt traditional vesting standards whereby projects which have submitted a complete application for a building permit prior to the effective date of the Critical. Areas Ordinance are recognized as vested under prior regulatory standards. The "prior SEPA determination" paragraph is ambiguous and does not reflect Washington's vesting law. Because the vesting doctrine applies, whether it is stated or not, I do not see any need for stating this exemption at all. I do not believe there is a need for the City and the County to quarrel over the issues raised in this letter, as I believe the City and County interests are consistent and beneficial to the development community. We concur with the County that requiring a ~iect to go through both SEPA review and compliance review under the CAO is ablurd and does not benefit the public interest or the interests of the development community. However, the way the County has written the Critical Areas Ordinance is inconsistent with State law and makes very little sense from the perspective of the development community. . --L1 """"1"5'.'" .,~ 'I :-":",;'<",;,;,\"<" "'" ' . I:...., . ,'". ." .,,~, f . j , r.'f '\..:., Ci'::":i',':,., illi,' I, - .. . . ''', i" .....,"'- ", 1(; .....;.;-.).,.~ ] v.,:~'.;j.~..,...._,,~., ,.~.:,..:,..."';';;", L";"~"""!.~',~ ';"'''',*~.'.''''I'-"'~.."",.-*,''''';'''''''''''''''"''"''''''_'''''''''''''''_~''';':._''. _. .._ W ~ l5 ::0: ~ :c I- :z: < = ...- = ~ ..j ......1-1 U:Z: , V)','~I VI= WUI :;: g I ,_W' .....i=i :E I ~g;l ~sl '1-< :;;5). .....~l 51-I "B:=I '8~1 .......0; ::c en ! .....-1 La.. ..... i ", -.....1 I I i I I i Mr, Paul Mcllrath, Esq. Chief Deputy Jefferson County .Prosecuting Attorney's Office Please feel free to call me to further discuss this matter. ~."~.' ~ / TimothyL. McMahan City Attorney cc: Mayor.John Clise City CouncDmemberS Dave Robison, BuDding & Community Development Director Bob Wheeler, Public Worlcs Director {L9S-16] GMA\Let\McILlI525.11r W ~ l5 :z: ,"\ . .1 May 25, 1995 Page 4 1':: , \ ;'\ \. '.' . . ,.',,';:i'. ]- J W ~ I- o :z: V> ..... :I: I- :z: < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U :z: .... V'J :X V> :> WU --' 0 C VI .....W :I: WI- :E <..... <>< 0 ..... >- ~t= :I: -' 1-< :> ::;0' W 1-:1: ZI- .... :E 0 :> I- U OW c= Q W :I: II) I- ..... ~!:: W U !5 Z .('\ . . - I.'.'; ',,: I t .- .,. ;'ii:, > \:)i" , . ,i;:'~ .,,' ",f'," ,," ','''', . "'~;~~::(;: " ~ ., (.. ;' .' :';';,; ..,"..,......... .'.". ~",,: . -- .;';:/'::;)i':.~~J':' "','f, -"" .,....'..'.-; , :':i"~,:- '..., ;',,"- ". :,..;~' '<.,--:," '. .. ':';:; "'.,. /:',',::'-:,'; ,. ,.:.~' . .. " Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend. Washington 98368 Phone (20BI385-Pl00 . 1..-8:".2878 RO&ERT H, HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFOAO. DISTRICT 2 RICHARD Eo wo.rr, DISTRICT 3 Hay 31, :1.995 TO: Monica M, Permit Coordinator Heather V, Permit coordinator David Goldsmith, Director of Community Services " FROM: RE: Monthly Payroll I wish to have the Permit Center ~o submit payroll sheets as a single unit. While Heather is to collect and consolidate the time sheets from DRD, instead of sending them to shirley directly, they will be sent as part of the Permit Center package. Quality control will be performed by the person preparing the center's package. The concept is continue the integration of all activities at the center and provide a singlo point for .inquiry and response. c. shirley VanHoover, Administrative Manaqer ..' . . .' C.1 100% ";ecvcled !'.per :'::"-f".:_;I;'::.irl;,;ifi<i\{~:;'l1i;,,:g:I~J!:ifi?,;:~r ~ I . . - . ]..- . .. ' , '... :] w ~ I- o Z V) ..... :I: I- Z < ::r: I- ex < w . --' I- UZ W V> :E: V> => wu --' 0 c V> .....W :r. WI- ::E <..... ex <:> ..... > V> I- ~ ::JJ t-.,< => ZO" -w: 1-:1: ' ZI- W ::E 0 :::> I- U OW c=> c W :I: V'l 1-- ~t: W ~ I- o Z ,'\ .....,~,~- o 8 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-P100' 1.800.8:11.2678 ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSe: NATIONAL "!$TORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON May 33., 1995 TO: Monica MacQuire, Permit Coordinator Shirley VanHoover, Administrative Manager David Goldsmith, Director of community services Hiring practices, payroll changes, Personnel Records FROM: RE: Personnel Records. For the time being I"wish to keep central personnel files maintained by shirley. To this end, the complete file should be maintained by her. Please coordinate the records contained at the Permit Center with Shirley's files to make sure the complete record is with Shirley. Items, letters, notes, etc, specific to individual accomplishments as well as a copy of the last performance evaluation and current payroll status form should be kept at the center for reference. payroll changes. When there are changes to persons compensation, as in new hires or step increases, Shirley should handle completing the payroll status change for processing. She will need to know the nature of the change, which budget line, effective date, etc. A copy of the executed form will be in kept at the c~nter in the personnel file. Hiring Practices. Once a new employee (temporary or permanent) is offered,a position and before they report to work, certain records need to updated, authorizations signed and backqround checks evaluated. So as not to further confuse the process and after a job offer is made, new hires are to be sent to Shirley to complete the necessary paper work ahd initialize the background check. No new employee may begin work for the County until ~l.arance is received. Additionally, someone from the center needs to take the person around for introductions, signing release and employee documents. The Personnel Committe., which Monica is an appointed member, will be addressing the process of hirinq. The procedure outlined above may well change once the committee has begun its work. Until then, ple..e follow this memo for records keepinq, payroll cbanqe., and hirinq practices. CI 100'/, "'ecycled paper . Cl . ,j. J I, · . '. I'r.', '5.2 ... ] ~m1j(fJff;t.t~ W ~ I- o 20 VI ..... :I: I- % < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U% ..., VI:E I VI :::> WU --' 0 <=> VI -w :>: WI- :E <..... exo ..... >- VII- X:; 1-< :::> ~O'; W I- :>: :z: I- W :EO ::> I- U OW c:::> <=> W :z: V> 1-- ~== W ~ I- o % ,r'" .... ._" ~I>-- o . .. . - - 8 8 .. . , ~~:,":;~ .~ ;r',r~ ~fI' --'-'~f~.~..~.~' t(, :t.. :.l!i!'''~'' . ... ~! ,;, $;~j foif-~:. "f' ~lt~~,:-.. ~.~.. ,'Y :t~,. -:"....:.~r:.~-~ ~~~ JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE HATlONAI. KISTOFUC SITE flOAT TOWN5ENO. WA5KIHGTOH Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend. Washington 98368 Phone (206) 385-PIOO . 1.e00-831.2878 ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT I GLEN HUNTINGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E, WOJT. DISTRICT 3 May 31, 1995 TO: Monica HacQuire, Permit Coordinator Shirley VanHoover, Administrative Manager David Goldsmith, Director of Community Services Hiring practices, Payroll changes, Personnel Records FROM: RE: Personnel Records. For the time being I wish to keep central personnel files maintained by Shirley. To this end, the complete file should be maintained by her. Please coordinate the records contained at the Permit Center with Shirley's files to make sure the complete record is with Shirley. Items, letters, notes, etc, specific to individual accomplishments as well as a copy of the last performance evaluation and current payroll status form should be kept at the center for reference. Payroll changes. When there are changes to persons compensation, as in new hires or step increases, Shirley should handle complet.ing the payroll status change for processing. She will need to know the nature of the change, which budget line, effective date, etc. A. copy of the executed form will be in kept at the center in the personnel file. Hiring practices. Once a new employee (temporary or permanent) is offered.a position and betore they report to work, certain records need to updated, authorizations signed and background checks evaluated. So as not to turther confuse the process and after a job offer is made, new hires are to be sent to Shirley to complete the necessary paper work ahd. initialize the background check. No new employee may begin work for the County until clearance 1s received. Additionally, someone from the center needs to take the person around tor introductions, signing relea.e and employe. document.. The Personnel committee, which Monica is an appointed member, will be addre.sing the proce.s of hiring. The procedure outlined above may well change once the committee has begun its work. Until then, plea.e follow this memo tor records keeping, payroll change., and hiring practJ.ce.. CJ 1000/0 ".cycled Pape, . c ~ ! " I , I I i i I i ! ! i I , ! 3 ~ I ,: , .' 8 . ~1 :~~ ~ I r ." ".-^,:.......""...~ J .... ~ l- e> :z: ~ ::c .... z < ::c .... e<: i::5 .1 -' .....1 U~l ~!il' ....U, .....8! ~....I ~i:r' ~15! ..... >-1 en 1-1 ;: :;j :g! ::~) z: I- .... !5el SC ....' c=: .... O[ ::c on I .........i, .....1-' ....-1 I I i ! w ~ l- e> :z: I"~ ......'- 8 . " Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98388 Phone (2oe) 385-11100 . 1.-..31.2&78 ROBERT H. HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GUN HUNTIHGFORD. DtSTRlCT 2 RICHARD Eo WOJT, DtSTfUCT 3 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE HATlCtHAl.. HI$TONC"ra I'OM fOWUIIHD. WASHlJ\IQTON May 31, 1995 TO: Monica K, Permit Coordinator Heather V, Permit Coordinator David Goldsmith, Director of Community Services Monthly payroll . ' , " FROM: RE: I wish to have the Permit Center ~o submit payroll sbeets as a single unit. Khile Heather is to collect and consolidate the time sheets from DRe, instead of sending them to shirley directly, they will be sent as part of the Permit Center packaqe. Quality control will be performed by the person preparinq the center's packaqe. The concept is continue the integration of all activities at the center and provide II sinqle point for inquiry and response. \ . c. Shirley VanHoover, Administrative Hanaqer '.' . . CI 100% Recycled Pep.. ]~..t~ ""1 " ^.! w ~ I- o Z ~ :I: I- Z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- <J Z W VI :E VI :::> W<J --'8 VI .....w :I: WI- :IE: ~15 ..... > ~!::: :I: --' I- < :::> ;::;0" w 1-:1: ZI- W i31= ow c:::> c W :I: VI I- ..... .....1- ....- .:; <J !5 Z ,'\ .........:~ i . . 1 . - . . .. " , /~f,:0(;~I': ~;.;~:~^ , '~'r" ,~- ~ '. I ~','~"', ' ," 7. -: '%' ~ -::1I-""":~' i!: ;1;, r' ,it.~ ,,61 ~,j" "j , , !fi: " ' "fI' ;.jt,~,lal1'1l!:f~ ,':,;, ....!~'~~"1:o~!:P~^'" ' iJ'.;!/JJIi' -=...: '.. "': ' ~ JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINOrOPll Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners P,O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98388 Phone (360) 385-9100' 1-800-831.2678' Fax (360) 385-9382 ROBERT H, HINTON, DISTRICT 1 GLEN HUNTlNGFORD, DISTRICT 2 RICHARD E. WOJT, DISTRICT 3 TO: May 2~' 1995 Shirley Van Hoover, Administrative Manager Permit Center, Permit Coordinators David Goldsmith, Director of Community Services ' Cost Allocation Reporting System FROM: RE: The Cost Allocation/Labor Distribution Reporting System currently operating at the Permit Center uses project codes to track personnel costs allocated through the payroll system to various types of activities, Some eight (8) project codes are assigned to the DRD section, This system has been evaluated with the aim assure that information collected is relevant for management decisions and to reduce the administrative burden and overhead cost any reporting system represents, From a management perspective, it is necessary to determine how human resources are allocated by organizational needs, then to further break this Information down to answer specific questions, What is necessary to track through the budget/payroll system is different than what Is necessary for the evaluation of labor distributiDn and workload, Of concern is the overhead cost in tracking specific information through the payroll system versus a In.house system as well as the usefulness of Information obUdned, , Given the above and commencing with the May payroll the following changes to the Cost Allocation/Labor Distribution Reporting System will be made: A. Time sheets sent to the payroll department will allocate time using the following project code titles for DRD: 1. Environmental Review (SEPA / CAO) 2, Application Review (other than SEPAlCAO) 3, Customer Service (no specific permit) 4, Tralnlng 8, A project tracking system will be Instituted for Individual permit applications. Initially, this system will track time spent in administration of the first five (5) short, long and large lot subdivision and shoreline substantial development permit applications beglMln& June 1, 1995. nlese first five applications will establish the labor distribution and cost allocation bench mark for future use, After the first five have been tracked every fifth application received from that point on will be tracked to assure the bench mark remains relevant, Information tracked will be kept on a in-house spread sheet program, C, Hard expenditures are to be assigned by division uslns the BARS system and allocated as a overhead cost across permit activities, There Is no need to assign general operating expenses by project codes, D, Pr~ect codes willlllways be established when grants are involved. The grant will be assigned II pro ect code and be utilized to track specific coslS related to the administration, capital purchases, an direct project activities related to the &rant, o '00% R.cycled Pepe, o . - 'I' · . ,~~2)<1[ - ~ , ~~~~~~!jl) .1 W u i= o 20 ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U 20 W, VI :E: I (,1'):::>>; ""u --' 0 c VI .....w :x: WI- :E <.... ex 0 .... > ~ t:;, :c ..J I 1-< => ' zer ..... W I- :I: ' z I- W :EO :::> 1-' U ow c => Q W ::c: VI I- ..... ~!::; W ~ l5 :z: f"\ .... ""10-. o . ... ..... ( ~ · FROI'I ~ .. .- . - . III , , K.LYNN PHONE NO, 206 780 9223 00 AUG 19_ m@mowmrn Jefferson County JEFFER ON 0 N PERMIT CENTER August 19. 1994 RE: Labor Distribution and Coat Allocation Team Minutes Time: 8:00 AM-11':30 PM In attendance: Monica, Kent. ShlrlGly, H.ather. Ken Agenda: Evaluation of Lebor Dlstrlbutlon/Coet Allocation Reporting Syetem The meeting began with a dlsoueelon of expectatlona by all present, ThCt itxpectatlone ranged from eveluetlng the present method of allocating costs In the Department to finding II better system that had more relevance to the work actuelly done, Conoerns were expreeeed that whichever procell Improvements were envl81oned, they be oonelstent with the BARS requirement for budgeting end reporting syetem. Additional concern. centered around thCt contlnuel demands on the Permit Center to provide coat dete that: supports feee, con be uaecl to determine process coet8, differentiates attrlbutlon to services, and provides Mure planning Input, Additional concerns centered around the ease of uso and relevance to work funcllone "lues. It w.. agrGeCI thet a look at available options would be epproprlete. Option Number 1.-crofltlon of II eyatem that traoka oosts by dlsorete proJeots throughout the permit proceeD: The pius.. of Option 1: . -It would coat out evary pro~.ppllcatlQn b..ed on actual coats -It could be uHd ., . workload evaluallon ayetem -It lXluld be u.ad .. . workload planning oyatem -It could ..al,t In ...flIng proJections -It oould identify the time f.ot~ Involved In e proJeol end eort out r.sponslblllty for delaye .nd Improve oustomer nrvlolng of the upplloants -It could be uHCl... production/planning tool to emooth 8C~ullng, -It could Improve Intemal,control. and Improve productivity o ., 0' ':~}')'. t~ , , PC2 ,;~ , - I, - . I ! I ';, ') I rj '.' ,'" ,. " IIl'I ]-- J w ~ l5 20 ::! :I: I- z < :I: I- ex < w . --' I- U 20 v>~1 VI => wu; ;;; 8i _ Wi Xi ~I-l <.....1 e;01 >-i VII-I X ::;1 ......~I =0'1 ......~I :z 1-1 w :EO ::> I- <.J 0..... C => C w :I: VI I- ..... ~= .:..; ~ l5 z ,'\ o . .. . - . - - . - .. " i I-Io/UM K.LYNN ~HUNc NU, ~ (~~ ~~~~ ~~" Labor Distribution/Cost Allocation-Page 2 The negatives of option 1: ..The amount of time necessary to Implement and track the system ..The opposition from the employees-another set of requirements -The cost of the system Option Number Two-.The creation of 8 eystem that gathel'8 bese labor end cost deta on each' type of project to eatabll8h 8 coat for each. The output of this enelyale would provide control limits for each process In respect to amount of labor and cost for each. Quarterly audits would be taken after that to Insure that time and cost allocations were within control IImlt8, If time end coat Increased for . process the bese allocation would be adjusted, Pluses of option 2: ..Much e.alet to Impl6ment and administer -Low coet " Negatives of option 2: ..0 & R have no Mgenerlc proceB8M-a1l projects are unique -To difficult to find repreeentotlve times ..Could not traok project -Leas defenalble to rete payere ...could not baokup atafflns need a -Hardar to prep.r. budget -Client naada apeolfto data-would not help Option No. a..U.. the preHnt eyetem: Plueea of option No.3: ..' - . -A1r..dy In plaoe \ " . I' ..",. ",< ,,12.. ,[ IN "., J w ~ I- o 20 VI :;: I- z < :I: I- ex < W . --' I-- , '-' ::z: Wi ~~! W '-', ~Oi C' VI ' .....W, :I: ' ~:! ex 0' La.. >-! ~5i, t- c:c ! :z: 5! ..... ] w' t-::c: ; :z...... ' W ' :IE: 0' :::> I-- gw' Q=: C W :I: In I- .....' ~ t::; W ~ I- o z ,'\ .....-.~ 'rJ'-" ( : 10 8 .. - nil . - r ,\ it FROM: K,LYNN PHONE NO, : 206 780 9223 PO': Labor Distribution/Cost Allocation-Page 3 Negatives of option No.3: -Gathering data even though It Is not used -Data and numbers are auspect -Doesn't track key tasks -Don't know how to use or what Is there -Computer aide of vouchers Is cumbersome ..Mllllakes In coding ere easy to make -Shirley must do a lot of quality control -Training 18 8 problem .' . It was deolded that none of the three options proaented en obviouo oholce that all of those present oould embraoo. A do-nothing option (Option No.4) was suggested for evaluetlon-that IIll track nothing-it was evalulllted a8 follows: Plu.a. Option 4: -Easy end low cost -Staff would love --Colla would actually reduce Mlnu... Option 4: -Would not traok orltioal .r... -Ollgnolls would be dlfflcult-each request would require a special proces8 -You DOuld not find the OOIta euoclated with dlvl8lona at eny given tlmo -Would require special method. to Denarete required Info,rmlllUon Option 4 wee dl.carded out of hend-. The dl.cu'.lon Ihlfted to trying to analyze the budget megnltude of the data and the DOlt benefit of tracking each type: The oen8rel budget atatletlos were broken .nd out the following percentages Mr8 Id8ntlnad:, . ' ' Out of .wry $1 apent In the Permit Center: 10 centa Ie for labor, 21 centM Is lor oene,.1 overh..d and 9 cenlt It for aupplle. end "/VIces, ' -, ., .' 8 8 " . I ... .,f'\ . , ] 3 .f_ ,;., . L - 1 Cf;:1J:S-n,'j,I,w-a .1 j w ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: I- ;z: < :I: I- ex < w . --'I- UZ w' V> :EI ~BI --'0 C V> -~I WI- :E I <.....' ex 0, ..... I >, ~t::; :1:--' I- < :::> 20 c::r - I- ~: :Z:I- W :E 0' ::J 1-" U o UJ, c:::> c W ~~i ~!::i w ~ I- o :z: r'\ .... '-~....' o I- ,....)' . .. , - 1"''1 ( . - 8 8 .. , , F'ROM : K.LYNN PHONE NO, 206 780 9223 Labor Distribution/Cost Allocatlon--Psge 4 Slnoe general overhead Is spread by department the requirement to report it to finite areas Is not as critical as labor or supplies end services, Since supplies and 8ervlces are only 9 percent there are perhaps some central rtllporting categories that could simplify the reporting process and still meet the BARS requirements. Labor at 70 percent should have an acoeptable traoking process for allocation. The team then Identified the requlromenta for such a system. In respect to 8upplles end 8ervices (9% 01 the budglSt) the following reporting categories were recommended: Permit Coordination Building Division D&RD Health Department Public Works Permit Center Administration The." reporting categories for supplies and services were deemed to be both functional and adequate for any statutory requirements. In respect to Labor Distribution. the following tracking requirements by Division were 8uggeeted: D&RD: -Track each project by labor content -Track all training -Trick Critical Area Review Factors Permit Coordination: -Training -Permit Center AdministratIon -Permit Coordlnatlon Operations ..Crltloel Area RevieW Facto,.. Building .. Trllnlng ..Inapectlonl..count time and number -Plan Cheolc8.-oount tlma and number ..Crltlcal Area Review FlIotore 1:', \.;., .,1',48\1.\;;"... .~;'~ ! : < ~, ,.>.),,0::','-: po: i" , I, · . .. .~ ,..~ . " ",Ir - ]~~3 ~! ,J W ~ I- o 20 ~ :I: I- 20 < :I: I- ex < W . --' I- U :z VJ ~i V>:::> ' Wt..), --'0 C VI _w, ::I: WI- :E < lL. ex 0 ..... >- ~ t::: :I: --' 1-<: :::>, ;::;= Wi ~~! W :EO => l- t.> OW C ==> C W :I: VI I- ..... ~t:: W ~ l5 z I"' ..~, '.'-;#'- o 8 .. . - . - 8 . .. " 1 FROM K, LYNN PHONE NO. 206 780 9223 lJiIbor Distribution/Cost Allocatlon..Pegs 5 It was agreed that theee labor distribution and oost allocation changes would provide functional, accurete and easily compiled data. The most difficult collection activity would be In D&RD where labor would be tracked by each project. Since labor Is 70% of the cost for County Permit Services. It was deemed reasonable that the greatest Investment should be made In labor use allocation. The group also recognizes that the Breekthrough Prooe88 Team now working In the Permit Center Is developing an event traoklng OIlpablllty In permit plen. This development will hvlp the transition Into and aocounteblllty for the lab(lr distribution requirements, ' Asslgnmen18: The following assignments were made by the team 80 that the new process can be tested 8S 800n 8S poaalble-H was alao eugg.,ted and adopted by the teem that any teet proce.... will run conourrent!)' with the preIl"nt lIIy.tem until they pass tho acoeptanoo requlrementa. Kent: Kant Is responsible for the overall coordination of the proce.. end to insure D &RD and Building Servlcel have an opportunity to oomment on the .....c",....... n_ pr...-..... I(w..ll.. ....u '_ponolblo to nave _ _ugg_.,oo v.ottlnlil sheet for each of these two departments completed by the nllxt m..ung. Monica: Monica Is responsible for communloatlng the new proce.. to the other permit coordlnatora and lollcltlng their Inputa for ohang. or mOdification, once aooGmpllahed, she Ie allo ....ponslbl. for 8 lugg..ted trloklng .heel fOr the permit ocordlnatlon group, Shlrely Ie r.aponelble for Inaurlng thet the new .yetem mHte the ov....1I requlr.menta for r.portlng end developing any bridging form'" that mUll be created to trenefor or aggregate da.. from the Pernlll Center traoklng forml to the formal aocountlng and reporting lyatem. Kent Is al80 reeponslble for dlscu..lng the propoHd action at D.ve', .t," meeting in two woelce, Next mooting will be at 9:00 AM. ThurtdlY. September 11th. .: .' pelS I I 'L " 'I, 8 8 .. 'J") Ir ',' ,re, x,. ., - I ,'~""''''''~'''''''''''~'' j ....''''.'"'..!u..~ -1 w ~ I- o :z: VI ;: I- 20 < ::a:: I- ex < W . --' I- u~~ ~5i wu --' 0 c V'l .....w :I: WI- :E <..... c:: 0, ..... > ~t: ::a:: --' 1-< => :=:;0" w I- :I: :z: I- W :EO => I- u ow 0:::> C ,~ V) I- ..... ~t::; .:; ~ l5 :z: f' .... .-...... o . . - pr. --'..- .....................,..................... , , iEMPLOYEE NAME: : : r......"',.""..'FUNCfioN"'.."...'....'..T'sAsuar.'PRoj'jj'! 1:p.$y.g~:9.:~M:gN!::B.:~y.i:gi{it.:::::::::::::::::::.J i",',GF',.,.,.,'I',~O.,'.',!10',',',~,d',.,.,',~,',Z~'"",.,IO"",,',P!1',',,"~~,.",','.',,',",',,',",'"".,",',',',...,."..I,~'~'~,:~~.,,IF.'~,J.\,~,~,~,., ""..I,~,~,~,:~~",!,F.'~,F.'~~~,., - iForest Practices 1558,62 1PPP305 '\"..i.........................................................,.....".;.....................i....................,... ....!Shorelines [558,62 [PPP304 .~..................................................................I.....................,........................ ~:Subdivisions 2 jPPP302 :;~!?~:~:~::q:~~~:::::::::::::::::::,: ..2"TpP~~~~::: ~Critical Areas DP401 ~"......,.."..,....."..,..,..,......,...."....,..,..,.., ,.............,......' '..iAdministration CAOOO ~,.......,..,....,....,..,............,....,..,"',...,..," ! , , i:f.Ak$3?QMp":,:':,:'::':::':::1' iY..~,9..A!!,9.~..,....,',..,.,...,"',.,!,~,~,~,:~~,.,:.F.'9.J.\g,~.~.". i,~.9.~.I.!?AX..,..,..........,...."J~,~.~.:~~...JF.'9.J.\g,~,~.., :SICK LEAVE [558,62 [PDAOOO j'i=LoATli\iG..'H"OLi'o..rs.s'a:62.'..rPDAooo'" iT"OTAC..REG'ljLAFf'H'6URS.............'. r9:Y.:g:~tfi:Mg::(~)?j::::::::r:::::::::,:::::::r......'.."... j i i i:g~~~Z.~~g1~~~Z~;::J:,: .,....,... iCOMPTIME (O.T. X 1.5) : ,....................,.,.........."........",.,...,....,.....,..........,........"",.1.......".. ...........1 !COMPTIMETAKEN .[ , rc6ivi'pTiMEEN61i\iG'BALAN'ct~..! I~~~~~~;:~;'::::::::::'....,...:;:::'::':..':,:;:::'::':..'..:'::':':':li .lo,llJ . ....,. (, ( . - - . - .. -Lh...~____;7):'i :'(:.':ii"~i('. ... (,i:fl " f I. .. :;~!' o . o ',if ; , .' - - .. . I I A I~ ": .t"~1 ~ .1": II _ r . (tJt::~:G:w..':7,i!":t.1 . .. , , . _.._---. W DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISI u i= EM:PLdYEE NAME: 0 20 FUNCTION BASUB PROJI V> - :I: APPLICATION REVIEW 558,62 PDP501 I- :z '1'1':' / < \.1 SEPA REVIEW, 558,62 PDP502 :I: t- ex ~ 558,62 PDP401 < ~ CRITICAL AREAS W --' I- ;~ uz GENERAL DEV REVIEW 558,62 PDAOOO w; V>:E I V) ="! 558.62 PCT501 wu TRAINING -'gi V> ADMINISTRATION 558,62 PCAOOO _w :I: .~. ."" WI- :E CClL.: ex 0 TAKECOMP ..... > ~~ VACATION 558.62 PDAOOO ::J: -' i I- ~: 20 CT HOLIDAY 558,62 PDAOOO - W I- :I: i " Z I- SICK LEAVE 558,62 PDAOOO W :EO :::> I- FLOATING HOLIDAY u ow Q ::> W c TOTAL REGULAR HOURS :I: V> t-..... ~. "- I- 0 -.....: O.T. EARNED (nol w ~ l5 OR TOTAL: MORONLY Z NOTES: APPROVED: J'\ - o - .. ." I, ;~l' .' . c' I, t I, - . :,<;,>" IF - . ]-.,.. 8 .. , , ] w u i= o 20 V> ..... :I: I- z: < :I: I- 'ex < w . ~i!1 ~~!:l wI-I! ~ u.IJ f::oU" >1;. V') to- i ,'~ ;: :;r") 1-:31 ! ;::; O'!) LLJiJ ~i=l~ LlJ ! i" !i:=i'~ gwfil CiS .{ ~V1i J-.....; < LL. t-:1 --.-~ TO: David Goldsmith .. FROM: Alice King DATE: April 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Financial Procedure - Payroll Shirley wants me to "separate and enter time for each project code as to hours and rate before and after step increases." 8 I do not understand the necessity of doing the payroll this way. In view of the training to which some county-employees (not myself) were sent on "Informed Consent", I would be better able to comply if I understood why we have this requirement. Cheri tells me that it is not necessary as far as she is concerned to break down the payroll to reflect step increases. To the best of my knowledge we at the Permit Center have no use for the information that Brad was paid 3.9 cents more for inspections he did after his step increase than those he did before his step increase. I understand Shirley wants this 'information, however, during the Breakthrough Process meetings that were held to evaluate the "labor distribution/cost allocation reporting system", shirley failed to come forth with why this information was needed. The last thing Kent said to me on this subject was that we need this information because we need this information. He went on to elaborate that some of the information corresponded to the way we deposit funds. This is not true for inspections. We have no separate'deposits for "inspection fees". We do track the number of i,nspections. This information is needed for workload evaluation etc. If we wanted to know the exact number of hours he spent doing inspections, we could get the hours off of the timesheets; when this information is transferred to the blue lines, the report that is ultimately produced gives the information in dollars. Since it takes more time to do the payroll the way Shirley.wants it done and in light of the Total Quality Management goal of getting rid of "non-value added" w,ork, and having made an effort and failed to find out what that added value was in this case, I am therefore having difficulty giving my informed consent....I am asking for your hOlp. Is the answer"just do it"? " w ~ l5 z ,'\ ..._~ I 8 I' 8 . .....J , , ' .. Ir