FROM: Larry Kwarsick, Planning Official SUBJECT: Work Activities - 43 Hours Worked CMA Parking Lot - Critical Areas Review: The critical areas decision for this project is pending. I have met with the Whidbey Watershed Stewards and the Whidbey Island Conservation District. I conducted an on site inspection with ATSI, the wetland Consultant working for Cane Engineering contract amendment. I conferred with Curtis Hinman, WSU Extension Faculty, Watershed Ecologist Director WSU Puyallup Low Impact Development Research Program at the WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center regarding the project’s low impact development design to include the soil specification and plant selection. Urban Growth Area: At the suggestion of the County, I have begun the review of the existing County-wide Planning Policies for a meeting scheduled in March with all County, City, and Town Planners. Shoreline Master Program: I have met with ESA Adolfson to discuss their interest in and availability to conduct the shoreline inventory and analysis task for the shoreline plan. ESA Adolfson is performing the same work for the update of the Island County SMP. Discussed the proposal with DOE to include a CZM contract amendment to shift the task assignment under the contract to a consultant. Marina and Port: Boat Launch Gangway and Floats - The Port submitted a shoreline permit for worked covered under a prior permit that they believed had expired. Based upon my review of the proposed project I issued a decision that the project could proceed as the changes do not substantively change the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. In the decision I also extended the project completion date until December of 2012. Langley Marina Maintenance and Operations - The Port has submitted a shoreline permit to authorize routine maintenance activities at the marina and uplands. A companion application was submitted to the County to cover the other Port facilities in unincorporated Island County. The City will assume lead agency status under SEPA for all project activities. I have conferred with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and am in process of issuing the SEPA Threshold Determination. Community Planner: A substantial amount of time was allocated to selecting applicants for interviews and the actual interviewing of the community planner candidates over a 2 day period. Wharf Street Staff has met to discuss the preparation of an amendment to COG to expand the Wharf Street Project and to prepare an application for 2010-11 Regional STP Application-Cascade/Wharf St for a pedestrian tram. Unified Code I have begun to prepare amendments to the proposed Whole Langley Code to include standards to encourage infill development. Planning Advisory Board A Planning Advisory Board meeting was held to discuss the 2011 work program, to include the pending tree protection standards. PAGE
PAGE 1 DATE: February 5, 2011 TO: Paul Samuelson, Mayor FROM: Larry Kwarsick, Planning Official SUBJECT: Work Activities - 53 Hours Worked.
CMA Parking Lot - Critical Areas Review:
The critical areas decision for this project is pending. I have met with concerned citizens and am awaiting additional collaboration with project subconsultants, which is in part the basis of the Cane Engineering contract amendment. Urban Growth Area: While the City has not officially heard back from the County on the request to review the existing Langley UGA, I did speak to Bob Pederson following his discussions with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on February 2. The BOCC was not able to grant the request to include the UGA review in the County’s 2011 work program but Bob Pederson has agreed to begin the foundation of our collective GMA Plans with the collaborative evaluation of the existing County-wide Planning Policies and the terms and conditions of the existing Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County. These efforts would commence this year. There is the possibility that in 2012 (with the benefit of census data) we would review the City’s buildable lands as the next step of UGA boundary review. In the interim we should integrate infill incentives into the finalization of the “Whole Langley Code” project. Since the City will be updating its water plan this year the adoption of annexation policies that are tied to utility service should also be considered. Langley Passage: Challis requested land use and critical area assistance from the Island County Planning and Community Development Department. The request was made to set aside any appearance of fairness or conflict of interest claims that could be made by parties of interest should I, as the Planning Official, conduct the critical area and SEPA evaluation on the recently submitted revised utility plan. The conflict of interest arises from the fact that I have worked with the project applicant’s in the past, although I did not work on this specific project during the period of time preceding the Council’s deliberations. The City has asked that the County Planning Director provide SEPA review and critical areas ordinance (the City's critical areas ordinance) of the Langley Passage amended sewer and water utility plans, using the same methods and procedures that would be used by the City planner and the City's SEPA Responsibility Official. One difference is that because the County Planning Director is not employed by the City. As result, I as the City Planner and SEPA Responsible Official, have designated the Building Official to review the County Planning Director's decision and make the final administrative decision for the City on these assigned tasks. My delegation of responsibilities/duties only relates to the Langley Passage application and the specific decisions identified. Shoreline Master Program: I have met with the DOE project manager and will proposing an amended scope of work and budget for the project. The amendment is necessary for the require shoreline analysis (at a minimum) and possibly might include the identification possible areas of shoreline restoration and associated conceptual plans. The County has hired a consultant for these purposes and I plan to meet with them to discuss their interest, cost, and availability. Marina and Port: Boat Launch Gangway and Floats The Port submitted a shoreline permit for worked covered under a prior permit that they believed had expired. In association with the review of their application I arranged an onsite meeting with the Port, DOE, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The results are stated below. (DOE sent a confirmation of their affirmation of my decision.) On August 31, 2006 the City of Langley approved the SDP for the “Phil Simon Boat Launch” improvements. The Water Quality Certification from DOE was issued on December 29, 2006. The DFW Hydraulics Permit was issued on September 11, 2006 (Control #103409-2) and included mitigation. Description: The proposal consists of the following activities: Alter the existing boat ramp grade, add a gangway ramp and float, extend the existing wing-wall, remove eleven creosote treated pilings, beach nourishment, placement of a boardwalk extension to the existing bulkhead, anchor existing large woody debris, native plantings and upland improvements. The upland development consisted of pavement for parking area, drainage system (biofiltration cells), picnic tables, lighting fixtures, kiosk, and additional landscaping around parking area. The project was partially completed in 2009, i.e. the upland development. The Port of South Whidbey, the current owner, has requested a modification to the previously issued permit. The modification entails the relocation of the proposed boarding floats from the south side of the existing boat ramp to the north side of the existing boat ramp. The previously proposed alteration of the grade of the existing boat ramp is no longer proposed and is off the table. The governing WACs on performance under an issued SDP are as follows: Pursuant to WAC 173-27-090 (3): The effective date of a shoreline permit shall be the date of the last action required on the shoreline permit and all other government permits and approvals that authorize the development to proceed, including all administrative and legal actions on any such permit or approval. It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the local government of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than the local government and of any related administrative and legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of the pendency of other permits or approvals is given to the local government prior to the date established by the shoreline permit or the provisions of this section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the shoreline permit. COMMENT: The Water Quality Certification from DOE was issued on December 29, 2006. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-090 (2)(a): Construction shall be commenced or, where no construction is involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a shoreline permit. Provided, that local government may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the department. COMMENT: Construction as authorized under the SDP was commenced (to include design review of the project details) within the initial two years following the effective date. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-090 (2)(b): Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a shoreline permit. Provided, that local government may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the department. COMMENT: The construction authorized is to terminate 5 years from the effective date (December 29, 2011), unless a one-year extension is granted. Given the grant cycle upon which the project is dependent the City will grant the one year extension. Based upon my review of the proposed project modifications as discussed this date onsite with Doug Thompson, David Pater, and Dane Anderson (representing the Port) I am of the opinion that the project may proceed as the changes do not substantively change the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Per WAC 173-27-100, changes are substantive if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, the master program and/or the policies and provisions of chapter HYPERLINK "http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58" \o "http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58 blocked::http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58" 90.58 RCW. I do not find that to be the case. I also find that the amendment within the scope and intent of the original permit. I do request that the Port consider the following further amendments, that would also fall within the scope and intent of the issued permit and that would not be considered substantive changes: Reduction of the number of floats and extension of the gangway out to deeper water so that floats will be less likely to ground; and Use grating on the floats instead of decking. While not part of the current proposal I would further recommend that the Port consider the replacement of the current concrete boat ramp with a elevated and grated boat ramp. In the final design of the current project, that Port might want to consider planning for such as a future phase of ramp improvements. The Port must remember that while there was a preliminary review of the improvements by the City Design Review Board, the final plans will need to be submitted to the City Board and all building permits acquired. Any related authorizations/approvals from other regulatory agencies are the responsibility of the Port. Langley Marina Maintenance and Operations The Port has submitted (emphasis added) a shoreline permit to authorize routine maintenance activities at the marina and uplands. A companion application was submitted to the County to cover the other Port facilities in unincorporated Island County. I plan to work with the County to efficiently review the application package. Community Planner: I believe we have 20 applicants and we are planning to interview the applicants upon my return home the week of the 14th. I am hopeful that we will find a qualified candidate within the interviewees that fits both the organizational and community needs. Home Occupations: I issued a home occupation permit for a new business at 575 Luhn. Potential Projects: I have had two meetings with property owners regarding a potential project on Al Anderson Road which would involve Saratoga Housing.