You are on page 1of 5

DATE: February 24, 2011

TO: Paul Samuelson, Mayor


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.

PAGE

PAGE 2

You might also like