Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02191998 Min Ag . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting February 19, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: January 8, 1998 January 22, 1998 January 29, 1998 February 5, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS . V. NEW BUSINESS A. Puget Sound Energy, Conditional Use Permit Application No. LUP97-00065 (Kearney Street Substation) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Johnson) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings February 26, 1998 A. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (Hearing Continued-without additional public testimony) B. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Parking and Signs) - Public Hearing C. Planning Commission Public Hearings Procedures - Workshop D. Annual Comprehensive Plan Process - Workshop March 12, 1998 March 26, 1998 . VII. ADJOURN . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting February 19, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 8, 1998 January 22, 1998 January 29, 1998 February 5, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Puget Sound Energy, Conditional Use Permit Application No. LUP97-00065 (Kearney Street Substation) . 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Johnson) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings February 26, 1998 A. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (Hearing Continued-without additional public testimony) B. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Parking and Signs) - Public Hearing C. Planning Commission Public Hearings Procedures - Workshop D. Annual Comprehensive Plan Process - Workshop March 12, 1998 Parks & Recreation Functional Plan - Public Hearing March 26, 1998 . VII. ADJOURN · · · - /- b .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting February 19, 1998 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Pope Marine Park Building by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, John Boles, and Craig Johnson. Lois Sherwood was absent; Lisa Enarson was excused. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and Jeff Randall. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Januaty 8. 1998 -- Motion to approve the minutes as written and amended was made by Boles and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. Januaty 22..1998 -- Motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Boles and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. Januaty 29.1998 -- Motion to approve the minutes as written and amended was made by Erickson and seconded by Johnson. All were in favor. Februaty 5. 1998 MOTION Boles Table approval of the February 5, 1998 minutes until the meeting on February 26,1998 SECOND VOTE Johnson Unanimous, 4 in favor III. COMMUNICA nONS: Current Mail · City Council meeting summaries and Meetings, Meetings, Meetings. · Next week's agenda. · Memorandum from Tim McMahan to Lisa Enarson regarding liability of adjacent property owners for sidewalks. It was reported that revisions to the Non-Motorized Plan will be ready tomorrow; a conveyance letter will also be drafted. IV. OLD BUSINESS Boles said pursuant to the memorandum from Tim McMahan to Lisa Enarson regarding liability for sidewalks by adjacent property owners, he had discussion with McMahan regarding notice to property owners about repairs. McMahan indicated, if the city chose, there is nothing to preclude it from doing an inventory of needed repairs, notifying the property owners and having a hearing. Details are yet unclear. . . · · · ... Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 2 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Puget Sound Energy, Conditìonal Use Permit Application No. LUP97-00065 (Kearney Street Substation) 1. StafIReport (JefIRandalI) Randall explained the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and recommended Conditions stating the application is for a permit to construct a new electrical distribution substation adjacent to the existing Kearney Street substation. He noted the entire block is owned by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and pointed out differences with the old and new substatiöns: · Replacement of facilities and provide more modem equipment for better service; · Allow easier and safer maintenance by PSE; · New transformer foundation allows containment of oil leaks and prevents future soil contamination; · Will be much less bulky taking up much less air space, will be more esthetically pleasing; · Signifìcant amöunt of landscaping proposed; Randall said public facíIities are designated as conditiönal use permits; he indicated the C-IIIMU zoning district triggers that, and he explained this is a major conditional use permit that requires a public hearing. He stated this will be the only open record public hearing, that all the testimony and information gathered by the Planning Commission will be considered by the City Council in a closed record hearing. Randall stated an environmental review was conducted and the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on January 28, 1998 and became final February 12, 1998. He pointed out several comment letters were received from neighbors and their issues were addressed in the MDNS. Randall summarized conditions of the MDNS: · Soil contamination was found on site, mainly from the historic use of the property as a substation holding old transformer equipment. PSE made a site assessment, since that time removed the contamination, and is now in compliance with the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) MDNS required that both the site where the new substation will be located and the old site after the substation is removed meet MTCA standards. The old substation will be removed after the new substation is built and energized. He indicated the MTCA is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Ecology and is referenced by the SEPA MDNS for informational purposes and to ensure we have a complete cleanup before this project is done; · Temporary erosion controls will be constructed to prevent soils going oflsite, perhaps to Kah Tai Lagoon; · Future herbicide use is discouraged; design of the facility minimizes that need; . . · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 3 · Electric Magnetic Frequency (EMF) testing will be conducted by PSE around the existing substation as it operates now and around the future substation once it is completed. Neighbors expressed concern wíth what levels of EMf' fields existed and the affect ofthe new substation. PSE has offered to do the testing and win be spot testing around any homes, or inside any houses of concerned neighbors; · The Landscaping plan has been prepared and landscaping wm be installed as part of the project; · Asphalt driveways will be installed on Kearney Street and Clay Street (asphalt will help keep gravel on the site from being carried out into the streets). Clay Street currently does not meet city standards for an access street; it is approximately 16 feet wide, but the edge along the subject property has no curb, and is crumbling, especially along the drive. PSE will construct a curb along that area and improve the edge of the road so it is a solid surface. La\\<Tence Street has a curb and Gaines Street is not used by the project. .. A grassy shoulder win be provided along Clay Street to allow pedestrians to get of I the street in case they meet oncoming vehicles. Since this project will generate no pedestrian trattlc, a sidewalk is not being required. Neighbors comments received were basically around conditions: · Sutlicient landscaping to screen the interior of the site from neighbors and passersby; · View impacts from Gains Street -- how do they see Kah Tai Lagoon; · Soil contamination and cleanup remediation; . Future use of the existing substation site and its cleanup Zoning is C-lI/MU: · The proposed substation design is consistent with setback and height requirements of the zoning district. Maximum buìlding height requirement is 35 feet; the tallest structure within the compound is 35 feet. The new landscape plan shows the towers and poles along Kearney Street, poles that are necessary. · The site is not in an environmentally sensitive area or under the jurisdiction of the Shorelines Management Act, although there are wetlands on the other side of Kearney Street, approximately 100 teet from property boundaries. There is no justification or purpose to invoke the ESA and require a permit f'Or a vegetative butter with the existing city street. · Trattîc is estimated at approximately two vehicle trips per week. There will be suttlcient parking in the compound for at least two PSE vehicles and to allow suttlcient turnaround and exit without backing out onto the streets. Summary of criteria f'Ound in the Findings and Conclusions: 1. Design harmonious and appropriate in character and appearance (residential development is to the north; commercial development to the other side of Lawrence, the side of Clay, and · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 4 the other side ofKeamey Streets)? Compatible actions include: --Landscaping on all perimeters; --Grading down to lower the Gaines Street side of the site to reduce visual impact; --Limiting lighting being mounted on 8 foot poles with four sodium vapor lights; Shifted location of the project on the property towards Clay Street leaving suf1Icient room to be surrounded by landscaping. 2. Served by adequate public facilities? --Stormwater control system having a line along the perimeter to intercept stormwater and convey it to the city stormwater system which travels under Kearney Street and then enters Kah Tai Lagoon; --Stormwater bioswale along Kearney Street where stormwater ffom the middle ofthe property, the impervious surface portion, would first be directed for treatment before entering the stormwater system. Requirements are not very high; the site is basically 100 percent pervious surface. PSE proposals exceed Port Townsend engineering design stormwater standards, as well as the Puget Sound Storm Water Management Manual standards. --There is adequate water (for landscaping); --Sewer in not required; --Fire protection. Fire Department indicates hydrants are adequate. 3. Not materiê¡}.lly detrimental. . . to the vicinity. --Will be much more esthetically pleasing then previously. --Will impact views to some extent; however, any development on this site, multi-family or commercial, will impact the views. PSE has done what they can to minimize that impact. 4. Will the proposed use have merit and value for the community as a whole? Yes. It will help our electrical system and make it more efl:icient and reliable. We will have a more attractive substation than previously. 5. Is it consistent with the goals and policies ofthe 1996 Comp Plan? Yes. --Improved electrical service is needed (see Goal 30, Policy 30.4) --Herbicides should be limited. PSE has done some things with its designs to try to limit the herbicides that will be needed in the f-µture. Will be removing approximately 4,000 cubic yards of soil from the site including a lot of old gravel, etc. and import new gravel for a minimum depth of 3 inches or more to naturally limit vegetative growth and limit need for herbicides. The perimeter of the property will be naturally landscaped and not need herbicides. 6. Does the proposed use comply with the Port Townsend Municipal Code? Yes, appears to comply with all the codes for streets, parking, zoning height, building heights, setbacks, etc. 7. Public interest benefitted? Yes, improved service. Cumulative impacts: the only substation on the street; it is not an issue. 8. Meets the Comp Plan criteria for CUPs permits? Environmental review -- the SEP A MDNS is included in the packet (SEP A is final; cannot modify the conditions). Neighbors have been most interested in cleanup of the site. PSE report received yesterday indicates the cleanup completed meets MTCA standards. Cleanup of contamination around the old concrete loading dock and dO\vn in the corner meets MTCA standards and is clean. They cannot do any testing at the existing substation while it is still electrified. \;\-'hen the new substation is up and electrifIed the equipment and fencing will be removed from the old site ..... i · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 5 and they will begin testing tor soil contamination, and if tound will conduct similar remediation to meetMTCA standards. That wiÌl be continuing the completion of the landscaping. Contact has been made with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and there are provisions in the SEPA MDNS to have third party expertise and guidance to verity if the MTCA determination is accurate. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF: Q. Boles: Where are the conditions of the lighting stated, either by reference or in tíndings and conclusions? A. Randall: One place is the SEPA MDNS #25, Page 19 (Exhibit 8). Proposed lighting is four sodium vapor, 100 watt lights mounted 8 teet in the air. Randall said it might be appropriate to add language in the conditions that lighting be consistent with that shown on the landscaping plan. Q. Boles: Did you review the drawing and characteristics of proposed lighting, its purpose and output, with the needs of the neighborhood to see if the two were in balance with what was needed? A. Randall: Said he went out there. At present there are two 100 watt sodium vapor type lights that might be mounted a little bit higher than 8 feet (the are the same type of lights, but the mounting may be ditlerent). Sodium vapor is commonly used tor outdoor lighting, but it is the lowest glare type. SEP A MDNS #25 added that the lights be shielded, pointed downward and reflect otl the ground. Q. Boles: Also #25, what does it mean, from the air? Sees a great deal of exposed lumen and they will double the number of lights. A. Randall: The condition in theMDNS is standard. Q. Boles: Where is old site cleanup and equipment reterenced? Are there no additional conditions establishing what is in the old equipment and the questions necessary in removing that so nothing else is spilled? A. Randall: MDNS #2, Page 16. There were no conditions placed as to where they should take their equipment. Basically they are bound by state law to dispose of those materials properly. Q. Boles: It was not clear in #2 about the report being be prepared and submitted to DOE, a copy of the report submitted to the City, and the jurisdiction of DOE to determine. There is a missing link between the DOE and the City getting the report and being able to do something if there is a determination of inadequacy. A. Randall: This is a voluntary cleanup procedure by PSE. Voluntary cleanup procedures are encouraged by MTCA; it is one of the ways the state has sought to get properties cleaned up. ." .. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 6 Rather than having direct DOE involvement every time contamination is tound, DOE does not come to the site, test it themselves and then force the property owner to do something about it. Voluntary cleanup encourages property owners by setting performance standards for all types of contaminants. Property owners have power to obtain consultants, determine the contaminants, clean them up, and are required to submit reports to DOE within a certain time. DOE catalogs those reports and usually doesn't do a lot in compliance. That is why it is indicated the city can require a third-party review. We have required PSE to submit a report to the city, so if neighbors, city stafI, or anyone is concerned they can read the reports and educate themselves on the issues. If the city should be really uncomfortable with the cleanup methodologies that PSE is proposing, we could require PSE to obtain a third-party consultant of mutual choice to give independent consultation. Q. Boles: Does paragraph 4 modify paragraph 2? Regarding the voluntary nature, is there a more substantive condition written in here, even though it is voluntary by DOE, that we could require something more stringent? City review in consultation with DOE seems passIve. A. Randall: Those paragraphs all need to be read together. The voluntary cleanup trom a regulatory standpoint is passive in that it is designed to write the performance standards, and then allow the property O)v'llcr to hit those standards. Randall said they put things in here above normal voluntary cleanups, how the city would be involved in that they are required to give us a copy, and that we are able to go out and get that third party review. The next step up, as far as having a government entity officially reviewing and passing judgment on a cleanup is a ditlerent kind of cleanup all together; it is not something that is voluntary. The property owner would have to enter into a contractual arrangement with DOE and put up a $500 deposit and DOE charges them over time to review all documentation. One benefit to the property owner is that they get a No Further Action Letter ffom DOE which basic.ally says the property is clean. They are not requesting that. Q. Thayer: It is my understanding that DOE will never give a total clearance. Q. Boles: On one hand it is voluntary, on other hand with a conditional use permit we could make mitigated determination so we can be sure that the end point reaches what the city is satistied with, I am still not sure I am hearing that in what you are saying. A. Randall: In the MDNS we are saying it needs to be cleaned up to MTCA standards. That is the state law, so we are saying you can meet those standards (#2 first sentence). Q. Boles: Who makes that determination? A. Randall: In the nature of the voluntary cleanup, it is left to professional judgment of the environmental consultant that they have met MTCA standards. That is what the final report is. (Yesterday the city received the final report tor cleanup of everything outside the fenced . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 7 area.) MTCA is the jurisdiction of DOE; their involvement is they offer 1 free hour of review. They are going to review this report and get back to us as to whether it looks complete. Randall said the city did not want to exceed its expertise and jurisdiction and take the liability of saying the applicant has met MTCA compliance. Q. Boles: No tests were done downstream from Kearney once there were positive findings on some of the other samples? What was the rationale? A. Randall: One thing they were testing for was contaminants relating to industrial activities on the site and another one done was herbicide tests. He said he would like to defer to the experts, but basically the materials they have here don't transport very easily. Boles said the report does say there was no determination of the lateral transfer on the contaminants. Chair Thayer asked that they defer to the applicants. Q. Boles: How deep is the proposed bioswale trench, especially on Kearney? A. Randall: Thought it to be approximately 3 feet; he has a plan showing it at the office. Q. Boles: What governs placement of the poles? He said in the original drawings they had there was noting that showed where the wires went from the 35 foot dead ends. Subsequently, it shows 65 foot poles. That could be a concern to residents and other people. There are existing poles on Kearney Street; do you know the height of those poles? Á. Randall: The location of the poles is determined by location of the wires. (Pointed out lines and wires on the map.) He said what they are doing is installing two poles to take the high power lines and send the power into the substation. He said there are other power lines around the area that are distribution lines -- after the power has gone to the substation and is coming out. The line is already there; they have to get the pole to the line and that determines the location. Q. Boles: The proposed driveway onto Kearney Street. Thought they were trying to minimize driveways onto Kearney Street. Was there any option considered that ruled out just a single access onto Clay? A. Randall: The nature of the site is the two approaches give them more flexibility for getting vehicles in. Public Works didn't see any problem; the times the approach would be used is so infrequent they had no problem with it 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer asked those testifying if they swore and affirmed the testimony they were about to give is true, to the best of their knowledge. ,.. .. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 8 APPLICANT -- PUGET SOUND ENERGY œSE) Laura Hatfield -- Psi!: Project Manager (Transmission) Swore and atlirmed the testimony. she was about to give is true, to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Hatfield made the following introductions. All swore and atlirmed the testimony they were about to give is true, to the best of their knowledge. Steve Brown - PSE Substation Engineering (Lighting) -- Layout, equipment, operational CúÍlCt:rns Dave Kramer -- PSi: Substation Construction (Landscaping) -- Substation construction and civil site work, landscaping and power with secondary sites Barry Lombard -- PSE Environmental Services Fred Lunki -- PSE Civil Engineer -- Drainage on the site and bioswale Linda Streissguth -- PSE Land Planner -- Land use Kurt Frase -- GeoEngineers, Inc., Consultant for Site Cleanup -- Third party for environmental cleanup Ms. Hatfield addressed the need for the facility stating it is a very old facility and the equipment inside the station does not meet PSE's standards. The poles that pass the station are very deteriorated and it is a great concern for PSE; the original circumference has deteriorated. That is a very large concern, operationally. In the event the structures in the old station fan over, there is not a lot t:Þey can do. With a substation out of service they can't pick up the load from the neighboring substation which would mean a very widespread outage to Port Townsend. So, the proposal is to build a new, modernized station, a safer station. In addition there is a substandard Spill Prevention Countermeasure Containment (SPCC) system to cop.tain potential transtormer oil spills. She said operationally the station is very diUícult and a great safety concern tor PSE. She made the tollowing points tor the new facility: · Layout -- Wanted a low profile, as much as possible. · Landscaping -- 18,672 square feet. [See landscaping plan.] · Drainage -- Includes a bioswale and catch basins. · Access -- Along Clay Street and Kearney. Access is needed along Kearney because of heavy equipment and turning radiuses. Most access will be otl' from Clay. ~ Cleanup -- Referred to Frase and Lombard who can answer assumptions that were made. · Differences between new and old substation -- Not only equipment; the transformer will be able to serve dual voltages. The present voltage in Jeflerson County is 66kV and 59 kV. There wîll be the capability to increase the voltage in the future. .. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 9 · Transmission Poles -- Two 65 foot poles along the right of way. They need to retain the pole at the corner of Kearney and Lawrence. That pole and also the one at Clay and Kearney both have distribution under them. They have the transmission lines and also distribution above it and is why those poles are so tall, (75 feet high); the 65 foot high have to go into the dead-end structure. The guy stub will be removed and the distribution that goes out to serve the customers will go out a new direction. Three distribution poles will be moved. · Removal of existing station -- The proposal is to complete the station, conduct appropriate removal activities and cleanup to state regulatory standards. Some of the equipment will be reused and others will be disposed of properly. · Lighting -- There are four proposed instead of two on the old station. A different piece of equipment will be installed that takes open air equipment and puts it in an enclosed box. It is very nice f'Or esthetic purposes and also f'Or liability purposes to prevent animals getting in the station equipment causing outages. Steve Brown explained that lights will be 100 watt sodium vapor, minimal glare. He stated they are flexible, but they have had very few complaints. Ms. Hattíeld noted their lighting needs are mainly tor safety purposes and operational purposes when onsite in the evening for equipment failure; trucks have some lighting but not sufÌlcient to see all the equipment in the station. The other concern is f'Or satèty and vandalism. It is important to make sure that only qualified and educated people from PSE are in the substation. Not all PSE employees are allowed to be in the substation. There are some very strict safèty procedures. OUES'rlONS O}' APPLICAN'l's: Q. Boles: Lighting is something some people here in town are very sensitive about. It appears that the luminars are exposed horizontally. He asked the applicant if there is a way the city can work with them to reduce that. A. Steve Brown -- PSE Substation Engineering (Lighting). The light pattern is what they focus downward; there might be minimum glare upward, horizontally, less than 180 degrees -- probably more like 120 degrees, focused downward. If there is a problem, for whatever, for proximity of neighbors, we will screen the lighting. Q. Boles: Are you saying you would screen the existing standard you are proposing, or you would work with the city to establish some other light standard? A. Steve Brown -- PSE Substation Engineering (Lighting). Replied they can do that, it is pretty minor. Q. Johnson: That was addressed in lighting and glare. Q. Boles: I saw that, but I didn't see it in any of the documents we are working with in the findings and conclusions by referencing the MDNS. I was trying to link those two, so that if we conditioned something, that is what that wording meant. , . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 10 Q. Boles: Why is it soil testing can't be done on the existing station prior to deactivating; why can't soil samples or cores be taken? A. Applicant: It is a safety reason, going into an energized station, sending in a third party consultant to take those samples. Q. Boles: What does relocating the transmission tap mean? (Applicant letter 7B) A. Laura Hatfield -- PSE Project Manager (Transmission): We now have one pole that goes into the station, which will still be needed physically to support the transmission line. What we mean by relocating is we will be relocating the line that actually goes into the station, and rather than having one, we will have two. Q. Boles: Will there be new guy stubs added to the two that you are putting in? Laura Hatfield replied aftìrmatively. So there is nothing gained by the removal of the one? A. Laura Hatfield: No, we will remove one but we will need to have two because of the tension going into the station; we will need to have a guy stub. There is a way of mitigating; you can avoid these guy stubs by installing the steel pole structure, but said she heard from the community that Port Townsend would not be interested in seeing a steel pole structure. It would need to create two structures and that would be fairly bulky and not necessarily aesthetically pleasing. It would be fairly large, larger in diameter than a wood pole. A. Randall: As an aside -- they were not good in Ellensburg. Q. Boles: What other changes to the transmission lines or poles will be required as a result of this substation? You were saying that some of the uphill side would be underground. A. Laura Hatfield: That would be it -- the distribution. The way a substation operates, it takes high voltage ftom the transmission lines which are the highest lines along Kearney Street into the station to a transformer and then distributes the voltage at a lower level. The lines on Gaines Street are distribution; three of those poles will be removed and the lines go underground. Hatfield replied to Boles that in the future if they go to higher voltage, with this proposal it will not change the relationship with the number of poles or the transmission wires. This proposal does not change the voltage, or the existing transmission or distribution; it allows for that to happen with a ditlerent tr~sformer. Q. Boles: What is the nature of existing equipment that needs to be removed? My concern is with PCBs and cleanup. With this very old set of cooling equipment, you must know what cooling agents are in there. A. Barry Lombard -- PSE Environmental Services: Was not sure the PCBs found there were from existing electrical equipment and off-hand did not know what the PCB levels are of the existing electrical equipment. Normally, transformers and regulators have minimal oil in them, and some of our equipment has been contaminated with PCBs; approximately 5 .. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 11 percent of the equipment has some PCBs. Some of the contamination from the loading dock, which used to be a service center, were from transformers brought in from the field and stored there temporarily. He replied to Boles' question why they wouldn't know what is in the cooling oil, that they could find out from their data base. He said some times they know; some of the smaller transformers are older, and until they test them they don't know. Worse case situation would be 50 ppm or less. Q. Boles: What is involved in removing the equipment tor cleanup? A. Barry Lombard -- PSE Environmental Services. Very little. AU oil is removed first. If some should spill, it would be cleaned up immediately at so it didn't have a chance do get into the soil. Most of the equipment will probably be scrapped. Q. Boles: What was the rationale that testing on the other side of Kearney was not needed to determine the width of broadcast? A. Applicant: They pretty much identified the depth and extent of contamination on the site they already tested. Deferred to Frase to discuss how sampling was accomplished and limits of contamination. A. Kurt Frase - GeoEngineers, Inc., Consultant for Site Cleanup. Said the contaminates in mineral oil and PCBs do not migrate readily in soil. It is very localized; they don't go great distances. There are not great volumes held on these sites, contaminants in the transtormers. There were several locations where they had to conduct cleanup. He diagramed on the chalk board and showed the surface of the ground. They found that the contaminants at those locations resulting ITom some surface . . . went down to about 3 feet in most cases. They removed that contamination and sampled clean soil (five samples surrounding the space) to prove the remaining conditions are acceptable and don't pose a threat to human health or the environment. Again, why we didn't test any further offsite, we understand the fate of these types of contaminants, that they don't particularly go tàr, but in addition to that, they surrounded the contamination and proved clean conditions. A. Barry Lombard -- PSE Environmental Services: Explained that at other sites they have found, tor example leaking gasoline tank sites, and storage tanks, they have seen evidence of those ofIsite. There was no evidence here. o. Boles: How deep is that bioswale trench on the Kearney side and what is the rationale for the depth? A. Fred Lunki - PSE Civil Engineer: The bioswale is approximately 2 feet on Kearney Street and is sized by the bottom of run through the swale and kept at a very shallow depth. He answered Boles, that given the soil conditions their environmental people tound, he was satisfied that was sufficient. · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 12 Q. ~f?;~:: t~:~~:~~~~:a~ ::e:~~~~i~~~d:~i~:~;:: ~~~~~~oot:~~~' feeder lines and some A. Laura Hatfield-- Project Manager (Transmission): Said she would answer from a general sense önly, since she.is not an expert. She suggested contacting Steve Fowler from PSE and he would address sPd.cific questions. With respect to electrical fàcilities, what really generates EMF are tlt~ transmission Sources and the distribution sources. She made the point \Vith respect to electro-magnetic field there is an existìng Source and the existing substation and all they are doing is remöving it and increasing the voltage on the transmission lines or distribution lines, not increasing the load that goes into Port Townsend. There is one transformer at the existing facility and one transformer that is proposed, just a singìe transformer. Essentially, changes in EMF will be minimal. She replied to Boles that they do not have any existing data on the EMF for the old station. A. Randall: One of the MDNS conditions is that do a before and after EMF study. A. Laura Hatfield -- Project Manager (Transmission): They will have that data on the existing station prior to City Council Hearing. PUBLIC TESTIMONY (continued): Bob Sokol--Qunicy Street. Owns property at 2095 Lawrence Street. Swore and aflirmed the testimony he was about to give is true, to the best of his knowledge. Is concerned regarding landscaping and that every eflort be made in preserving the views. Sokol submitted the Tree Book by Puget Power and Light which he said is a resource of trees that fit our soils and climate. The book is entered into the record as Exhibit 12. He referred to an addendum to a letter he previously delivered for Jeff Randall. Randall and Commission Members indicated they had not received the letter. He was asked regarding the content. Replied it was basically preservation of views ofKah Tai, Port Townsend Bay and the Boat Haven. Margaret Lee, Gaines Street Swore and affIrmed the testimony she was about to give is true, to the best of her knowledge. She referred to the final report submitted by PSE, SEP A documented comments and correspondence from herself and others. As a background she read the tInal paragraph of her comments on the SEP A Checklist indicating they were written before she knew there was an independent cleanup, and, in this particular case, this is the way the cleanup of that substation was going to be handled. She said after she learned of the independent cleanup, she wrote · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 13 another letter asking some questions of Linda Streissguth, of PSE and pointed out all her comments on the SEPA Checklist are still valid. She commented on her December 4, 1997, one-pate letter and the response: . Independent cleanup. Did not know PSE would be conducting independent cleanup as allowed by the state's MTCA; nevertheless, even those initial concerns were made valid. She noted she is also addressing her comments to PSE and DOE: 1) PSE comment to Item A. 8 of the Environmental Checklist -- "Preliminary reports indicate no major contamination exists on site." She said at that time they had in their possession a number of documents that indicated there were PCBs and hydrocarbons that make it necessary for a major cleanup. She said that question has never been answered, as far as she is concerned, and disturbs her; 2) She said she believes if an independent cleanup is to be an effective tool, in the state's eflort to cleanup toxics and pollution, it should be done in such a manner as to involve and inform the public before the process begins, not after the fact. Keeping information about a toxic cleanup that is going amiss, might draw suspicion rather than engender cooperation; 3) The initial survey of the site with its history over time would have been needed if people who have lived in this community for many, many years had been given the opportunity to share their knowledge of the site and its use. There was a survey done and there were a few people in town that PSE realized had some relationship or contact, or some knowledge about the site, but it really didn't tap into the resource that we have here, all these folks that have lived here tor a long time that could have told them some things that might have been useful; 4) She said the whole question of her letter expressed concerns about the health and safety of persons during the independent cleanup. They talked about the safety of workers with hard hats and hard toe shoes, etc., rather than the citizens passing by. She said she did not believe the depth of her concern was understood. She watched the initial cleanup and saw dust flying from concrete that was being broken. She praised City Planner Randall as he found answers to a myriad of questions and kept those who were interested in this project informed. · Herbicides -- Page 3, paragraph 2 of the GeoEngineering Remedial Action Monitoring Report states, "Soil samples obtained by the United States Department of Agriculture from the sites did not detect the presence of herbicides." She pointed out this was one sample taken out of PSE property next to the sidewalk, one sample for one herbicide. GeoEngineers did no testing in this contaminate range. She requested all records of applications of herbicides by the PSE be provided to the City of Port Townsend. Required mitigation measures. · Earth #2 -- She said she believes the City of Port Townsend should keep and maintain the rights to determine whether additional onsite remedial action is necessary. · Earth #4 -- She hopes the city will enlist a third party to verify a thorough cleanup. · Earth #9 -- She believes herbicides should be eliminated and alternative methods of vegetation control called into play. · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 14 · Air # 11 -- She questioned the wisdom of placing the vegetation removed from this site in the City-County compo sting site. · Aesthetics #21-- A finallandscapinB plan is needed or a desired use for the old substation site. It is imperative that this site be left clean enough for any subsequent use. In addition, the grassy sale should extend along the Kearney Street boundary to Lawrence Street. She said she believes that the grassy sale she pointed out on the map should extend all the way to the corner. The amount oftlow coming down off the site (also pointed out on the map) she believes needs some extra care. Ms. Margaret Lee submitted her letter as Exhibit 13 and a Sierra Magazine artìcle Pandora's Passion regarding PCBs as Exhibit 14. Ms. Lee said herbicides are a small físh in the ocean of cleanup; however, is something we should be concerned about and not add any more contaminants to that site in the future. Jeneen Hayden-- Residence one block adjacent Swore and affirmed the testimony she was about to give is true, to the best of her knowledge. · Adequate buffering. She spoke of prime views but said that PSE has made quite a bit of effort and has made things much less an eye sore. She indicated the poles are things they can't change and said they should work fòr things they change, i.e. buflering, lighting and whether they have toxics going into the swales. · Landscaping. She made the distinction between buffering and landscaping suggesting if you have a well-designed building and you add plantings around it, you would consider that landscaping (trees and plants to make the building look nice). If you have something you do not want to look at, it would be a vegetative butler with the purpose of screening and blocking the view. She suggested making a nice vegetative view of the substation, and said in some ways she thinks they have tried to do that, but she has concerns that the plantings are too sparse to screen the facility. She questioned if the five or seven trees on Kearney Street are going to screen anything, particularly the deciduous Hawthorns that are slow growing. On Clay Street there are seven conifers and three Ha\\'1horns for a 225 foot expanse. If those trees were fully grown, they might provide some kind of screening, but it might not happen for 20 to 30 years. She requested they double or triple the conifers to provide screening and said they can be removed as they get bigger; she would like more vegetation to screen the facility overall and commented conifers are a better choice than Hawthorns. She expressed disappointment with the revision of the landscaping plan. She indicated anyone coming down Kearney Street at any time would be looking at the substation with virtually no vegetative screening, that those trees will not be that big. She said PSE's idea of planting more mature trees was a nice thought, but in her experience and that of others, planting big · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 15 trees did not work well, that it is very stressful, particularly in the lagoon area :: they are very exposed, with inadequate water, light and soils. She suggested planting smaller trees, watering them well and letting them establish themselves instead of enduring the shock of being transplanted and then somehow recoup and grow. On the plan she pointed out a clump of pines on Gaines Street, on the either side, but said uphill from the substation there are two Hawthorns with a significant step there. She indicated it is not going to provide a visual screen to the neighbors and said the challenge in all of this is to screen without destroying views. She said Mr. Sokol wants his view, and they want their view; they are going to have·a view with poles, but she does not think it needs to be with poles and a substation. They would like to see the a hedge on Gaines Street, a solid laurel hedge, and if there are opportunities for views, those can be pruned in such a way that a view could be a possibility. On the other side, the new landscaping has taken out the laurels they had originally proposed. She does not think people driving down Lawrence Street want to see the substation, or people on the opposite side, if they look south toward the water. She pointed out a very small version of laurel that she said would not screen anything because they are short, and did not find the Otto Luyken Laurel in her reference material, but thought they were small plants that were designed to basically fill up the ground. She said she thinks there needs to be some screening on that side for, maybe something a little difterent, because people will be walking directly by it. She pointed out that Clay Street is a major pedestrian access to Kah Tai Park and to the route across town, so there are many more pedestrians on Clay Street than come down Lawrence. She said she feels that edge needs to be well screened and indicated it needs to be borne in mind that is not just the neighbors who are going to be affected by this. . Lighting glare. She liked what she heard, that it is not a problem and can be dealt with. She said the city used to have an ordinance that said no lighting will escape the site. She pointed out the extent ofPSE property, and said if they shield their lights, she would like to see that their lights light their property, which is different from the 180 degrees John Boles mentioned. She does not see any need to light any of the rest of the area that is off their property. She said it might be more explicit to direct their lights down, and also noted problems with people driving uphill having glare from lighting even though the lights are directed down. She pointed out the bank at the corner on Kearney Street has installed some new lights that are very horizontally directed lights and have shields that are capable of being focused. She said they are not properly focused, so if you take a walk down Kearney Street, you can see what it is they don't want. . Site cleanup. She said if they clean up the way they say they have, maybe there won't be anything coming off that site. If it should happen there are toxics left, there is no mechanism to capture any contaminated run-off. She said she does not think it would change much to extend the ditch, to capture any toxics that were there. She said she thought there had been herbicides used on that site on the Kearney Street edge. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 16 Steve Hayden Swore and atñrmed the testimony he was about to give is tme, to the best of his knowledge. Said he has been dealing with Jeff Randall and PSE for 3 or 4 months. He praised Randall and said he is happy Vvith his response in securing infonnation, that he has been exemplary. ~ Lighting. He spoke of getting used to changes in lighting they are exposed to, and how lights have changed in the valley over the years. He said he is glad for the project and thinks it is a great opportunity for improvement. He suggested with horizontal shielding that they do very minimal ground lighting as backup and security lighting; that if work is going to be done at night, nobody is going to complain if they turn on lights to see to work. . Landscaping. He sees a real challenge to maintain views of the houses at the Gaines Street level and maximum screening of the site. He spoke of the tall trees and interrupted views and reiterated how windy it is and not a great place to grow trees. He pointed out how small the holly tiees are in the orchard and that they have never been cut off . Soil contamination. Said his concerns have been addressed. He stressed that PCBs are some of the most endurable contaminants and don't go away. He said any1hing that is there is there forever; it doesn't vaporize, and it accumulates in the food chain. He said he takes very seriously the cleanup etIorts. He noted the presence of contaminants on that site for a very long time and said that even though they do a pretty extensive job of testing, he would have preferred to have ridded the whole site and done a thorough testing of the whole site. He said he recognized that the city would not want to attempt to sign off on the cleanup, but said there has to be a mechanism, a third party checking or something, to make sure it is as clean as it can be. Hayden said he has not attended Planning Commission in about a year, but is pleased they are being tenacious. He commended them for asking hard questions. Jeneen Hayden asked if the new plan is a conceptual plan or actually a landscape plan and noted reference to specifíc species. Randall replied this is more specific than usual. Ms. Hayden would like to say laurels, pines, etc. Chair Thayer closed Public Testimony and opened Committee Reports. 3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Johnson) Johnson said he thought the material was clear and illustrates things well. He commended Randall for doing a good job and said he could apply it to PSE material. He . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 17 expressed concern for the view from Lawrence Street looking in, and that there should be nothing tan on that view angle. He said after hearing public testimony he thinks the applicant should take what the Hayden's say grows in that area. They know what is doable and what isn't, that their information is good. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions REM!l~ALJ.lE OLDßUBSIAIION Erickson When the old substation is removed are any city permits needed? Randall For ground cleanup they will need to apply for clearing and grading permits. As far as moving equipment, the MDNS says they will need to obtain whatever permits are needed. UGHTING Erickson Is having special1ights for working a po~sibility? Having only t....·fO lights and then extra lighting for when it's needed, like flipping a switch for working? Steve Brown .... PSE Substation Engineer (Lighting) It is a possibility. He said security is most important and he feels quite strongly four Iíghts are needed for security. He said they could be on breakers and photocells that could be turned on/off as needed, but he would prefer going with special screening. Thayer Expressed concern tQr intrusive non-glare lìghting. She said she would also like to add some wording that PSE continue to work with neighbors in developing a landscape plan that would meet their needs; she does not like the smaIl plants along the Lawrence Street side. She spoke of butfering and said she does not know how taU the Austrian Black Pine grows. Boles Page 3, Finding of Fact 10 -- Under d., are you including lighting under aesthetic iInpacts? Randall He affirmed and said he is being very general. roLE HEJGlI'fS Boles Finds it ironic we are talking about 35 foot height limits and ending up with 70 foot poles. He said he thinks the neighbors are being generous, that they are talking about buffering the substation, but he would be concemed about looking out and seeing the two poles and vision being segwayed from the 3S foot dead ends up to the line of numerous poles along Kearney Street. He asked if there is any future hope of undergrounding any of that. Is there anything in city regulations for that? Freeland Replied there is not. He said he is not aware of where the high voltage hnes coming into the community are, but that is ditferent than distribution hnes going out of the facility. · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 18 Laura Hatfield - Project Manager (Transmission) She agreed the two new poles are obtrusive, but there is not much they can do. As tor undergrounding they have rates and tarifIs tor transmission. She said even if they move the poles, you will also see them. She spoke of having to maintain separation of transmission and distribution and said there are not a lot of w-ays to mitigate. Thayer Remarked that what we are getting, is so much better than what we have. Erickson Indicated there are some good points. She spoke of air within all the height and width and you can see through; with a 35 foot apartment building you could not. lSOISÉ Boles Asked if there is some buzzing or cracking from transmission at the substation or the lines out? Laura Hatficld-~ Project Manager (Transmission) Noise generated from the substation is minimal~ there is some humming that usually happens when the transformers are loaded up. She said she does not anticipate noise to be a problem. Steve Brown - PSt!; Substation Engineer (Lighting) There is a lot of clean up work with the transmission line; if there was any noise generated, this will improve it. He said they will comply with state codes. CONSTRUCTION RE()ûíIŒMEN'fS Thayer suggested: . Page 2, Finding of Fact 4, last sentence -- Change to read, "The new substation would be completed. . . ." . Pages 7&8, Recommendation 9 -- ". . . shall automatically expire and become void if the applicant fails to obtain a building permit and/or occupancy within one (1) year. . ." These are totally different issues. A building permit could be obtained and go on forever. Erickson This is also used for a change of use permit; just to say building permit would not apply to a change of use permit. I think that is why [it says] and/or occupancy. Thayer It should be one or the other. Proposed striking out "and/or occupancy." She said if they obtain a building permit, her concern is that it goes on torever; obviously that is not the intent of the applicant. Freeland The main purpose if this clause is to say that they have to follow through on developing this project. Thayer But that is not what it says. Randall In this case, it might be more àppropriate to say when the facility is energized. Laura Hatfield - Project Manager (Transmission) PSE can make some commitment that we can energize the facility within a certain period with the assumption of receipt of the conditional use permit and a disclaimer · · · Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 19 if it takes additional time for us to meet those conditions. Erickson We don't put that requirement on anybody else, but that they have to have a building permit within 1 year. Linda Streissguth -- PSE Land Planner Suggested an alternate proposal -- the condition that they apply for a building permit within 60 days of approval of the conditional use permit. Thayer But we have put that condition on before. The concern is that you apply tor a building permit and that can be renewed. Erickson But that is the applicant's option. If we have ordinances that say you may renew your building permit, that is their option. Randall We have some language in the Conditional Use Permit Chapter. ... We have bigger projects that [require an extension], but in this case, it is a pretty small project. Perhaps it should say to obtain a building permit and energize . . . Thayer It is the use of the two terms and/or. Randall Perhaps it should say, ". . . obtain a building permit and energize within 1 year. . ." Consensus: Reword to" ... obtain a building permit and energize within 1 year..." £l'{E CLE~U.r Roles Asked regarding the sale of old property, and toxic testing. Expressed his concern that if what they find in the testing is somewhat toxic, what is going to happen and who is going to sign off on the other site? On the one hand they are going to go ahead and get their project, because they can't do anyihing on the other site until they get their project, but once they have their project where is the end point for persuasion for them to finish the old site, and where does it state that in here? Randall It is a condition that they clean up the site. There is no time limit provided. The last sentence of the Environmental Checklist and Threshold determination MDNS Page 16, paragraph 2 reaffirms it is the jurisdiction of the DOE to determine whether an additional on-site remediation is necessary for Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) compliance. He indicated to Boles that the applicant vacillated on whether they will actually sell the old site. Thayer remarked the sale is not our business. Randall went on to say the applicant has indicated they will begin cleanup activities of the site immediately upon removal of equipment and theMDNS also states that. Boles What is the end point? Randall The report will come from DOE and basically say that there is no additional cleanup necessary. DOE win issue the report and that report will be on public record. Boles Nobody has to sign off on that? Randall It is DOE jurisdiction. Anyone can review the documents, question DOE, or ask questions. A third party would do actual physical testing and reporting. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 20 UGJ:lTIN1! Erickson They had said they would put up four tights and would hood them or shield them appropriately to the neighborhood. Do you want language that specifies that? Boles On Page 7, paragraph 4, of the Draft Findings and Conclusions it indicates approval of the landscape plan will be reviewed and approved by the BCD Director. On other projects we have conditioned it with working with the concerned neighbors for both landscaping and lighting. Thayer Recommend we do the same. Randall Proposed Draft 4 for a new paragraph 5 and renumbering of all subsequent paragraphs -- "The applicant shall include lighting details on the landscaping plan. Lighting shall be installed as specified by the approved Lighting Plan. Revisions to the approved lighting plan may be required ifthe Director determines the installed lighting is causing glare to travel off-site." He said something could be added about working with the neighbors. Thayer Requested rewording, "travel off-site." L~NDSÇAPlN.G Erickson Questioned landscaping vs, buffering in the revised plan. She suggested this is a point that needs to be differentiated. She said Hawthorns don't grow fast, and they take a lot of care; after about 12 years they get a lot of disease. Freeland Noted similar concerns in the recent assisted living project where they held a community meeting with the landscape architect until they were all satisfied. He said he did not sign off until he was satisfied the neighbors' concerns were met. Erickson That worked out very well for everybody. Boles Is there any concern in the butlèred area around the facility with regard to air How? Steve Brown - PSE Substation Engineer (Lighting) He said it should not be a problem, but he noted the importance of making sure growth won't get into transmission lines, etc. Randall PSE staff has on numerous occasions raised the need to not have a 100% vegetative barrier around the fàcility for security and safety reasons. Dave Kramer - PSE Substation Construction (Landscaping) Constant concerns they have tàced at other stations is they have been screened so tightly, people can get in behind it and you cannot see who is in there. Other police agencies have expressed concern that they have landscaped to meet screening requirements, but have opened up security problems. He said what they have tried to do in this case, will continue to work with the Landscape Architect to meet everybody's concerns on this. He said they had tried to put trees in such a way to have a little variety. He indicated if Hawthorns are not appropriate, they will fInd something, but putting in a whole row of Austrian Pines could become a security . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 21 problem. They don't use Douglas Firs any more because they create a problem. He pointed when you put trees in tightly they look great initially, but after 2-5 years dead growth on bottom opens it up. If you try to thin it out, it doesn't do anything for the trees that are already damaged. He said they have been working hard to make this look esthetically pleasing, opening avenues where the neighbors can see down through the lagoon; that was the idea with the Hawthorns. He said they can put something eise in there, but would tend to stay away fÌ'om the constant barrier around the station for security reasons. He said in the end he thinks it will not look like one big box with trees around it. Thayer Suggested leaving the landscaping plan and let the BCD Director and the neighbors work through the problem. Boles Suggested splitting Conclusion 4 on page 7, concluding the paragraph with ". . . as further conditioned by this determination." Add new paragraph 5, "A lighting and landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Building & Community Development in consultation with area residents prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved landscaping and lighting shall be installed as specifIed by the approved plans. AMEN.DMENtS: · Page 2, Finding of Fact 4, last sentence -- Change to read, "The new suhstation would he completed. . . ." .. Page 7, split Conclusion 4, concluding with ". . . as further conditioned by this determination." Add new Conclusion 5, "A lighting and landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Building & Community Development in consultation with area residents prior to issuance of a building permit. The approved landscaping and lighting shall be installed as specitIed by the approved plans." (Renumber all subsequent paragraphs.) · Page 8, Conclusion 9, change wording to read, ". . . .become void ifthe applicant fails to obtain a building permit and energize the fàcility within 1 year . . ." · Exhibit 1 0 Remedial Action Monitoring Report of the Kearney Street Substation, by GeoEngineers February 12, 1998, and revisions submitted February 19, 1998. · Exhibit 11 Revisions to the Landscaping Plan, dated February 18, 1998. · Exhibit 12 Tree Book by Puget Power and Light submitted by Bob Sokol at the February 19, 1998 public hearing. · Exhibit 13 Letter from Margaret Lee submitted at the February 19, 1998 public hearing. · Exhibit 14 Sierra Magazine article Pandora's Passion submitted by Margaret Lee at the public hearing February 19, 1998. Boles Randall Asked regarding sidewalks in the last sentence of Findings of Fact 19, Page 5. Explained that basically the landscape plan, and the way the trees are maintained, . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 22 would be to allow a level shoulder adjacent to the curb so people could walk on it. There would also be a grade where the driveway is. MOTION Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission for the Puget Sound Energy Conditional Use Application LUP97- 00065 be approved with amendments on Page 2, Page 7 and Page 8 as previously stated and addition of Exhibits 10 - 14. Erickson Boles stated, to clarifY the record, the MDNS is referenced in Findings of Fact 9 and contained herein. Unanimous, 4 in favor Boles SECOND Discussion: VOTE Chair Thayer noted this application would proceed to a closed record hearing of the City Council at which time there would be no further public testimony received, due to the new Regulatory Reform ruling. She expressed appreciation to all those who participated. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings Johnson informed Chair Thayer he would be out of town in March. Freeland stated the same SEP A document should be used for both the Parking and Sign Codes and is attached to the Sign Code. Februaty 26. 1998 A. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (Hearing Continued--without additional public testimony) B. Proposed Amendments to Title 17 PTMC (Parking and Signs) - Public Hearing C. Planning Commission Public Hearings Procedures - Workshop (conduct of public hearings) D. Annual Comprehensive Plan Process - Workshop March 12. 1998 Parks & Recreation Functional Pian (Freeland said the plan is not yet ready) March 26. 1998 . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 1998 Page 23 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Boles and seconded by Johnson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:40 p.m. (l~~ . Ci . Uy Thayer, ch~i~ ~~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker .' . . " -1 .~ Guest List Q, Meeting of: ¿/I/V~!'(; , ~ Purpose: 'Ci 'Ef~JO £ Date: rI3A/JO.4/!.! /CJ) 199,9 Name (please print) Address /5)1~ s~ v v' .---' - V' V' v' - ~ ._.... .~ - ... ¡J(>oAiÆ1 <-d/C¡/9ð ........ .... - . . ""'\ ,-'-'p......,lrtA'^'<IX\.\ \ (I; ~r~:~ \.'). t-'\. \ ~ ':::>\ 'J,,\ /J ............~--~._- U\:V\2-A.-1±:A-rrIGLD_ -__f_sf2__ 1JZoJ~z>n:!f'}J6=_§¡-ºZ.j --- \ .. ~tJ~~ _.______- s lÐY.-f- gJ~OWÍ\..\ ___~_J;¡?e __.::-_.c;~YAl1ºr-1_~ti! Ntf.12.., -. L/ hA:V~ ~yZ,Ä1A~ - PsG - 0J8SlAíbN CDNST, {L?t0JS(?Lf.y ,_,_w,___.' .~...__._ _._~_..._.,,___._~...._.........~__.»l:~_.__._._,~,__~,,~.._..._._''''_''_U"~___.."_._.,,~''_'_ ,_...,' '" _.~. ..,...~"____.~_.,"~'''__..,_..~...__...;....._._~'''';..........__,.".,,..''"__,____;~."""~~_......~._<__...~~~._'~'...~_~,,....~".,. ...-".<--~--,-_..._."~,,-,..-..-..-~'- .,--.-..,,---... <".~_. _..,,_.__,_~____u.._._-._n__'____~"""_".·~· -.._,...~..--"..----- ~. ,.,..' _ 1-3> P'\:K.~ Y ~DM- B~ D___~~S,~_. -Sl'lvl fl?R~~.TAL-_~V\Ctå --I;VRl' ~'~þ ~______ --:=_E1eD.~\ tlìN~~<; -==--=_tJç~!:~rr I . fZ:'l'Z-J Sì -r~ é l.-£-f\1'-tv P .......---.---- ------.- rrz-8Þ CUNf=-l ,,__,_.__!S€..~_._~I-~l__~~~~~~~~---~,--.,_. r.,þA!:l Dk C:]1g~ ~~~_:=~\?S ~_.>::~~~D _J?~61\1.1'J~ __.__~.___ -.~.,~_.._.~-_._---'_..__._-----_.._.._...._--------~---_.---_...__.._-_._.._-_..~----..---_......,.._.,---~>.....-..__._-........._........~--............-_..- --------~.-----.......-~-~-',.....,..- --~,~~-..----.~-~"-,.<-.--^---,~_.-.....~--_.- ------ ------~._._--,..----------------~._'---~~--._-'-~~"._-~~-"~-_._~..----,--_._~.~<._--~~-~--_.- .------. --~-----,,"~- ~---~_.-.......,_..._.~-~,--,._..-".._,---+-, ..aIL . .i;·..,~__-:----_.._._._._..._.._______..>.___...__..______............_.__......__,..._....__._._.....,.-.....-...----. "..-......-..-----......----........ .._".-.,.-...c...,~..~_..----- ,.~_."~.",........~_n..~..___ .....__._..'".."--...~'.-.- ----.--~...----_..--- " "_~..~_".,..~__,,__.__O~___....·_'_··___"_,.._~ .--,"'.--~.. -.--.......----.»¥--,.. -,,--.._~-'-~-_'_"'---"-_". -:~--_.--^' ..,£....1< ·."'·;;.__f,-~'_,<~..;..>~"'..,·,·~:--'·C'..., ..~. po ~.--~>;\fi¡~~-;.;~