Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM031802Co SON CO �s �0� �I N� District No. I Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy County Administrator: David Goldsmith Deputy County Administrator: Gary Rowe Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTE S Week of March 18, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Dan Titterness were present. 2 AGREEMENTS RE: SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION SERVICES: 1) Beacon of Hope And 2) Washington State Department of Social And Health Services (DSHS), Division of Alcohol And Substance Abuse (DASA) : Commissioner Titterness moved to approve these two agreements for substance abuse prevention services. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTYADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION. • Discussion re: Interim County Administrator Contract: County Administrator Charles Saddler stated the termination of his contract is listed as item #12 on the Consent Agenda. He reviewed Ordinance No. 09- 1002 -00 establishing the Office of County Administrator and noted that the individual appointed to fill the position must be qualified and have an employment contract. Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith will take over the duties of the County Administrator. Discussion re: H. J. Carroll Basketball Court: County Administrator Charles Saddler stated there are plans to move forward with construction of a basketball court at H. J. Carroll Park utilizing the efforts of volunteers who have expressed interest in doing the work. The Public Works Department has completed the plans and specifications for the basketball facility as envisioned by the HJ Carroll Park Advisory Committee. The goal and plan is to allow volunteer organizations to take on some of the County's financial burden for this project through a donation of labor and materials. The County would enter into an agreement with these groups to perform the work. The volunteers would become the County's contractors to assist in moving the project forward. If change orders are required, the volunteers have been instructed to come directly to the County Commissioners for approval. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Rich Gastfield, one of the volunteers, presented a budget plan prepared by the County for this work. While the plan calls for an asphalt surface, he suggested that concrete be used instead for the following reasons: • The volunteers can pour the concrete themselves • Color can be added to concrete which cannot be done on asphalt • Concrete is permanent and asphalt is not • Costs can be reduced to $17,000420,000 for 209 yards of concrete He noted that all the tennis courts in this area have concrete surfaces. He explained that the basketball standards in the County's plan are "state of the art." There may be ways to cut costs by utilizing less expensive material such as a metal pole. He noted that by doing this work as a volunteer group, they feel they can save the County about $35,000 to $40,000. Jack Carroll donated $76,000 for this project and volunteer labor will help save the County money. Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith stated that the basketball standards in the plan meet Risk Management requirements for a public facility. Commissioner Titterness advised that the volunteers are proposing that the metal pipe will be installed in the same shape configuration as the concrete one in the plans. Commissioner Huntingford asked about a concrete surface being wet and slippery and if the surface could be treated? Rich Gastfield replied that this is still being researched, but possibly some type of mesh may be used to prevent slipping. Robey Robichaux stated that a power washer could also be used to rough up the concrete. Gene Seton added that there are more opportunities to change the surface with concrete than with asphalt. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct the County Administrator's staff to move forward with this project as proposed. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion and asked how much has been spent for this project? Rich Gastfield advised that H.J. Carroll contributed $11,318.00 in 2000 and the County matched that with $7,300.00. The estimated project cost is $76,143. Mr. Carroll donated $28,846 and the County provided additional funds of $28,000 to cover the project costs. The project management and design costs were $19,000. Commissioner Titterness clarified his motion that the County Administrator's staff negotiate a contract with the volunteers for an amount the County can cover with what has been budgeted and donated and no more or less. Gene Seton stated that if the project costs run over that amount, he will provide $10,000 of his own money. He advised that the volunteers will turn in bills for payment as the work is completed. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 9:15 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. with the Deputy County Administrator regarding personnel. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The Health Department and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office have failed to respond to a complaint about the burning of garbage and stockpiling of trash and vehicles on property located off of Martin Road in Port Townsend; the County handled the termination of the County Administrator poorly and this is a key position in order to go to the next level of government; The Board owes the public justification for terminating the contract with the County Administrator and expending the severance funds; and no action should be taken by the County on the Brinnon Plan until an Environmental Impact Statement is done. The Board met in Executive Session from 9:55 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney, County Administrator and Deputy County Administrator regarding potential litigation. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Items 7, 8, 10, and 12 from the Consent Agenda and approve and adopt the remaining items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 18 -02 re: Consolidating Voting Precincts 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, and 712 into Five (5) Precincts 701, 702, 703, 704 and 705 2. RESOLUTION NO. 19 -02 re: Consolidating Voting Precincts 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 201, 202, 301, 302, 303, 306, 501, 502, 503, 504, and 505 into Seventeen (17) Precincts 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 201, 301, 302, 303, 501, 502, and 503 3. RESOLUTION NO. 20 -02 re: Consolidating Voting Precincts 600, 601, 602, 603 and 604 into Two (2) Precincts 600 and 601 4. RESOLUTION NO. 21 -02 re: Supporting Efforts to Preserve, Retrofit and Rehabilitate the Courthouse Clock Tower 5. Letters of Assurance of Match for National Park Service Grant and Washington State Historical Grant for Courthouse Clock Tower Restoration Project 6. AGREEMENT re: Professional Surveying Services; Irondale Road Improvement Project, CR1107; Jefferson County Public Works; Van Aller Surveying 7. DELETED AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Professional Services to Assess Health Related Data; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Christine Hale (Discussed Later in Minutes) 8. DELETED AGREEMENT #G0200273 re: Marine Resource Committee Three (3) Year Project; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Ecology (Approved Later in Minutes) 9. AGREEMENT re: Revised Developmental Disabilities Biennial Agreement; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 10. DELETED AGREEMENT #G0200225 re: Coordinated Prevention Grant for Solid Waste Enforcement; Jefferson County Health and Human Services Department; Washington State Department of Ecology (Discussed Later in Minutes) 11. Annual Certification of the Management, Administration and Operations of the Jefferson County Public Works Department for Calendar Year 2001; County Road Administration Board (CRAB) 12. DELETED Letter Termination of Employment per Employment Agreement (Section 4. Termination and Severance Notice); County Administrator Charles Saddler (Approved Later in Minutes) Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Professional Services to Assess Health Related Data; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Christine Hale: (Consent Agenda Item #7) Commissioner Titterness moved to direct staff to renegotiate this agreement in order to contract with individuals based on specific issues. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Wojt stated that he feels that the Board needs additional background information before making a decision. Commissioner Titterness amended the motion to table this agreement to be considered on March 25, 2002. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. AGREEMENT #G0200273 re: Marine Resource Committee Three (3) Year Project; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Ecology (Consent Agenda Item #8): Commissioner Titterness moved to approve this agreement because it is fully grant funded. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT #G0200225 re: Coordinated Prevention Grant for Solid Waste Enforcement; Jefferson County Health and Human Services Department; Washington State Department of Ecology (Consent Agenda Item #10): Commissioner Huntingford stated that this agreement is for grant funding which requires matching funds of approximately $13,000. The Board needs to review these programs. Commissioner Huntingford moved to table this agreement to be considered on March 25, 2002. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Letter Termination of Employment per Employment Agreement (Section 4. Termination and Severance Notice); County Administrator Charles Saddler (Consent Agenda Item # 12): Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the letter terminating the County Administrator's employment agreement. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford explained that the Board held an Executive Session last week regarding this matter. It was a unanimous direction from the Board to move forward with the termination of the County Administrator. He agrees that many good things have resulted from having this position. The Board will review it further this fall. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Chairman Wojt stated his concerns that this is serious action by the Board. He said that there were many events which lead to this decision. The Board made the choices which resulted in the County's fiscal position. He feels that this decision was based on political positions within the Courthouse. The Board failed to support the County Administrator's position, and internal County "backbiting" has been supported. The structure of County government also led to this decision. The fiscal problem will not be addressed by cutting off professional advice. Commissioner Titterness agreed that politics had something to do with this decision, however, he disagreed that the actions of the Board caused the fiscal problems for the County. Chairman Wojt specified that the Board's decisions have contributed to the County's fiscal problems. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Huntingford added that this was a unanimous direction from the Board. He is disappointed that Chairman Wojt would change his decision in a public meeting. Chairman Wojt stated that he will not discuss what was said during the Executive Session. A vote was never taken at that time. Commissioner Titterness stated it is illegal to take a vote in Executive Session. Commissioner Huntingford agreed and stated that the Board discussed that they would not take this action unless all the members were in agreement. Commissioner Titterness stated that he clearly heard that this was the only action that would be available. BID OPENING Re: Designation of Official Jefferson County Newspaper of Public Record: County Administrator Charles Saddler opened and read the two (2) bids received as follows: BIDDERS BID Leader, Port Townsend $8.50 per column inch for first insertion via e -mail $9.00 per column inch for first insertion via fax/paper $8.50 per column inch for subsequent insertions via e -mail $9.00 per column inch for subsequent insertions via fax/paper Typeset in Helvetica type Type size 8.5 point Column width 1.77 inches Average 230 (with spaces) characters per column inch Average 189 (without spaces) characters per column inch No charge to provide publication of legal notices on the publication's web site Frequency of newspaper publication is one time per week (Wednesday) Deadline for publications via fax/paper: Monday, 3:00 p.m. Deadline for publications via e -mail: Monday, 3:00 p.m. Deadline for late publications via fax/paper: Monday, 4:00 p.m. (at legal rate) Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Deadline for late publications via e -mail: Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. (at display rate) Leader circulation in Jefferson County: 8,311 copies (per week) Peninsula Daily News $6.05 per column inch for first insertion $6.05 per column inch for subsequent insertions Typeset in Franklin Gothic type Type size 7 point Column width 1 1/8 inches Average 18 -22 characters per column inch $2.50 charge per publication to provide publication of legal notices on the publication's web site All legals in Monday's classified run in the Olympic Market Place with an added 5,600 households in Jefferson County - Free (at no charge) Frequency of newspaper publication is 6 times per week Deadline for publications via fax/paper: 2:00 p.m. 3 days prior to publication date Deadline for publications via e -mail: 2:00 p.m. 3 days prior to publication date Peninsula Daily News circulation in Jefferson County: 2,022 copies Olympic Market Place circulation in Jefferson County: 6,224 copies Commissioner Huntingford moved to direct County Administrator's staff to review the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board interviewed the following individuals who are interested in serving on the Jefferson County Planning Commission representing District #1: 10:15 a.m. H. Eileen Rogers 10:30 a.m. Vernon Garrison 10:45 a.m. Edel Sokol. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 2002 as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Housing Authority's Proposal for Repayment of Line of Credit: John Estes, Executive Director of the Housing Authority and Mark Gordon, Chairman of the Housing Authority Advisory Board were present to discuss a repayment plan on the Line of Credit extended to them by the County in 2000. Mark Gordon presented their annual report and discussed efforts to train staff and reduce their debt. They proposed that payments be made only on the interest portion of their loan until they can afford to make increased payments. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Commissioner Huntingford asked about the funding source for repayment of the loan? Mark Gordon replied that many proposals, such as the 35th Street property, have not worked out. John Estes stated that they are still working on affordable housing issues and they are also working with Kitsap County to rejuvenate funding. He anticipates the Housing Authority's financial situation will improve by 2004 and they can begin making payments on the principal amount at that time. Treasurer Judi Morris suggested the loan be renegotiated since interest rates are lower now than they were when the contract was approved. Commissioner Titterness moved to have the Treasurer develop a new contract with the Housing Authority for repayment of the loan based on their current payment rate and current interest rates, with an escalation in their payment to include repayment of the principal amount beginning in 2004. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 11:30 a.m. to Noon with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County Administrator, Director of Community Development and Associate Planner regarding potential litigation. HEARING re: Revision of Glen Cove Interim Light Industrial/Commercial Zone Boundary ( LAMIRD): Approximately 30 citizens were present when Chairman Richard Wojt opened the public hearing and Associate Planner Randy Kline presented and discussed the staff report and boundary maps. Jim Lindsay, 8055 45th Avenue NE, Seattle, stated that he represents the Barber and Evans families who own a block that was in the original provisional UGA boundary. They do not feel that the conclusions reached in the Glen Cove boundary analysis dated March 7, 2002 are consistent with the final decision document dated June 11, 2001. The document lacks public input; and adequate public process did not occur from the conclusion of the Special Studies to the formulation of the document. The document lacks the proper environmental analysis, it has not gone through SEPA review. Chairman Wojt asked what document Mr. Lindsay is referring to? Mr. Lindsay answered that he is making comments specifically on the boundary analysis document that was posted on the County's web site. Mr. Lindsay suggested that the local property owners, business owners, and residents of this area need to be more involved and that a stakeholders committee needs to be formed to determine the future of the area given the outcome of the Special Study. The County's Comprehensive Plan does not contain criteria for establishing a logical outer boundary of a LAMIRD based on the definition of a "built environment" as defined in Durham v San Juan County. He believes the County's definition only includes above ground infrastructure and the definition needs to include infrastructure above and below ground. The Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended before this boundary can be considered for adoption. This proposal is in conflict with the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan which recognizes this entire area as a future Urban Growth Area (UGA.) The proposed LAMIRD excludes the largest employer in Jefferson County. There is a major industrial area adjacent to the proposed LAMIRD but not included. The proposed boundaries are not logical. The analysis did not follow the criteria set forth to establish a logical outer Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 boundary. The area that his clients own between the Port Townsend UGA and the revised boundary has similar characteristics of a "built environment" as defined in the Glen Cove boundary analysis. It was previously zoned commercial, and has a pre-existing 1990 water infrastructure, road infrastructure that allows access from SR20, 3- phase electrical service, some pre -1990 buildings and forests that have been denuded on several occasions in the past. These are the criteria that are in the document. This area also includes the existing railroad right -of -way, the Port Townsend Paper Company, non - motorized access via the Larry Scott Trail, and the only area designated as heavy industrial in unincorporated Jefferson County. It is also adjacent to a logical physical boundary of the Port Townsend UGA. This boundary has no physical description that can be defined. If this area is to develop as a LAMIRD or a UGA, it is only logical that the existing sewer service will pass through the area. The existing policies adopted by Jefferson County dictate the previous planning for the area, and make this area in conflict with the 1998 Highway 20 Corridor Planning Policies, the County's designation as a light industrial zone in 1992, with the County's amendments to the Highway 20 Corridor Light Industrial Commercial Zone dated August 22, 1994, the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan, the Glen Cove /Tri Area Special Study final decision document dated June 11, 2001, the County's own Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.070 5(d)(IV). Excluding this area from any type of designation will leave it in limbo. The proposed Glen Cove boundary is not logical without the addition of this northern portion. The northern boundary as proposed is not logical and it lacks any physical characteristic defined in the northern boundary. This area also includes areas that are urban in character. It includes areas that are anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan for the majority of the County's future commercial and industrial growth. This proposal allows for leap frog development. It excludes areas with a built environment. Further analysis will show that this area does have a built environment according to the criteria contained in the document. It also creates an abnormally, irregular boundary. If the County Commissioners decide to designate this area as a LAMIRD, then the area he is discussing should be included as part of the LAMIRD. They really feel that this area is much more suitable for the designation of Urban Growth Area and not a LAMIRD. He has submitted two letters previously for the record. He summarized the information in these letters and re- submitted them and advised that he was entering all of the referenced items as part of the record. John Nessett, 2215 Washington Street, Port Townsend, explained that he owns property that is currently not in the tight line and would be returned back to the original designation. He reviewed the zoning history of the property. When he first purchased this property it was zoned as light industrial and the government process that took that designation away was very quick. He felt that process was flawed because it took commercial /light industrial property and changed it to a one residence per five acres designation. This was very extreme and the zoning did not fit the use of the property. The property's infrastructure included a 10 inch waterline, a fire hydrant, 3 phase power, and highway screening that the County required in the light industrial growth area. This is why they bought it and the change in designation was basically a catastrophe for their investment. Other uses had grown up around their property that weren't residential. He has petitioned and made comments many times in the past. He has 50 employees in 9 locations, including vessels that work on the water. They need facilities to compliment these businesses. They've had problems with outboard motors being stolen because they are utilizing this property right now without a structure. With the current zoning, they can't build a structure and they need a structure to facilitate their business needs. As a business, they have to do what's best economically in order to be successful. By utilizing this Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 process today, they could use this property as part of their expanded business plan. They are proposing with the Coast Guard, a marine oil containment ability, and a staging area for that type of equipment. He is asking that the County return the zoning to how it was when he purchased the property. He believes that the flaw occurred when GMA reacted to growth and the tight line was created which ignored the plans and the infrastructure already in the ground. They stuck strictly to existing buildings even though they were utilizing some of the facility for their storage of equipment. This area could be expanded and a good supply of this type of land is helpful for businesses. Land designated for light industrial/commercial use is necessary to make it economically feasible for businesses. The businesses in downtown Port Townsend are high rent, high traffic, they move away from showrooms and they need facilities to manufacture the items that go in the showrooms. This area could be backup for some of the retail. This is not in competition with the City of Port Townsend and would actually help business in the City. He urged the Board to help business. Jim Worthington, Thermionics Northwest Inc., 231 Otto Street, Port Townsend, said that he put his requests in writing and explained that they are asking that the 10 acres they own at Old Fort Townsend Road be put back into the industrial designation. He purchased the land inl992 when it was designated as industrial. They felt they would eventually need to build their own building for their manufacturing. Prior to the tight lining they invested in a building for a property within the tight line and are in the process of getting the building permit. If he compares the properties inside the tight line to his parcel that was left out, he feels that the parcel outside the tight line has several features that make it more appropriate for an industrial designation. It was their intent and actions in good faith to plan for their future. He understands the struggle with growth and the need to control it, but a cornerstone to business is planning. They have to be able to plan out what they are going to do and move in a manner that is economically viable. In this turmoil, it is very difficult for companies to be financially successful. Building an industrial building in this County seems like it is almost a crime. He's spent $41,000 and is still not through with the requirements. The good news is that he's not in a hurry, but the bad news is that the current process which is supposed to protect everyone's interest has a stifling effect on industry. The effect of the regulations suggests that industry is not really wanted here. Don Cooper, 23074 SE Lake Wilderness Drive, Maple Valley, stated that he is here to discuss a piece of property south of the railroad and north of the proposed boundary. These 48 lots were originally designated industrial in the Highway 20 Corridor Plan. He purchased this property in the mid 1970's because it was adjacent to the railroad and would be future industrial property. In 1983 the property was designated industrial /commercial. He was one of the original investors in the water system in that area and purchased eleven water taps. He wouldn't have purchased the water taps if he had known that this property would be zoned residential and not industrial. Through the years he could not develop the property because every time he went to use the water taps, the Jefferson County PUD said there was no water available. Of the original eleven taps 2 are in use, 3 have been sold, and he can only connect to one of the remaining 6 taps since the water system transferred to the City of Port Townsend. There is no water or there's a building moratorium. His main point is that the criteria was not applied correctly in the boundary analysis because one of the main criteria is to use physical boundaries. The railroad would be the physical boundary. If the physical boundary isn't applied, there will be a mishmash of residential and commercial /industrial. Thomas Road was always discussed in the Highway 20 Corridor Plan and the Transportation Plan as being a future access road to Highway 20. Louisa Street, which runs through his property, was going to be comparable to Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Otto Street that runs on the other side of Highway 20. It was going to be a utility corridor and a frontage road. He doesn't understand the waterline that runs up Elizabeth Street and goes all the way to Thomas Street. Something is wrong with the map because it doesn't indicate the full length of the water line. He sent a letter to the Commissioners about this same issue in 1997 and two letters in 1999. Erik Frederickson, 240 Sand Road, Port Townsend, stated that he owns and operates Frederickson Electric, Inc. and employs 15 people. They were in this exact situation several years ago. He would like to point out that he purchased this property in 1993. It is his understanding that the determining factors on what's included and not included in the boundary is the built utility environment as of 1990. There are two of those factors that may have been found deficient in his property: 1) 3 phase electrical power - He has been in the electrical business since 1974 and his conservative estimate is that 75% of the businesses in the County use single phase power. 3 phase power is an advantage to anyone that is in manufacturing or has a very large structure with a lot of lighting. When the building was constructed in 1997 he chose not to use 3 phased power although it was only 200 feet away from his property because he didn't want the added cost of that kind of equipment; and, 2) Water - There was no water there in 1990; but water was within 300 feet on the Denny Line end of the main. That 300 feet is closer to his property than to many of the properties that have been added into the boundary. He referred to the meetings to determine the UGA boundaries in 1999. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Commissioners that this exact area (Sub -area 6) include analysis zone 6 comprising 10.3 acres in the expanded logical boundary. The expansion would be consistent with criteria in the RCW, would avoid an irregular boundary, and allow a buffer between commercial and industrial uses adjoining the residential area. This would preserve the character of the neighborhood. It sounds like there has been a change in what's considered logical. The Board of Commissioners agreed at that time and put this area back in the tight line. He is asking once again that this be considered. He purchased 3.83 acres in 1993 for $80,000 from Jefferson County. At that point in time this property was clearly in a commercial zone. He urged the Commissioners not to put the County in the position of selling property at commercial rates and then down - zoning the property. Dale Amel, Amel Family Limited Partnership, 535 Harrison St. Port Townsend, advised that this partnership owns a five acre parcel outside of the proposed expanded boundary. He feels the majority of the people that have given testimony want this boundary put back to the way it was. He doesn't understand why it was changed. As far as the criteria is concerned the property that they purchased was cleared and has access to the highway. They purchased it for commercial and industrial uses and now they've been excluded. He asked that the boundary be reconsidered. It doesn't make sense to exclude the properties along Highway 20 when most of the property owners have purchased these properties for development. They're not going to develop the property until there is a demand. He requested that this area be included in the commercial/industrial area. Most of the people that invested their money for the future will put in the water when the expansion needs to happen. To cut them out now doesn't make sense. He asked that the Board rethink this whole process because it doesn't seem fair to the property owners in this area. David Timmons, Port Townsend City Manager, 181 Quincy Street, Port Townsend, asked on behalf of the City Council that the County not take action on this proposal at this time. The City has offered to meet with the County to try to identify common interests and concerns and try to develop a strategy that will work to meet everybody's needs. They encourage the County to take advantage of this meeting. There is a lot of Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 opportunity to find common ground to develop a long term strategy to unify the City and County's interests, along with the property owners interests, into an overall development strategy. The area just north of the map is the City limits and the City's light industrial and commercial area. It's very critical that a serious and hard look be taken at this area and that it be planned properly. It is a crucial transportation arterial and the gateway to the community. It also excludes the major employer and industrial user in the region. This should be looked at because it will become a critical focus in terms of the future diversity of our economy. The real concern is to avoid putting a label on this area — UGA or LAMIRD. What is the goal and the best way to accomplish it? The proposal needs to be looked at to determine the merit. The City feels that it is technically flawed and even if it does have merit to go forward, the process will be appealed and it will frustrate the property owners and community even more. The City is requesting that the Board not take action and extending an invitation to the Board to sit down with the City Council to develop a unified strategy. Randy Kline, Department of Community Developed pointed out that the Port Townsend Paper Mill is designated as a heavy industrial zone. Jeff Randall, City Building /Community Development Director, Port Townsend, explained how hard it is to draw a line on a map and make people happy. There are a lot of business owners at this hearing that are responsible for supporting jobs either in Port Townsend or in Glen Cove. They have invested money and time and support. Glen Cove and Port Townsend are definitely economically linked. The concern he has is that based upon the record and the process laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposal being followed today would not follow that process. We don't know what the appropriate boundary is. This area is still identified in the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan as a potential Urban Growth Area. Since the County completed the Special Studies, there hasn't been a dialog between the City and the County. The City is now the water provider for this area and many things have changed since the City adopted it's Comprehensive Plan. He then reviewed a few technical changes. The proposed action would be an interim ordinance which needs to take place prior to final action occurring. The action being proposed by the County today isn't consistent with the concept that was established in State law. Commissioner Titterness stated that the interim ordinance was created to define a boundary that was to be status quo to allow for a more complex final boundary process. The interim boundary was established using incomplete and erroneous data. He feels that it makes sense to reestablish the status quo. Jeff Randall answered that doing so would not be GMA compliant. Commissioner Titterness stated that the Board has given staff direction to utilize the latest established criteria based on the Court case in San Juan County. Jeff Randal advised that he understands what has occurred and the time frame. It appears that the County is trying to take advantage of the case law out there and the case law is very gray and it is very difficult to determine what would be a defensible line. That's why he feels more time is needed. Commissioner Titterness reiterated that the interim ordinance concept was created to define a boundary that was to be status quo until the County could get through the process. The interim boundary was incorrect and inconsistent with the intent. Jeff Randal advised that in his opinion there are more defensible options. The process is flawed. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Commissioner Huntingford stated his concerns about the length of this process and the City's changing position throughout it. Commissioner Titterness quoted a letter from the City sent to the County Administrator, dated March 7, 2002, "City representatives commented that they could support an expanded LAMIRD boundary, following a review of the rationale, analysis, and consistency with GMA requirements." Jeff Randall added that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process will start on May 1. This would be the proper venue to receive public comment. There would be additional opportunities to meet with the City Council and the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. Taking action in November as part of the amendment process makes more sense. Jeff Randall also presented a memo from the City Attorney regarding the findings of the Trottier Report. (See permanent record.) Larry Dennison 1224 Cleveland Street, Port Townsend, stated that he is an employee of a blacksmith shop that is located in Port Townsend adjacent to a hotel and a doctor's office. The business is successful and needs to expand. The owner has purchased a parcel of property in Glen Cove adjacent to other similar light industrial businesses. These existing businesses and this future business location are all outside the tight line. If these properties are not designated as light industrial, are the existing businesses grandfathered if they are sold or does the property revert back to the underlying zoning? Al Scalf replied that non - conforming use standards apply, including changing the use to a lesser degree. In other words they could sell or pass that business on as is but they could not expand or intensify the use. Larry Dennison explained that he was one of the original members of the Economic Development Council and one of their goals was to encourage local businesses that would grow the economy from the inside out with local investment. This means small businesses with family wage jobs which would create an internally stable economy. The existing businesses in the area where his employer would like to relocate have employees, they pay well, and most of their products are sold outside of the County which means new money coming into our area. The problem is that they lack the security of underlying zoning. These existing businesses are meeting the key goals of the EDC plan and there is no speculation involved. It is important to make this work for these businesses and it seems that this is a defensible action. Russell Jaqua 1119 Blaine Street, Port Townsend, stated the he owns Nimba Forge on Glen Cove Road. He and his wife have submitted documents to the County on several occasions regarding the tight line zoning that excluded their business from the light industrial designation. Their business is included in the proposed new boundary. When he originally bought his property, it was zoned light industrial and it had 3 phase power and water. At that time, it was really the only location that worked. When he built, he installed large forging equipment that required that zoning and this area of the County is still the only location that works. When the zoning was changed to rural residential, he basically lost his investment. There are several businesses near him that are growing and prospering and are committed to the community. A lot of businesses don't even bother to look at Jefferson County because it is too far off the corridor. We bring money in from all over the country and we want to continue to do that. Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 Dale Goddard, 209 Old Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, stated that he owns property in the Glen Cove area and he has presented testimony in the past. His property was zoned light industrial in 1984. He indicated on the map where he installed a 10 inch waterline and underground power after 1990. He wouldn't have made this investment if the zoning was other than light industrial. He was never notified that he shouldn't make these improvements. The County has spent a lot of money on this project so far, why can't we go back to the way it was before? Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Goddard did any other development on the property? He replied that he shared in the cost of the 10 inch water line and the street construction and blacktopping. The property isn't currently in the tight line, but it is in the expanded tight line proposal being discussed today. John Lockwood, Port Townsend, referred to the built environment map from 1990 and an aerial photograph of the Glen Cove area. He is an ardent supporter of the GMA and a local business owner. He moved to Jefferson County in 1987 because he loved it the way it was at that time. He is pleased that GMA has prevented development of the highway corridor from Chimacum to Port Townsend. The Growth Management Act was supposed to solve growth issues and contain development. All incorporated cities were to become UGAs. In 1997, the GMA was amended to allow clusters of commercial development outside UGAs that would be identified as limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs) The objective of a LAMIRD is containment. Looking at the aerial photograph, as of July 1, 1997, there is only one structure that has been built within this supposed expanded boundary. There has been some clearing of properties and right -of -ways. The law requires a predominantly man -made environment. The County has not identified any parcel in the expanded area with onsite water lines, power lines and sewer lines. The State contends that power lines and water lines that are on highways or public easements are not considered onsite infrastructure. He is speaking for himself and for the PLC. They are of the opinion that it is illegal to pass an interim ordinance to change the Comprehensive Plan. This expansion does not meet the requirements of the law. He is upset about this whole process because the LAMIRD expansions proposed in 1999 and the stand alone UGA that was proposed were appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board and were found to be illegal. It is not a solution to go back to what the State has said is illegal. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford asked that Mr. Lockwood contain his testimony to the hearing subject of the expanded LAMIRD boundary. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Lockwood is in favor of a UGA designation? John Lockwood said that he doesn't understand why people would choose to speculate on property that is zoned rural residential in the Glen Cove area and blamed the County Commissioners. He also submitted written testimony. (See permanent record.) Gene Seton, 4890 South Discovery Road, Port Townsend, disagreed with John Lockwood's comments regarding the lack of additional infrastructure and built environment in Glen Cove. He noted that there has been a power struggle between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County for several years as far as GMA is concerned. They have discussed what to do with Glen Cove for four years and no decisions have been made. He was a member of the committee that developed the Highway 20 Corridor Policy in 1984. This document served the County well as a development guideline in that area. Businesses were coming in Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 and able to expand and there was predictable, positive, steady growth. Then GMA came along and put a stop to all growth. When the Comprehensive Plan was passed in 1998, the tight line that had been established in Glen Cove was illegal because it didn't include the infrastructure below ground. There were buildings above the ground that should have been included and weren't. He has discouraged five offers from people who are interested in buying property he owns in the Glen Cove area because of the uncertainty about zoning. There are never going to be "big box" stores in Glen Cove. Jefferson County doesn't have a population that would support that type of business. The people who want to locate in Glen Cove are small business people or people that want to expand their small businesses. These businesses pay a good living wage. The reason the County is having budget shortfalls is because businesses that pay taxes aren't being allowed to locate here. Businesses will bring in jobs so that young people don't have to leave the County when they graduate from high school. We need business to have a stable economy. Retired people don't spend money here because there is no place to spend it. Steve Lopes, 234 Monroe Street, Port Townsend, stated that he is sorry that the People for a Livable Community don't want to make Jefferson County a liveable community. It is unfortunate that the City of Port Townsend has failed miserably for many years to address the needs of small businesses. He started his business 25 years ago in Port Townsend, it has grown steadily, and he now has 5 employees. Last year he bought property in the Glen Cove area. If he could move his business there, he could hire more employees and do larger jobs. He recently had to turn down a $100,000 job because he did not have the room to do the work at his current location. If the County makes it too expensive for the small business owner to build, only rich people will be able to build and live here. His property is located near similar types of businesses that are also light industrial and it makes sense to locate there. He has a standing offer in Clallam County to move his business there, but he likes Jefferson County and Port Townsend and wants to stay here if he can. Dick Bothell, stated that his business is located at 305V Glen Cove Road. He started a business several years ago, and gradually the business grew and they moved to the Port. He showed the location of his shop on the map. He had rented the building at the current location on Glen Cove Road for several years and he had the right of first refusal if it was to be sold. An offer was made and he had to come up with the money to buy the shop location. The building is currently zoned residential and has a conditional use permit. They need 3 phase power and there isn't any other property or place available that would meet the requirements for his business. There are seven people working for him and he anticipates that his business will grow steadily. The City's Industrial Park is not an option. He has lived in the County since 1990 and he doesn't think that the people making the regulations and rules are looking at the true picture of where we should be going. The true picture is that they need to let the people who live here grow internally. How many more years will this uncertainty last? Bill Perka, 270 Cape George Road, Port Townsend, stated that he has lived in Port Townsend since 1976 and raised 3 sons here. As a real estate agent, he has dealt with most of the people in this room. The Highway 20 Corridor Policy, signed inl988, was all that was needed for people to rely on to buy property in the Glen Cove area that was commercial /industrial property that they would someday get to use and develop. As a realtor, he sees many people who want to come to Port Townsend and start a small business. There is no place for them to locate. The logical place for them to buy property is Glen Cove, but because of the tight line, they cannot build a business there. In Glen Cove the going rate is 50 cents to $2 a square foot. At Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 the industrial park in Port Townsend, the cost is $5 to $8 a square foot. Small businesses can't afford to locate in the City. What is being proposed today is a good start and a step in the right direction. The County needs small businesses to be economically viable. Bill Marlow, P.O. Box 618, Port Hadlock, submitted a letter and stated that he is speaking on behalf of Northwest Woods. Their property is zoned as a storage yard. He agrees that the County needs to encourage small businesses that are already here. Northwest Woods is currently leasing property in Glen Cove besides the property they own. They want to expand their business. Many people bought property in Glen Cove because of the Highway 20 Corridor Plan and they thought that the zoning would remain commercial /industrial. Under SHB 6094, the County has the legal right to expand the LAMIRD boundaries. Two of the properties on the west side of the Highway 20 are permitted and existing uses. Most of the land on the east side of the highway is platted and if a business needs a large tract of land, they would have to buy from several property owners. The properties on the west side of the highway are 5 to 16 acres. Right now the land designation is rural residential. There is no way people would build a house there. It is very frustrating to see the City of Port Townsend and the County continue to play politics with the existence of the people who choose to live here. Everytime the County takes an action, the City sues them. This is a political mess. The process is so convoluted that the end result is "paralysis by analysis." This has been going on for twelve years. It is important to use common sense. Fran Thompson, 908 Hastings, Port Townsend, stated that he bought 20 acres in the Glen Cove area in 1977. There are existing businesses in the area. He wants the designation to go back to the way it was. Freida Fenn, City Council Member, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, stated that she is sharing her perspective. The County received a letter from the City stating their majority position on this proposal. They do not want the Board to make a decision today. Instead use dialog and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for more public participation. Please read the City Attorney's legal comments regarding this proposal. The interim ordinance and the findings are not available today. GMA changed land use in Washington. She strongly supports GMA. This law says to infill existing cities instead of creating sprawl and need for services in rural areas. Before 1990, cheap land outside the city was the draw, now the most important thing is public planning inside cities. Small businesses want to purchase cheap land. Under GMA, cities are required to provide urban services that cost money and land values are driven up inside UGAs. That's just a reality. Before 1990, people could make individual choices in isolation, now jurisdictions are required to do 20 year plans that are citizen driven, not land owner driven. These plans are to go through a very citizen intensive process and the boundaries established as UGAs are not supposed to revert to the adjacency argument which has been discussed many times at this hearing. The County has had real problems trying to adapt to the GMA process. She invited the County to sit down with the City Council and discuss the best way to deal with the Glen Cove problem. Interim ordinances don't seem legal. Increasing the light industrial land in Glen Cove competes with the 45 acres in the City of Port Townsend. The business tax base needs to be inside the UGAs. The Tri Area also has interests and needs. UGAs protect rural and resource lands. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 John Watts, City AttorneX, Port Townsend, stated that he submitted a legal opinion regarding the proposal that is before the Board. (See permanent record.) He said the basis for taking interim action is to correct or update a previous map. There was a similar action in Skagit County that was challenged and the Growth Management Hearings Board said that they had to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Commissioner Huntingford noted to John Watts that the Board will review his letter regarding legalities; but he pointed out that the County has their own legal counsel to advise the Board. Don Cooper, 23074 Lake Wilderness Drive, Maple Valley, noted that in January the Jefferson County Board of Equalization reduced the market value on several of the lots that he owns in the Glen Cove area. There was an appeal by an adjacent property owner because of the downzoning from commercial to residential. The value was cut in half. Hearing no further comments, the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford moved to accept written comments until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 22, 2002. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness pointed out that many of the comments presented today said that the zoning in Glen Cove must make sense. He thanked the City Council for their input, their offer and having staff present today. It is important for the County and the City to work together. One of the things that needs to be determined is a finding about the County's authority to do interim zoning. Commissioner Titterness moved to find that RCW 36.70(a).390 authorizes interim zoning. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Commissioner Titterness and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt pointed out that the Board has to listen to all the people. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Titterness moved to find that the staff suggested boundary is consistent with criteria established in case law. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. He noted that the Board's direction to staff was to look at SHB6094, review the case law, look at what criteria may need to be changed in the Comprehensive Plan to make these boundary adjustments in Glen Cove. He pointed out that this direction was a unanimous agreement by the Board. Staff has done what the Board asked. Chairman Wojt said that he is interested in success, not more process. This proposal seems to fit all the logical criteria, but this does not appear to be leading to a successful conclusion. There are too many players. The Board needs to make sure that there is agreement on the criteria and that once that is agreed on, the criteria is applied as it was when the tight line was established. The County needs to see if any given parcel in the area fits the criteria. Going through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is necessary. Commissioner Titterness agreed that other areas may not be included in the interim boundary which are consistent with the criteria. He feels that everything within the proposed boundary is consistent. Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 18, 2002 \.) Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board needs to review the comments and the criteria for the boundaries. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct staff to draft an interim ordinance expanding the LAMIRD in the Glen Cove area. Commissioner Huntingford declined to second the motion and then he moved to table directing staff to work on drafting a document. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion. He feels that the County, the City, and the property owners need to work together on this issue and he would like a commitment from the City for that work. The Chair called for a vote on Commissioner Huntingford's motion which carried by a unanimous vote. (Workshop was later scheduled for April 3, 2002.) MEETING ADJP7 Jul ;D JEFFERSON COUNTY f " " RD OF C MW.SION SEAL. 1 Rich oi , h ATTEST: ' '° �.. ' ' en Pun ingford ember Lorna Delaney, CMC Dan Titterness, Member Clerk of the Board �'i: Page 17 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Revision of Glen Cove Interim Industrial /Commercial Zone Boundary DATE: Monday, March 18, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 4 T �� r'"r �1VI ®Jv f L" (' �T S' "' /Y � ❑ ❑ iJ C4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑.. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� [2 11 ❑ RE] El ❑ 13�,❑❑ ❑ ❑ P El El ❑ ❑. c io z 7 �✓ 0 / VA r . 0 o r GL � �*� /0T c 13 7 I'►/a s �, �' n n.. S / -ANUS MOM Raw 121m pad l _•�. J,Z,k .--, "qL a 3 l a® s rr i- :;z,3 cl �7A S Inr L,k- ,�?A-Lp F ,moo _ LA�--�en 7- - JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Revision of Glen Cove interim Industrial /Commercial Zone Boundary DATE: Monday, March 18, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 7v 0 E El JO 0 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A El El ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n v� d C �Cw➢ D C� J5-16 V e- `FtS0 r1 S ussFll J U 3 3 0-c�("ev>(- (et P T- Zzw 3 I 'rd a I Cc - PC 3 /;0/0� JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. Box 2070 1322 Washington St. LE COPort >� � Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385 -9160 Frank Gifford, Public Works Director MEMORANDUM Robert G. Turpin, P.E., County Engineer TO: Board of County Commissioners V E Al Scalf, Director of Community Development ment I ._ FROM: Frank Gifford, Public Works Director 4�E'% MAR 18 HOC' JEFFERSON CUUN(Y DATE: March 18, 2002 BOARD OF t OMMISSIONFRS RE: Proposed expansion of the Glen Cove Light Industrial / Commercial Zone The Department has reviewed the proposal to expand the Glen Cove Light Industrial / Commercial (LI. /C) Zone. Please accept the following comments related to the County road system and to stormwater management: County Roads The proposal to expand the Glen Cove LI /C Zone is based on the presence of pre -I 990 development and infrastructure. Approval of the expansion does not require preparation oi` a transportation analysis or provision of transportation improvements. A transportation analysis of the Glen Cove area was prepared for the Tri -Area / Glen Cove Special Study (1999). However, this analysis was based on the designation of a 353 acre urban growth area in Glen Cove (Action Alternative 3). The UGA study area was 209 acres larger than the proposed expanded Glen Cove LI /C Zone would be. The Special Study estimated that there would be 3,800 additional employees in the Glen Cove UGA at the end of the 20 -year planning period. The Special Study transportation analysis was also based on development at urban level densities. The Glen Cove LI /C Zone would continue to be an area of more intensive rural development. Although no precise figures are available, the expanded Glen Cove LI /C Zone would generate significantly less traffic than projected for the Glen Cove UGA in the Special Study. A review of existing data in the County Road Information System shows that the County roads that serve the Glen Cove LI /C Zone are generally adequate to accommodate existing development. The following existing deficiencies should be noted: • Glen Cove Road (substandard traveled way); and • Old Fort Townsend Road (Substandard shoulder width). ffi r Both of these roadways are on the periphery of the area proposed for inclusion in the Glen Cove LI /C Zone. Based on the current ranking of these road segments in the County's priority rating system, remediation of these deficiencies is not planned in the 6- Year Transportation. Improvement Program, There may be additional deficiencies in the future that result from traffic growth in the Glen Cove LI /C Zone. Project applications would be reviewed to determine whether there would be impacts to the County road system. If impacts are identified, mitigation may q be required, In order to ensure the provision of adequate transportation facilities if the expanded LI/C Zone is approved, the Department proposes to prepare a Glen Cove traffic analysis for the next regular revision to the County Comprehensive Plan. Stormwater Management There are no regional stormwater management facilities in either the existing or expanded Glen Cove LI /C Zone. Individual project developers have typically provided stormwater management facilities to serve their developments. The County's Unified. Development Code requires that stormwater management facilities be provided when a development would create more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. This requirement should be adequate to ensure that significant impacts related to stormwater runoff do not occur within the expanded Glen Cove LI /C "Zone. 1 i I l MAR -18 -2002 MON 01:19 PM CTED LCCAL GOVT FAX To: The Honorable Richard Wajt Date: March 18, 2002 FAX Number: (360) 385 -9362 Number of pages to follow: 3 From: Linda Weyl FILE C Office of Community Development Growth Management Services Davis and Williams Building 906 Columbia Street Southwest Post Office Box 48350 Olympia, Washington 98504 -8350 Fax Number: (360) 753 -2950 Phone Number: (360) 725 -3056 E-mail address: lindaweCbcted.wa.gov -------- °-- -- -° —°--�- Home Page:t�c_wvx MON 01;2C PM CTED LCCAL GOVT FAX N0, X 753 2590 P. 02 _ ",MAR-18-2002 .rA kra, STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE,' OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 906 Colrrml)ia St. SW ' PO Box 463.50 • Olyrrpra, W55hington 98504- tr:i50 • l360) 71.5 600 March 18, 2002 The Honorable Ricl}ard Wojt Chair, Jefferson County HUM c -f Commissiaclrrs 1820 Jefferson Street Post 0 ffico Box 1220 s Port Townsend, Washington 98368 y RR: Revision of Glen Cove Interim. I.1 /C Zone Boundary per RCW 36.70A.390 Dear Commissioner N+'ojt: "Thank you for sending the Washington State Office of Cotutnuuity Development (OCD) your Notice of Public Hearing, scheduled 'for March 18, 2002, at 2 p.nu. on the proposed revision oCtlic Glen Cove Industrial Area Interim Light Industrial,,Commercial Zone boundary. We received this February 27, 2002, notice on March t, 2002. 'I'lic Notice states that "(R)evision to the Glen Cove boundary will occur pursuant to RCW 36,7011.390 and will utilize optional provisions contained in the Growth Nfanagi;ment ,pct reln.ted On March 12 to `Linaitecl Areas of More intensive Rural Development' [RCVv 70.36AA7U(5)] , 2602, we downloaded a a&ftiiall copy of the Glen Cove BoundaryAnalysiy (this document did not irncluclo the figures 1 -7 or (lae Appendices prepared by JefCerson County Dcpemaient of Community Dcvcloprnent). Based can reviewing the Notice and the partial Glen Cove Boundary Analysis, we have the following conccrns about tlae process being used to consider the proposed action adjusting; the boundary of this None: • The adoption of a revised interim betiadary for this area under RCW 36.70A,390 is inconsistent with the process in yotir Comprehensiye flan (LNP 1.4. and LNP 11,3.2) The initial cdcsignation of the Ciders Cove Industrial Arer.r Interim Liglat Incdustricrli't;'orrtn�er� icrl forte boundary was made undcr RCW 36.70A,390 and application of the provisions of RCW 70.36A.070(5). The adopted 1998 Comprehensive, flan addresses the rccd to rwvisit interim rural area boun6ar es following the completion of the Glen C ovelTri ,4rea r51;>crc°iad Study and establish final boundaries through an amundtrent to the cornprchensive plan, OD 4t,4�W 10 `I ,� , MAR--18 -2002 MON 01.20 PM CTED LOCAL GOVT FAX NO, 360 753 2590 P, 03 1110 14onorablc Richard Wojt Marcia i R, ZU62 I)igye 2 consistent with Land Use Policy (LN11) 1A. Similar language is also contained tit LNP 11.3.2. Also, arrneading your coning map without amending your comprehensive plan will also creole an incotnsistency between your zoning snap and your comprehensive plan, RCW 36.70A,040(4)(d) requires that development regulations be consistent with comprcl►cnsir�c plans. Therefore, we rccorriniend drat, when you consider a boundary change to this 7onc; you do so along, with an articadment to your comprehensive plan during; your regular arneadni nt process. Comprehensive plans can only be amended once a year according to RCW 36.70A•130(2)(b) except in the case of an emergency. Tile n,;cd to revise the Glen (Wove Area Inter °lna I ighr Ind ustrurllComniercial Zone boundary does not seem to rerresent an emergency. • Amending the Glen Cave Industrial Area 1werim Light MdustrialiC'vmmercial Zone boundary according to RCW 36.70A,390 appears inconsistent with the intent of this statute, The provisions of RCW 36.70A.390 are intended to preserve the stratus quo ,tad protect an existing area from potential barn-► prior to a formal public decision r nat ing process, and not to expand coverage of an established zoning ordinance prior to corrilleting a needed plan amendment. RCW 36.70A,106(3) requires that jurisdictions amending comprehensive plans and development regulations give at least 60 days advance > oti.cc to OCD to allow adecquatc time for our ggetncy and other state ngcncies to rcvievv the proposed plan arnend►Tic►lt and providc col -imcnts if necessary. Our agency has not received 60 -day notice of'your intent to adopt this boundary change. Notice of a public hearing, generally is not the manner ill which jcfferson County has noti&;d us in the past of ainendmcnts to your plazas arad dcvclopmczit regalatiorm Bccause we have not received formal 6D -clay notice of your intent to change the Glen Cove Industrial area Irtoritn Light IndustriabCorr merciul Zone boundary, we have not analyzed whether the boundary orange is appropriate according to the changes you nnade to your designation criteria for limited areas ormorc intensive rural development (LAMIRDs) in your 2001 annual amendments to your comprehensive plan. In that regard, we would like to reiterate tlnc corrrrrmetit we made on that change in the December 11, 2001, letter to the county from Anne rritxtl: Amendment MLA01 -00225 changes the way LAMIRDi are designated in 3effurson County from the set of criteria in Policy LNP 5.1 based on corrrmeresial zoning to a dif'f'erent set of criteria based on the requirements of RCW 36.70A..070(5)(c) and (d), and on local considerations in Policy LNP 5.2. We recommend our publication.% eq)in the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning for ,Rural Devr1ol ?mne r to as515t you in making boundary determinations. Calling the bacrnclaries `interim, is not nceessary. Without calling the boundaries `inter.tn,, you earl still apply your new criteria to your MAR -18 -2002 MON 01;21 PM CTED LOCAL GDVT FAX NO, 360 753 2590 P. 04 'rhe Honorable Richard Wait March 18, 2002 Page 3 i current boundaries or to designate future 1,A IRDS, If you choose do this, we cnCOL:rage You to keep a cawfol record of your decision making process." This letter comments only on the process through which you propose to change the boundary for this LnMIRD. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other grow-tlj manage nem issues, please call me at (360) 725 - 30=16. We extend our continued support to Jefferson County in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, Douglas L. Peters Senior PBanncr Growth Maliagement Services L)P:lw cc,, Al Scalf, Community Development Director, Jefferson County Randy Kline, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning, Jefferson County .1eff Randal., Planning Director, City of Port Townsend I ppry3lw4 HARBOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ' r PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES March 17, ZtHi2 ,Jefferson Board of County Commissioner FILE COPY PO Ban 127A Port 'Townsend, WA 99-W &- Testim my, Nblic Hearing Ow Cove Boundary Analysis, on behalf of the Barber and Evans Families Dear Ca mmissionets, tae include the following comments in the public record as input to the public hearing that is scheduled for March 18, 2002. Please include all referenced laws, studies, plans, policies, etc, and Growth Management Hearing Board cases cited as part of the public record. The comments listed below were intended to be given as oral testimony, however I am not sure of the amount of time that will be allotted for otal testimony, Therefore my, comments are listed below in an outline format. COMMENTS ON THE GLEN COVE BOUNDARY ANALYSIS DATED 3 -742 1. Conclusions are not consistent with June 11, 2001, Jefferson Co. final decision document. 2. Analysis larks public input and has not been allowed adequate public process. 3. Analysis lacks environmental review (SEPA). 4. Local property owners need to be more involved in the process. A stake holders cones ittee should be harmed. 5 County comprehensive plan does not have adopted criteria for establishing Logical Outer Boundaries (LOB) of a LAMUD based on the definition of built environment as defined in Outland vs. Sara, Juan Co. (Case No. 00- 2-0062c, final decision and order issued 5 -7-01). 6. Port Townsend Comp. flan recognizes the area as a future urban growth area (FUGA). 7. L.AMRID excludes the Port Townsend Paper Mill, largest employer in Jefferson Co. 8. Proposed boundaries are not logical. Analysis does not follow criteria set forth to establish LOA The area between the Port Townsend UGA and the "Area north of the Glen Cove Road " as defined in the analysis has been excluded, yet this area contains the criteria of a built environment (see attached map) . This area (referred to as the Northern portion of the Glen Cove. Industrial /Commercial Area) includes- a previous commercial xooning; b. pre 1990 water infs^astructure, c. pre 1990 toad infrastructure, d. pre 1990 three phase electrical, e. pre 1990 buildings, 8055 45TH AVE NE • SEATTLE, WA • 98113 PHONE: 206 - 522 -6407 - FAX: 206 - 524 -4303 EMAIL HDSLLC @yaho*.conk -2— March 17, 2002 £ pre 1990 denuded areas The Northern portion of the Galen Cove Industrial /C mmevoid area also includes: 1. Existing railroad ILCLW. 2. Port Townsend Paper Co 3. Non Motorized access via the Larry Scott TM. 4. Only area designated as heavy industrial in the unincorporated area of the County. 5. Adjacent commercial and industrial zoning to the north (Port Townsend UGA)_ b. Future sewer service to the proposed Glen Cove LA.MRID must go through this area Excluding the Northern portion of the Glen Come Industrial /Commercial area would confbct with the; 1. County's 1998 highway 20 Corridor planning policies. 2. County's designation of area as a light industrial zone 1992 3. County's Amendments to highway, 20 corridor light industrial /commercial zone, dated 8-22 -94. 4. Port Townsend Comp. Plan, oksignation of area as a FUGA. 5. Glen Cove /Tri Area, Special Study, Final Decision Document, dated 6-11-01. 6. County's comprehensive plan. 7. Growth Management Act. 8. GMA (RCW 36-70 - &070 (a) (d) (n► }. 9. Excluding this area would leave this area in LIMBO. The area would be left adjacent to the Port Townsend UGA (commercial and industrial zonings to the north, SR 20 to the west, Glen Cove L.AMRID (industrial zoning) to the south, and salt water shoreline to the east. It would essentially be an island caught between a UGA and a LAMRID The proposed Glen Gove Boundary I. Is not logical, without the addition, of the Northern portion of the Glen Cave Industrial/Commercial area noted above; 2. Northern boundary in not a logical physical boundary, 3. Includes areas that are urban in character, 4. includes areas anticipated for a majority of county's future industrial development, Jefferson Comp, Plan, pages 3 -31; 5. Allows for leap frog development; 6. Excludes areas with a built environment; 7. Does not preserve the existing natural nei&bochoods and communities; B. Allows abnormally irregular boundaries, and 9. Does not prevent low-density sprawl If the County Commissioners choose m desi aft the Glen Cove Area as a LAMED then the area located between the proposed Glen Cove LOB and the Port Townsend UGA, then the Northern portion of the Glen Cove Industrial /Commercial area sharld be included. However; it would be more suitable to designate the entire Glen Cove area described in the "Glen Cave /Tri Area Special Study", including the Port Townsend Paper Mill as a UGA for reasons cited above and for the following reasons: I. See attached letter to the City of Port Townsend Planning Commission (copies to Jefferson Cc, CarA missioners) dated 10 -21 -01 from Jim Lindsay. 2. See attached letter to George Barber (sent via cover letter dated 1 -254)2 to the Jefferson Co. Commissioners) dated 1- 4-2002 from Rich Hill, Land Use Attorney, Phillips, Mcullough, Wilson, Hill and Filrsa f Lien Cove p rov�s�onel f . Area PROPOSED GEENCOW BOUNDARY REVISION Glen Cove Bm=iwy AnWywk ftwwW addimtoBauadary aw f Ile • r _ � `�- tom..:. °�L' - • � t � � 1' , �t r YC�1, _ r•r � -r ,. Y 1..' � •.x ri "c. ti ,ter l � ifs" • _ - { • r t° i � � •I1tia �p !es tor. WW dale riot. MpAgmt a+�► j for mxpom of #and um or PHILLEPS Up ores c. rtralAxn r ur,. MCCULLOUGH WILSON �MARKET MARKET PI,ACL ii?�vLH SurrL 1130 HILL & 2025 FIRS- rAVENUB FIKSO SEAITEX, WASHINGTON APROFMONAL 98121 -2100 SMCECORPORAITON (2*448 -sSiS FAX: (2o6A4&3444 Jmmy 4, MW George Barba Firm Western Tnvtrs PO Box 1449 Edwoni* WA 98424 Re: Glen Cove Dear Mr. Barber: This regxmds to Tun Lindsay's letter of November 28, 2001. In that letter, Jim asked me to analyze a question under Washington State's Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A ( "GMA "): Whether it would be lawful for Jefferson County to designate the Glen Cove area adjacent to the City of port Townswd as a GMA Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development C LAhffi '1. My conclusion is that the Growth Management Hearings Board would most likely conclude that a LAMIRD designation for the Glen Cove area would be unlawful under the GMA. Because of its proximity to the City, the GMHB would most likely find that if the County wishes to designate Glen Cove for more intensive industrial and commercial development, it should do SO directly by expanding the Port Townsend UGA (or create a new UGA), rather than indirecxiy through a LAMIRD. The GMHB has held that a LAMIRD can not be used as a way to evade the County's duty to plan for adequate urban facilities and services to accommodate respomible, growth. Glen Cove is a nurrl area of light indu' sbW development, located close to the City of port Townsend. It is served by a' public water system but is not sawed by a public sewer system. Under the County's 1998 Comprehensive Plan, Glen Cove is located outside the Port Townsend Urban Growth.. Area boundary. However, the Comprehensive Plan did state that the Glen Cove area was anticipated to be the appropriate location for the majority of the County's future industrial development. And the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan identifies the Glen Cove area as a conceptual Final Urban Growth Area in recognition of a possible expansion of the City's UGA. The County has estimated that :,:A I Y January 4, 2002 Page 2 approximately 212 to 280 acres, beyond those already designated in its 1998 plan, will be needed to accommodate demand for commercial and industrial development. Glen Cove is ideally situated to accommodate that demand. In June 2001, the County Commissioners unanimously endorsed the Glen Cove/Tri Area Special Study. The Special Study recommended that Glen Cove be designated "urban" as part of an expanded port Townsend Urban Growth Area in order to accommodate the County's need for additional commercial and industrial acreage. The next step anticipated was to move forward with sub -area and capital facilities planning. In September 2001, a County conanitant, Earth Tech, issued a follow up report that recommended designating Glen Cove not as urban but instead as an industrial LAMIRD. While Earth Tech acknowledged the need for additional commercial and industrial acreage, it concluded that port Townseud's current position as to whether it is willing to provide urban services to the area "instills some uncertainty as to how efficiently this alternative could be implemented at the present time." Earth Tech's primary justification for its LAMIRD recommendation is stated at p. 13 of the report; "This is the most efficient route to foster economic development opportunities since it can be implemented relatively quickly — without the extensive and time- consuming joint city- county Planning processes and steps necessary for UGA formation." LAM UN are "compact forms of rural development" authorized by RCW 36.70A.070(5). See Burrow V. Kitsap County, 2000 WL 1075913 (CPSGUM March 29, 2000). They must have existed as of July 1, 1990 in some land use pattern or form more intensive that what might typically be found in a rural area. Id The purpose of LAMIRDs is to acknowledge and contain preexisting areas of more intensive rural development. LAMaWs must not allow development of new patterns of low density sprawl. The Western Washington GMHB has held that LAMIRDs may not be used as a way for counties to evade their duty to plan for adequate urban facilities and services to accommodate responsible growth See Island County Citizens v. Island County, 2000 WL 313406 (WGMHB March 22, 2000). In Butler v. Lewis County, 2000 WL 960258 (WGhM June 30, 2000), the Western Washington GMHB held that Lewis County's designation of a 600 acre LAMIRD surrounding a seven acre airport violated the GMA. The GNM held that counties may not, under the guise of some other label, designate what is a major industrial development without complying with the statutory criteria for doing so. LAMUMs may not be used as vehicles to circumvent GMA goals and procedures. in io JMMry 4, 2002 Page 3 In Tacoma V. Pierce Coup the ty� 2 000 WL 1075915 (CPS(3M - B June 26, 2000), Puget Sound GMHB invalidated a LAMIRD located within 400 feet of the City of Tacoma. The GMHB an area that could be part of a t1GA ruled that while the Property may be LAMII� because it was too close to th Ci a� was not apProPnate for a development ty more intensive rural "logical," as boundary almost immediately adjacent to a City was not required by the GMA. And in Olympic Environmental Council V. Jefferson �� (WGMHB November 22, 2000), the Western 20 WX, LAMIRDs were not an aPPropriete Washington or industrial expansion. They are not deal target for commercial or or industrial developments. The GMA lamed to accommodate large commercial calls for such accommodations within UGAs or athex special districts. `'LAM1RDs were never designed to be used as valve fo a safety r commercial growth and expansion," the GA4HB concluded. Applying the holdings of these cases to Glen Cove leads to the conclusion that a Glen Cove LAMIRD would also be held to violate the Act. As in Pierce County, Glen Cove is in the immediate vicini Townsend- The LAMIRD boon �; ty of a�city, in this case Port expanded or new UGA would be his not logical, as required by GMA. � Pupwpose of the GMA. m`O1m consistent with the spun and Even more significant, though, is the son the Peary motivation for cession the Earth Tech report that new UGA is to avoid the -,extensive a j -AM1RD rather than an expanded or tensive: and times oint ci pitting processes and steps necemary for UGA SJ tY- county time acknowledging that the LAMIRD is being m nation,,' while at the same for additional commercial S in Fart to meet the need and industrial development in the County. The GAM has been clear that LAMIRDs may not be used to c' Plowing requirements nts of the GAGA to u cu tune the to service new develo that adequate infrastructure exists development. To label what should be a new or expanded UGA h a MA on i �cumvent joint plying p� with the City is to turn • the GMA on its head, Y do not believe sanction such an "end tun" that it is likely the GAM would required GMA planning recluit�mestis. At the same time, it is important to MMmdedge that recommends additional study and analysis before the the Earth Tech report established. It would be hoped that additional stud boundaries are GM RB,precedent as set forth above y and analysis, informed by approach is neither ' ,,will mare it clear that the LAMIRD should appropriate nor lawful for Glen COVm Rather, the County Proceed in ac cord mce with its June 2001 Special Study, and move � �. M � • n i!q 1 i i HARBOR VU* V Ir.t,Urftn' -4 x a1,sw •4. wV, - - - - - - - - - - -" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w ]PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES 10 -214n City of Port Townsend Planning Coma 181 Quincy Street, Suite 301A Port To wnzend, WA 98368 Sent Via Pao Re: Public Comment on Comprehensive plan Amendments #3, #4 and #5 Dear Planting CommlisSim Members Thank you for keeping the record open so additional comment can be made on the above referenced comprehensive plan amendments. I need to correct my oral testun►ony on one point I was in error when I stated that sewer and crater services could not be extended to serve limited areas of more ins rurd development a- AMIRD)• I was unaware of a recent Growth Management Heannp Board (GMHB) Gaines v Pierce County (Case No. 99 -3- 0019). The GMHB stated sewer and water service could be provided to LAMIRD's and utility lines could be extended through rural areas to provide public services- However; even if this is the rase, Port Townsend comprehensive planning policies would preclude serving a LAUMD wuh eidw wager or sewer sc rwxx -- The Glen Cove area is adjacent to the City of Port Townsend gwgmphky cad economically A "butt evvzonumme' chmtztcteum this area. To assume this aces should be designated as a, I.AMIRD may be flawed. in the City of Tacoma v Pierce County (Case No. 99.3- 0023), a situation similar to the Glen Cove ateu, the GM:HB ruled that a LAMIRD was not appropriate; however, an expansion of the Tacoma Urban. Growth Area (UGA) may be appropriate. The same case can be made for the exparmon of the Port Townsend UGA to the Glen Cove area. The location of the Glen Cove areal does not make it a candidate for a LAMIRD designation., but for a UGA expamsiOn- To do otherwise tnay Violate the "central place theory". The idea is that a commercial center serves a surrounding rural hinterland. The Glen Cove MR serves the City of Port Townsend and the surrounding area. Glen Cove would not exist if it were not £oar the City of Port Townsend and therefore should be added to the Port Townsend UGA.. To do otherwise would run counter to the Growth 11�Iaattgerrlwt Act (GMA). GMA re4uires that LAMIRDS be minimized and contained, and shall not extend beyond there 10*A1 outer boundary of the existing area or use, thereby allowing a new pattern of law- density sprawl. RCW 76.70A.070.(5)(d)(h). The logical outer boundary of the Glen Cove area is the city limits of Port Townsend- LAMIRDS's should be at lust Gve miles from a UGA. Proximity to Port Townsend suggests the Glen Cove area should not be designated as a LAMIRD, rather = adjustment m Port Townsend UGA. If this area is 9055 45TH AVE NH - SEATTLE. WA - 99115 PHONE: 206 - 522 -6407 ' FAX: 206 -524 -4303 EMAIL J4D$LLC @yzhaa.totn W � t -2- jay ,24, 2002 considered to be urban {as defined by the bob emiournent) then it should be included in s. UGA. The current Port Townsend oop plan contemplates the Glen Cove area be included in a UGA. To dosage or modify the p}s!u to preclude this would fly is the face of GM& I urge the pig comtnismn to reject the proposed oompatdmuske, plan ameaxcbaaaea ft These atuendotents mould create camprchens. On xnconeaisben�ties within the plan xWdE The proponents of the its have not deuuonstxated that substantial dtastge has oo mred drat would dbW the proposed ammdme»ats to be adopted. If these amendments were adopted, the City's plan would be at odds with the County Plan. To clam, the county has not reached a decision the Glen Cove arcs should be des4us red a LAMIRD On the wry; the Glen Cove /Tn Area Special Staxdy, Final Decision Document, June 11, 2001 states " The urban growth area boundaries vA desgatte it UGA boundary in the Glees Cove industdal arear Thank you for considering may �. It is my ceding the City Coon& will hold additional public hearings on the proposed and additional public Comment wi. be accepted. ] S+tncer�ely, James Ut Lindsay Cc.: Barber /Evans EMUS= Jeffem m County c Rawly Kline, Jefferson County Planning Cc: 3aao o _ Thermionics Northwest Inc 231 -B Otto St. • Port Townsend, WA 98368 • (800) 962 -2310 • FAX (360) 385 -6617 jimw @thermionics.cona I March 17, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County FILE C I I i I RE: Request for inclusion of Glen Cove Industrial area We request you consider including our 10 acres in the industrial. zone expansion in Glen Cove. It is our belief our parcel qualifies for such an upgrade over others the Glen Cove Boundary Analysis is promoting. We need the freedom to develop our industrial land as industrial land. If these restrictions are truly needed, let us be sure they are applied evenly and as fairly as possible We are a scientific instrument manufacturer. We are a clean, non - polluting industry. We have employed as many as 40 people and currently have 27 employees. We have been in Glen Cove since 1985 and we hope to be there for many years to come. We manufacture the equipment scientists and researchers use to develop and ++ perfect the new processes that drive technological innovation. We manufacture i the leak detectors that Boeing uses to find leaks in triple 7 fuel tanks during manufacture. We build instruments to help Battelle find better solutions to radioactive contamination. To give you some history, we purchased 10 cleared acres on Old Fort Townsend Road in 1992. It was being used for heavy equipment storage. At that time the land was classified as industrial. It is the two 5 acre parcels just east of the Elks Page 1 of 2 R past the power line. We purchased it to allow us to build a new plant, as we needed. We went ahead and planed a building and became vested prior to the tight line designation. We are still in the permit process. The land was cleared prior to 1985. It was used as Heavy equipment storage. We are vested to use the eastern 5 acres for an industrial application. Three -phase power runs along the western edge of the property. Old Fort Townsend. Road can easily handle the expected daily trips. The water main has been extended to the Elks and I believe the PUD has planned extending this up the power line easement in the future. They have assured us they will supply us water. I do not believe the acreage on the West Side of Otto Street along Old Fort Townsend Road meet your stated criteria as well as our lots do; yet that land is being promoted for industrial zoning upgrade. If I may, I have a personal observation. Building an industrial building in this county seems to be almost a crime. I have spent over $41,000 in planning our new building and there are still more requirements to be met. The good news is we are not in a hurry. The bad news is the structure in place to protect all interested parties has the net effect of stifling industry. 1 keep hearing people want clean industry that will pay "living wages ". The effects of the regulations suggest industry is not really wanted here. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely, Jim Worthington Proposed Glen Cove Boundary Revision F� F Epp 1200 eet Revised Boundary m n a Existing Glen Cove Ll /C Zone Lj —�-�r— Provisional Urban Growth Area gp0 p MW Dam: ANrch �. Zo02; J�Mreon c« r>ty Cwdry SNVlcee -J117u vp pMr>cowwpr Thermionics N Property ore mop is for OWW" purrm" aN and does W rapree" a boundary VW has bow aCOpted by Jeflet Counw for purposes of land use re7jWtiom or Z-kv. 1 `I i " ,1 �a 4 n i � •, �'�a �1y +i r 1 x,11 M: Thermionics N Property ore mop is for OWW" purrm" aN and does W rapree" a boundary VW has bow aCOpted by Jeflet Counw for purposes of land use re7jWtiom or Z-kv. v P ' 125 _ 1r 295 760 N M'01'04* E r _ r . �� — ... - 314.96' 1 - -1- 1 ' 20 / , I 1 { I j • kL /FIRE L/WE , 765. A ,1 ( Rr'TV I M 1 POND I I ELEV 25wo, I — 1 PAVWrNT ELEV. r z l 759A0 I I i 21 p L I 12 m 1 I-AW26 LANE 1 t Pgx0V1;� ~ 760 /� / 5 I A A]P M9 knowledge and.hiliM these npllu+ee with the requlrcmenta of a rNtlalcd elnw. 255 M " fighting \\ I/ 170594023 y /3-{�f n __________ ___ aure K .# ote 250 I - _ -- - _ _ -- I N �• 745 - \ '. \ -_- - - - -- - - 06' E _ - -C9L9 FORT-TeLLNSENB ROA0- C;►T�= F=i AN 319 South Peabody SL suite DATE: 6 -30_�p nEr,ISrt.FEO A NEW FACIOITY FOR: Port Angeles, WA 98362 REVISED, / 1ZLHITECT THERMIONICS N.W., INC. C T S Phone_(380) 452 -6116 C01 M. N0. 980223 ""� �' PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON Fax (360) 452 -7064 ' 7 cc.. IDC� March 18, 2002 Frederickson Electric, Inc. P.O. Box 2108 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385 -1395 FAX (360) 385 -5333 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sirs, FILE COPY I am writing to ask for your consideration in the exclusion of my business property from the current revised commercial zone in Glen Cove. Several points need to be addressed: 1) It's my understanding that one of the determining factors is what the built utility environment was at the adoption of the GMA in 1990. It is also my understanding that three -R a IQ tc rical,Dower has been adopted as a screening factor. Having been in the electrical contracting business in our community since 1974, 1 can assure you that most (I conservatively estimate 75 %) of the commercial uses in Jefferson County have single phase power even when three phase is available. When we built my shop /office, I was asked by the Puget Power engineer if I wanted three -phase and I chose not to spend the additional money for something I didn't need. If three -phase power is a codified screen (stated in GMA), I would like to point out that my property is less than 200' away from it's access, closer than much of the current and proposed revised commercial zone. The second issue to be considered with regard to my property is water. As of the 1990 built environment, my property was within 300' of the end of a water main on Denny Avenue. Again, this is much closer than much of what you are considering today. (2) In a series of meetings in 1999 involving the Planning Commission and the BOCC to determine the UGA boundaries, the Planning Commission recommended (10/1/99) and the BOCC unanimously agreed (10/5/99) to include my parcel in the "logical boundaries and provisional UGA". (3) Lastly, I purchased this parcel of property in 1993 from Jefferson County. I paid $80,000.00 for 3.83 acres in what, at that time, was clearly a commercial zone. It is my hope that Jefferson County does not put itself in the position of having benefited from the sale of commercial property and then turning around and down zoning it. E rickson President Frederickson Electric, Inc. Ppr City of Port 'Townsend Office of the Mayor Waterman -Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, Suite 201, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379 -5047 FAX (360) 385 4290 March 12, 2002 Board of County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street FILE COPY P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 of paar rah u v RE: March 18, 2002 BOCC Hearing and Possible Action on L.A.M1(Rli Expansion, Dear Board of County Commissioners, The Council took the following actions at its meeting March 11, 2002: 1. Request the BOCC meet with City representatives concerning LAMIRD boundary expansion to hear each other's concerns and issues. The Committee representatives understand and agree that they will negotiate in good faith and where necessary seek and agree to compromise in order to reach an agreement with the BOCC on LAMIRD boundary expansion. 2. Request the BOCC defer action on LAN= boundary adjustment until completion of the County annual comprehensive plan process. 3. Endorse the letter dated March 7, 2002 from City Manager Timmons to Administrator Saddler, and the concerns and issues expressed in that letter. 4. Direct the Manager to file comments at the BOCC hearing opposing LAMMD expansion at this time, because any expansion needs to occur as part of the County annual comprehensive plan process and meet GMA LAMIRD criteria. As set forth in the Manager's letter, the issue of LAMIRD boundary expansion directly affects the City. The issue is important to the City because an expanded Glen Cove LAMER -D could seriously undermine the City's ability to plan and build infrastructure to provide a viable, built - out light industrial area to accommodate GMA growth within the City UGA and comply with GMA requirements. A TT ATT^XTAT 'A X A T%T Q'r" Tn'T.!' NAirl AT Tb PT-T All - A TinT J i Kees Kolff, Mayor March 12, 2002, page 2 The City concern is not with an enlarged LAMIRD that meets GMA requirements. It is with boundaries that are overly expansive and which invite legal challenge because they do not fit within GM.A criteria. Our recent successful experience with cooperatively resolving MID issues to reach an agreement is and should be the model for joint, intergovernmental negotiation and agreement on a range of City - Council issues. The Council sees no reason why discussions would not produce a result that works for both parties, just as the MID negotiations did. Thank you for offering to meet Thursday evening, March 14, 2002. Unfortunately, we are unable to arrange our schedules for a meeting on that date. We hope we will be able to meet in the very near future. 1 Please feel free to call and discuss this matter at your convenience. Sincerely, Kees Kolff, Mayor i cc 331. 6 a City of port Townsend Office of City Attorney Waterman & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, 4201, Port Townsend, WA 98.368 Telephone: (360) 385 -5991 Fax: (360) 385 -4290 e -mail: jwatts @ci.port- townsend.wa.us MEMORANDUM DATE: March 18, 2002 TO: City Manager David Timmons Members of the City Council 1 Q M: John Watts, City Attorney FILE C SUBJECT: County Proposed LAMIRD Expansion This Memo provides a preliminary legal analysis of issues raised by the County's proposed action to expand the Glen Cove LAMIRD boundaries. The BOCC is scheduled to talcs public testimony and possible action at its March 18, 2002 hearing. The City Council at its March 11, 2002 meeting directed the City Administration to file comments with BOCC opposing boundary expansion. The Council stated its concerns in a letter from Mayor Kolff dated March 12, 2002 (attached): that any expansion needed to occur as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, and meet GMA criteria, and that County and City elected officials should meet to discuss issues and find common ground. It is intended this Memo will be submitted to the BOCC for their consideration, along with comments and materials submitted by City Manager Timmons and BCD Director Jeff Randall. The proposed County action raises a number of issues. 1. Glen Cove boundary expansion requires a comprehensive plan amendment, which must be processed as part of the annual amendment cycle. The Glen. Cove LAM] RD map and boundaries are delineated in the County comprehensive plan at 3 -48. The plan M E M 0 R A N b U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 2002 1 Page 2 - contains a narrative description of Glen Cove at 3 -28. Changing the Glen Cove boundary is a change to the comprehensive plan Glen Cove map. Under GMA, comprehensive plan amendments are to be considered "no more frequently than once every year," with certain exceptions. RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). The purpose of this requirement is set forth in subsection (d) that all proposals "shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained." The County comprehensive plan itself states in three places that revisions to Glen Cove boundaries shall be revisited through a comprehensive plan amendment. • "[Glen Cove boundaries shall be revisited] upon completion of the Tri- area/Glen Cove Study through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, consistent. with [Land Use Policy] 1A." (Land Use Policy 11.3.2, CP, p. 3 -83). • "[Revisit Glen Cove boundaries] though an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan...." (Land Use Policy 5.8, CP, p. 3 -72). "[Glen Cove designations] shall be revisited through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan...." (Land Use Policy 1.4, CP, p. 3 -65). To expand Glen Cove boundaries now, and possibly again later this year as part of the comprehensive plan amendment cycle, is inconsistent with the GMA requirement to consider cumulative impacts of amendments at one time. Unless an exception applies, changing the Glen Cove boundaries must be accomplished as part of the annual amendment cycle. GACity Attorney \2002\G - Memo \Glen Cove 3 15 02.doe 3/18/2002 12:59 PM M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attomey March 18, 2002 1 Page 3 - 2. No exception to the annual amendment cycle applies. GMA allows comprehensive plan amendments to occur outside the annual cycle in limited circumstances. None of the limited circumstances justify an amendment to Glen Cove boundaries. GMA authorized exceptions are limited to initial adoption of a sub area plan, adoption or amendment of shoreline regulations, or amendment of the capital facilities element, emergency, or to comply with a growth board or court order. RCW 36.70A.130. The emergency exception to allow a LAMIRD expansion is not justified under legal precedent. "Emergency" is not defined in GMA. In other contexts, the legislature has defined emergency as "involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage." RCW 42.30.080 — Open Meetings Act. Another statute authorizes waiver of public bidding in event of emergency related to major disaster. RCW 38.52.070(2) and RCW 38.52.020 of the Washington Emergency Management Act. Courts define emergency narrowly. Green v. Okanogan County, 60 Wash. 309 (19 10) (general population growth did not justify emergency declaration to waive bid requirement). Providing opportunity for economic development (if that is the basis for the County action) is not a basis for emergency, interim action supported by GMA. 3. Interim zoning controls authorized by GMA do not apply to Glen. Cove boundary expansion. County staff have provided no justification for interim action in their March 7, 2002 Analysis to the BOCC. GMA at RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes moratorium and interim regulations. Moratorium and interim regulations are emergency measures to preserve the status quo so that new plans will not be rendered ineffective by intervening development. "Moratoriums and interim zoning are generally recognized techniques designed to preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening G: \City Attorney \2002 \G - Memo \Glen Cove 3 15 02.doe 3/18/2002 12:59 PM M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 2002 1 Page 4 - development. Richard L. Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice, § 2.13, at 72 (ed. 1983)." Matson v. Clark 13d. of County Comm'rs, 79 Wn. App. 2d 641, 904 P.2d 317(1995) (emergency ban on subdivisions in rural areas justified because existing regulations were incompatible with GMA). Use of moratorium and interim land use controls is justified to preserve the status quo. Using interim regulations to expand areas for development is inconsistent with their GMA allowed purpose to preserve the status quo. 4. Public participation requirements are not met by use of interim ordinance. Adopting emergency legislation is not consistent with GMA requirements for early and continuous public participation. Since no emergency exists, regular public participation processes, including those provided for review of any proposed comprehensive plan amendment in the regular comprehensive plan cycle, should occur. 5. Reliance onprevious SEPA documents to double Glen Cove LAMIRD boundaries raises questions about SEPA compliance. Given the short time frame provided by the County for response to the proposed action, review of the relied on SEPA documents has not occurred. The issue is noted here as one that should be reviewed. If the LAMIRD expansion were being accomplished as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, then review or environmental issues and past SEPA analyses could occur. 6. GMA amendments allowing LAMIRDs allow more intensive rural development, subject to requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(4). Those requirements are not present in the proposed ex Mansion. The Western Washington Growth Management .Hearings Board has provided some guidelines and standards to the statutory LAMIRD requirements. In essence, the formation of a LAMIRD requires built environment that existed as of July 1, 1990. The logical outer boundary (LOB) criteria (namely, the need to preserve rural character, use of physical boundaries, prevention of abnormally irregular G:\City Attomey \2002 \G - Memo \G1en Cove 3 15 02.doc 3/18/2002 12:59 PM M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 2002 1 Page 5 - boundaries, and ability to provide public facilities and services) allow minor boundary adjustments but cannot be used to establish a LAMIRD. "[I]n establishing the logical outer boundary for an "existing area" under (d)(iv), the County is required to clearly identify and contain the LOB. That identification and containment must be "delineated predominately by the built environment" but may include "limited" undeveloped lands." .Anacortes v. Skagit Co., et al., CDO, W WBMHB 00- 2- 0049c, (2001), p. 15. "We concluded that the "built environment" includes those facilities which are manmade, whether they are above or below ground. Further, to comply with the restrictions of (d), particularly (d)(v), the area included within the LOB must have had manlnade structures in place (built) on July 1, 1990. In designating and establishing LAMIRDs under (d)(i), the County must "minimize and contain" the existing area or existing use. Also in accordance with (d)(iv) the County must not allow a "new pattern of low- density sprawl." Skagit County, FDO, p. 15. "... LAMIRD provisions were added to GMA to allow the County to acknowledge pre - existing development, not as a prospective and ongoing rural development tool." Skagit Co., CO, p. 13. (emphasis in the original) "The [neap] exhibit clearly shows inclusions of significant areas of undeveloped acreage outside of not only existing areas and uses as of July 1, 1993, but even as they exist today. The County's rationale [in designating expanded LAMIRD around existing businesses) was to provide an opportunity for expansion and growth of these businesses. That is directly contrary to the requirements and the intent of a LAMIRD. The legislative purpose is clear. Existing built areas on July 1, 1993 [the GMA effective date in Lewis County], thhat involve "intense" rural development can be established, but G: \City Attorney \2002 \G -Memo \Glen Cove 3 15 02.doc 3/18/2002 12:59 PM 69 M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 2002 1 Page 6- roust be minimized and contained." Panesko v. Lewis Co., et al., FDO, WWGMHB, 00- 2 -0031c (2001), p. 35 (emphasis in original). "While the County has discretion to use the four criteria set forth in (d)(iv)(A, B, C and D) [namely, need to preserve rural character, use of physical boundaries. prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and ability to provide public facilities and services] to make minor adjustments to the LOB, the reason to include undeveloped property in a LAMIRD is for "infill" under (d)(i) and not for expanding the LOB to include large and/or undeveloped properties." Lewis Co., FDO, p. 26 -27. "The County generally used the river as a westerly boundary for the LANfIRD. While that decision relied upon (d)(iv)(b) [physical boundaries], it is clear that "addressing" the statutory criteria for a LOB cannot be used to establish a LAMIRD, where the other statutory criteria in (d)(v) and (iv) do not exist. It must always be recalled that the establishment of a LAMIRD is foundationally based upon the built environment that existed as of July 1, 1993 [the GMA effective date in Lewis County]." Lewis, FDO, p. 31. "The GMA does not allow the inclusion of vast amounts of large lots to provide allowable `infill.' Addressing the issues in ( d)(iv)A, B, C, and D cannot be used to include significant areas that do not otherwise quality as LAMIRD-s." Lewis, p. 32 (emphasis in original). 7. The following is a preliminary review of legal issues raised by the County designations. Area 1 -- North of Glen Cove Road. Denuded area: County staff asserts a basis for including this area that the area was denuded as of 1990. G: \City Attorney \2002 \G -Memo \G1en Cove 3 15 01doc 3/18/2002 12 :59 PM M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 20021 Page 7— (01.11 rent: • The built environment includes "facilities" or "structures in place." Skagit, FDO, p. 15. "Further, to comply with the restrictions (5)(d), particularly (5)(d)(v), the area included within the LOB must have had manmade structures or facilities in place (built) on July 1, 1990. Skagit, FDO, p. 32. A denuded area is evidence of tnanmade activity but does not meet GMA "built environment" criteria of structures or facilities. Denuded area/existing area: County staff states land clearing "presumably indicates the land was considered by its owner(s) to be part of the `existing area', i.e., Glen Cove Rural Industrial /Commercial region as it existed on July 1, 1990." Staff Analysis, p. 9. Comment: • "Existing area" is delineated by "built environment" meaning manmade structures or facilities. Skagit, FDO, at p.15. Clearing is not a manmade structure. • Potential development of a site does not meet GMA criteria of "built environment." Lewis, FDO, p. 28. ( "While the potential development of the site in the 1970s ... is historically correct, it does not provide any adequate analysis under the GMA. What is important under the GMA for purposes of determining `existing areas of uses,' is what was built on or below the ground and what the use of the property was on July 1 [ 1990]. ") • "Psychological perception" does not fulfill GMA requirement for built enviroin -rent. Lewis Co., FDO, p. 33. (Local resident's perception that unbuilt area was part of built area not a basis for LAMIRD designation.) Proximity of water line in right of way: Staff Analysis justifies inclusion of the area based on the fact the area lies north of a 10 -inch water line. (As an aside, post -1990 water lines do not n -ieet GMA LAMIRD criteria.) G:\City Attorney \2002 \G- Memo\Glen Cove 3 15 02.doc 3/18/2002 12:59 PM M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 20021 Page 8 - Comment: In Aagit, the Board held an utility line in an adjacent right -of -way, built "to the property" rather than simply sitting next to the property but built to serve an area beyond the property, with utility connections paid by the property owner, may constitute built environment. Skagit, CO, p. 18, p. 23. No board decision has held an adjacent utility line, without more, constitutes built environment. The County cannot designate Area 1 a LAMIRD based on proximity to a water line in the adjacent right -of- way. Area 2 — North of existing zone and Glen Cove Road. The comments made for Area 1 apply here as well. Adjacent rights of way or utility infrastructure do not comprise manmade "structures" or "facilities" for designating property as a LAMIRD. The one pre -1990 building at Otto and Glen Cove Road may qualify for a special zoning designation. But tb.e County cannot use the one developed property as a basis to designate a larger undeveloped area as a LAMIRD. "Infill" cannot be used to expand LOBS to include large undeveloped properties. Lewis, FDO, p. 27 (reason for adding undeveloped land in a LAMIRD is to "infill" under (d)(i) and not for expanding the LOB to include large and /or undeveloped properties). Attempted LAMIRD "infill" of areas bounded by widely dispersed areas of built environment as of July 1, 1990 was held to violate GMA. Lewis, FDO, p. 41. Staff statement that inclusion of this area "preserves rural character" (a LOB criteria) does not allow creation of an expanded LAMIRD. Lewis, FDO, p. 32 (addressing the issues in (d)(iv) which include preserving rural character cannot be used to include significant areas that did not otherwise qualify as LAMIRDs.) Adjacent utility in the right -of -way does not constitute "built environment" for the reasons set forth under comments to Area 1, above. G:\City Attorney \2002 \G -n4emo \Glen Cove 3 15 02.doc 3118/2002 12:59 PM M E M n R A N D 1J M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 2002 1 Page 9- A road on only one boundary of a site with no manmade features or other boundaries was held not to constitute an area "predominantly delineated by the building environment" when there were "no mmunade structures either on or under the property as of July 1, 1990." Skagit, CO, p. 18. (emphasis added). Area 3 - Eastern area. Inclusion of pre -1990 denuded area does not constitute "built enviromment" for the reasons set forth under Area 1 above. Area 4 -- Southern area. Staff justifies, in jDart, inclusion of this area because it "preserves rural character" and utilizes Old Port Townsend Road as a boundary. The comments set forth above apply here. Addressing, LOB issues (preserve neighborhoods, use physical boundaries) cannot be used to include significant areas into a LAMIRD. The foundation for a LAMIRD is "delineated predominantly by the built environment." Lewis, PDO, p. 32. There is no analysis - only a conclusionary statement by staff — how including this area "preserve(s) character of existing natural neighborhoods." (5)(d)(iv). Area 5 -- Weste_,_n area, The pre -1.990 denuded area does not constitute "built environment" for the reasons set forth above. The pre -1.990 water line extending to Louisa does not allow for inclusion into a LAMIRD of adjacent undeveloped property for the reasons set forth above. 8. There is no analysis of measures governing rural development, or ability to rovide public facilities or services. G:\City Attorney \2002 \G -Memo \G1en Cove 3 15 02.doc 3/18/2002 12:59 PM M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 20021 Page 10 GMA requires measures governing rural development to contain and control rural development, assure visual compatibility of rural development with surrounding areas, and reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into low- density sprawl. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c). GMA requires that a LAMIRD designation address the ability to provide public facilities and services in a manner that does not permit low- density sprawl. No analysis is provided here that the proposed action addresses these requirements. Given that the City is the water utility for Glen Cove, the City and County should plan together to determine infrastructure requirements to service the proposed build out. 9. There is no documentation of rural needs analysis for expanding the rural light industrial area. The Staff Analysis sites the Trottier Report as indicating there is a demonstrated need for additional commercial /industrial land in Jefferson County for the next twenty years. According to the Staff Analysis, for industrial land, there is a 58 -acre deficit, if a 4% employment growth rate is assumed based on the assumptions in the Trottier Report. First, there is no showing the assumptions in the Trottier Report remain a valid basis for determining or assessing industrial area needs. The Trottier Report is based on a 4% growth rate. Actual m-nual rates of population growth and associated employment growth have been significantly less, and are declining. Second, expanding Glen Cove (without a needs analysis) to allow additional light industrial competes with light industrial growth in the City UGA, contrary to UGA planning goals to reduce reversion of undeveloped County lands and to channel the majority of growth into UGAs. G: \City Attomey \2002 \G - Memo \G1en Cove 3 15 02.doc 3/18/2002 12:59 PM IN M E M O R A N D U M from John Watts, City Attorney March 18, 2002 Page 11 9. Conclusion: The above preliminary legal review indicates significant legal issues in the County's proposed action to expand LAMIRD boundaries at this time. Procedurally, the County's attempt to modify its comprehensive plan by an interim ordinance, outside the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle, is not supported by GMA. Expanded boundaries do not appear to meet the GMA LAMIRD criteria. Employment Growth Trends Nonagricultural Employment Growth Trends For Jefferson County Prepared by Jeff Randall Port Townsend BCD March 18, 2002 Non Agricultural Employment in Jefferson County COP Year 1970 1 Year 1980 1 Annual Growth Rate 2570 4080 3.7% Year 1980 1 Year 1990 1 Annual Growth. Rate 4080 15920 13.1% Year 1990 Year 2000 Annual Growth Rate 5920 Statewide 12.6% Jefferson County vs. State Nonagricultural Ern loyment Growth Area Annual Growth Rate Period 1970 - 2000 Jefferson County 2.27% Statewide 2.0% c 'D(D 31-44Q, c. Q� PLC Testimony before the BOCC March 18, 2002 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community Commissioners: FILE COPY Jefferson County's proposed expansion of the existing Glen Cove Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development ( LAMIRD) boundary will double the LAMIRD's size from 84 acres to 157 acres. The proposed new LAMIRD boundary will run north along the main highway from Old Fort Townsend Rd. for 1.14 miles to within .38 miles of the Port Townsend city limits. It doubles the LAMIRD's length from 3,057 feet to 5,993 feet. A careful review of the July 1990 built environment indicates that the County's proposal does not meet the State's requirements that a predominately manmade built environment characterize LAMIRDs. The proposed LAMIRD expansion does not comply with the GMA and is therefore illegal. The entire 73 acres that is proposed for expansion was, on July 1, 1990, raw, undeveloped land, with the single exception of one shed that was used to store fish neis and which was located 1425 feet (.27 miles) north of the existing LAMIRD boundary and on the Southeast corner of Glen Cove Road and Otto Street. The remainder of the parcels in July 1990 contained no buildings or other above - ground man -made structures. No parcel in July 1990 in the expansion area contained any below - ground man-made structures such as paved driveways, water, power, sewer, or septic lines. We therefore respectfully request that the BOCC drop their proposal. We recommend that the County focus instead on the legal alternatives of expanding light industrial opportunities in the County. In August of 1999, during its review of the alternatives in the County's Draft Supplemental EIS for the Glen Cove /Tri -Area Special Study, the City of Port Townsend expressed the opinion. that an expansion of the existing Glen Cove LAMIRD would be illegal. The BOCC's current proposal is very similar to the Glen Cove LAMIRD expansion under consideration by the BOCC at that time. The BOCC had selected a 65 acre Glen Cove LAMIRD expansion as its "preferred alternative" (BOCC, minutes Aug. 24, 1999 & map Scenario 1)'. The Glen Cove Commercial/ Industrial Area expansion was discussed by the BOCC and Port Townsend City representatives at a Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) meeting on August 24, 1999. The meeting minutes show that County Commissioner Harpole: "stated that there had also been a significant amount of discussion about the definition of `as built'. For Glen Cove, in particular, there was a lot of water and road infrastructure in place that the BOCC did not capture in the logical boundary." The City's representatives at that meeting expressed the City Council's position at that time that the "as built" environment that existed in Glen Cove did not provide a legal rationale for expanding the LAMIRD boundaries. In the minutes of the August 24, 1999 JGMSC, Forrest Rambo, who was the mayor of Port Townsend at the time, stated that: "under the Revised Code of Washington, expansion of the logical boundaries was not possible. Mr. Rambo stated that the logical boundaries froze in place what was on the 0 PLC Testimony before the BOCC March 18, 2002 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community ground in 1990. They could not be expanded to include new areas or uses. They must include clearly identified and contained areas." According to the Minutes, City Councilman, Joe Finnie: "asked if the County Prosecutor or a third party attorney had been asked for an opinion about changing the logical boundaries.... Mr. Finnie stated that the City had serious questions about whether the logical boundaries could be changed." Further comments to that effect were made by City Councilman Goeff Masci: "Mr. Masci stated that the concern was that it be legally tenable, and the City had some questions about its legal stability. " In its current Glen Cove Boundary Analysis, dated March 7, 2002, the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) justifies this next attempt to expand the Glen Cove LAMIRD by stating that according to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan "it is anticipated that the Glen Cove area will be determined to be the appropriate location for the majority of the County's future industrial development." A desire to satisfy the future industrial development needs of the County appears to be the reason the County is expanding the Glen Cove LAMIRD boundaries. The WWGMHB recently ruled that LAMIRDs could not be expanded to satisfy projected growth needs. The ruling involved a previous Jefferson County attempt to expand three other LAMIRDs, at the Chimacum Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad, Ness' Corner General Crossroad, and Discovery Bay Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad. The County argued that it was expanding the LAMIRDs in an effort to promote commercial growth. The WWGMHB in OJYM12ic Environmental Council et al v. Jefferson Coun (Case No. 00 -2 -0019, 11/22/2000) ruled that: "In each case the expansion went beyond the original logical outer boundaries as predominantly delineated by the built environment... Further, the County was clearly in error in assuming that LAMIRDs were an appropriate target for commercial industrial expansion in the County in general. LAMIRDs were never designed to accommodate large commercial industrial tracts. The Act calls for such accommodation in UGAs or other special districts under GMA sections .365 and .367" "In and of itself, need for additional acreage is not a justification for expanding LAMIRDs beyond their logical outer boundaries. Commercial acreage should be encouraged within Urban Growth Areas... The BOCC may wish to `fully utilize any and all opportunities provided by law that might promote rural commercial growth. " County brief p. 18. Expansions of LAMIRD boundaries is not an "opportunity provided by law." The "limited" in LAMIRD means just that. DCD in its Glen Cove Boundary Analysis states on page 1 that the Glen Cove LAMIRD was designated in the County's Comprehensive Plan in 1998 (Land Use Policy 1.4, p. 3 -83) as "an interim designation and boundary that shall be revisited' 2 PLC Testimony before the BOCC March 18, 2002 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community This also was an argument used by the BOCC to expand the three appealed LAMIRDs in 2000, which the WWGMHB rejected. In Olympic Environmental Council et al. V. Jefferson County (Case No. 00 -2 -0019, 11/22/2000), WWGMHB of Finding of Fact #4 is: "There is no provision in the Act for interim LAMIRD boundaries." The Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) pamphlet called "Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning for Rural Development states that LAMIRDS: "once delineated, the logical outer boundaries of these areas are not subject to the review and revision procedures required for UGA's. The boundary could only be revised if the county's updated population projection justified the need to re- designate the area as a UGA. " The current proposed doubling of the length of the Glen Cove LAMIRD is a classic case of sprawl, which degrades the rural character of the approach to Port Townsend. This expansion will cut the existing 4,121 foot buffer of low density rural residential land between the City Limits and the current LAMIRD boundaries of the Glen Cove Industrial Park by 53 %, reducing it to a mere 1,926 feet. The proposed expansion creates a much larger, narrow strip of commercial development along the main highway coming into Port Townsend. The proposed LAMIRD discourages new Commercial/Industrial development in the adjacent Port Townsend UGA in violation of RCW 36.70A.020(1). In Olympic Environmental Council et al. V. Jefferson County (Case No. 00-2-0019,11/22/2000) the WWGMHB ruled: "Expanding LAMIRDs to increase commercial acreage or population removes incentives for directing population growth to UGAs." The County seeks to justify its Glen Cove LAMIRD expansion not by citing to pre -1990 above- ground or below - ground manmade structures on individual parcels in the expansion area but rather by citing to ground clearing and to other facilities such as Highway 20 and power lines adjacent to the LAMIRD expansion areas and to the Glen Cove Water System that has transmission lines that pass through. the Northern and Western Areas but not the Southern and Eastern Areas of the proposed expansion. Ground clearing does not qualify as built environment because it does not produce manmade structures. The presence of transmission facilities such as Highway 20, water lines, or power lines passing through or adjacent to an area does not qualify adjacent parcels for more intensive rural development if there was no pre -1990 more intensive rural development actually on these adjacent parcels. Roads, water lines, and power lines must cross the rural areas to serve less intensive rural development in these areas and to serve more intensive rural or urban development in other areas. 3 ti PLC Testimony before the BOCC March 18, 2002 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community The County proposes to expand its Glen Cove LAMIRD without showing pre -1990 more intensive rural development actually on the majority of the parcels in the expansion Areas. This is contrary to GMA requirements. First, LAMIRDs are intended to be one -time designations of clearly identifiable areas of pre -1990 more intensive development. LAMIRDs are not intended to expand over time. The County has a high burden to justify any LAMIRD expansion. Any expansion of LAMIRDs must not create a new pattern of more intensive development outside the original LAMIRD boundary. In all of the LAMIRD Area expansions proposed by the County for the Glen Cove area, there was negligible more intensive development on Area parcels in July of 1990 and build -out of these proposed expansion Areas to LAMIRD standards will create a new pattern of low density sprawl in a manner contrary to the GMA. The County should abandon its proposal to expand the Glen Cove LAMIRD Just last year, on December 24, 2001, the BOCC adopted an amendment to the County's Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow vastly increased intensity of development in the Glen Cove LAMIRD. The new development standards for bulk and dimension eliminated building caps, height limits, allowed construction of buildings that cover up to 60% of the site, with additional impervious surface coverage to whatever extent can be engineered up to the unchanged modest setbacks. The new rules (which are currently being challenged to the Hearings Board by PLC) apply to all industrial LAMIRDS. Clearly the BOCC is trying to take the Rural out of Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development. For example the proposed expansion adds 11.6 acres owned by Helen Ruby to the southern end of the LAMIRD. Under the revised standards, Helen Ruby could build a 6.96 -acre or 303,431 square foot building on the site. That is hardly a rural structure. In 1983 the City of Port Townsend signed an agreement to provide 50,000 gallons of City water per day to the new Glen Cove Water System. On May 24, 1989, the manager of the Jefferson County Public Utility District #1 (PUD) sent a letter to the city stating that the 50,000 gallons of water per day "have been committed" and that "new subscribers are in danger of not having water available to them. The PUD must be able to serve those property owners within the Glen Cove Water System Service Area, therefore, we are requesting that the City of Port Townsend consider an increase in the maximum water quantity per contract... to 150,000 gallons per day." The City refused and a moratorium was placed on new water hookups in Glen Cove. Fourteen years later, the City was still only providing 50,000 gallons per day to the Glen Cove Water System when the City completed its service area/water system swap with the PUD and took over the Glen Cove Water System over in January 2002. The County is now proposing to double the size of the Glen Cove LAMIRD from 84 acres to 157 and has proposed to pass an interim ordinance to make the expansion effective immediately. The County has not discussed the new boundaries with the City at a Joint Growth Management Steering Committee meeting, and the City has not said it is willing to provide the increased water needed. 4 PLC Testimony before the BOCC March 18, 2002 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community We believe that both common sense and the GMA require that the County show the specific boundary revisions to the City and ascertain if the City wants this type of development on its borders and is provide willing to de the water and other City infrastructure needed to support such a g P tY pp large industrial /commercial expansion just outside its own taxing district. People for a Livable Community believes that the County cannot lawfully pass an interim ordinance to change the County's Comprehensive Plan, which contains maps of all the LAMIRDs in the County. Page 3 -48 of the Plan is a map of the Glen Cove light industrial /commercial LAMIRD. Page 3 -28 of the CP has a narrative describing the uses allowed in Glen Cove LAMIRD. Boundary Analysis: The Area North of Glen Cove Road and The Area Between the Existing LAMIRD and Glen Cove Road. On 7/1/1990 both of these Northern Areas were essentially raw undeveloped land. Aside from one shed that was used to store fishnets, they contained no other structures. The storage shed was reached by driving 1,625 feet (.31 miles) up Otto St., (which at the time was a gravel road) from Fredrick St. The shed could also be reached from Glen Cove Rd., which intersected. SR20 and ran into the residential neighborhood of Glen Cove 3,130 feet (.6 miles) away toward the bay. No parcels in these Northern Areas had any onsite infrastructure such as driveways or water, sewer, septic, or power lines. There were no above - ground or below- ground man -made structures on any parcel except for the previously described shed. A 10" water main from Port Townsend crossed SR20 and ran down Otto Street into the Glen Cove Industrial Park. In July 1990 there were no taps on this line in the Northern Areas. The main, 30 inch, gravity -feed water pipe (Olympic Gravity Water System) built in the 1920's that supplies the entire City of Port Townsend passes by the Northern Areas. The utility corridor for the gravity water main also contains a 3 -phase power line that was buried with it to serve the Port Townsend Paper Mill. Neither the main, nor the power line, have been tapped in this section of the proposed LAMIRD. In 1990, Otto Street was a gravel road. Some of the other road right - of -ways had been cleared of trees in the Northern Areas, but none of them had been paved or otherwise had man-made structures. The roads, power lines, and water mains are not on any of the potentially buildable parcels. These two Northern Areas do not contain "built environment" that qualifies them for inclusion into an altered Glen Cove LAMIRD boundary. The Southern Area: In July 1990 the Southern Area was also raw undeveloped land. It consists of two parcels that in July, 1990 had no driveways, water, power or other onsite infrastructure. These parcels also had no above - ground man-made structures in July 1990. The gravel extension of Otto St. that ran 5 s i PLC Testimony before the BOCC March 18, 2002 John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community '. down the east side of the parcels had not yet been improved to the point where the County had taken it over as a County road. The Southern Area did not contain man -made built environment that qualified it for inclusion in the Glen Cove LAMIRD. The Glen Cove Industrial Park, which is the current LAMIRD, has access to SR20 at its north end by Fredrick St. and at it south end by Seton Rd and was not designed to require access from Old Fort Townsend Rd. The proposed extension of the LAMIRD to the south is clearly "out — fill", and not infill. The proposed new boundary is no more "logical" than the existing southern boundary. The Eastern and Western Areas: In July 1990 these two areas were likewise raw undeveloped land. The parcels contained no buildings, other than an old dilapidated cabin on block 1 of Kearney's Addition. No onsite infrastructure such water, power, sewer, or septic had been developed in these two areas. These two areas do not contain July 1, 1990 "built environment" that qualifies them for inclusion into an altered Glen Cove LAMIRD boundary. The proposed new boundaries are no more "logical" than the existing boundaries. Therefore, PLC does not support the County's assertions that that the Glen Cove LAMIRD expansion reflects more intensive man-made built- environment, even under the revised definition that includes in- the - ground infrastructure. We object to this proposal and request that the BOCC reject its adoption, either now or later as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan pages 3 -15, 3 -27 to 30, 3 -48 Joint Growth Management Steering Committee Minutes of Tuesday, Aug. 24, 1999 Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ruling No. 00 -2 -0019, 11/22/2000 PUD # 1 letter to Port Townsend Dept. of Public Works, May 24, 1989 City of Port Townsend Major Water System Components ' VLe0 ' Documents in the County's or PUD's possession that support fact provided in this letter are hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. 6 LAND USE AND RURAL local circumstances as well as guidance from local community plans and public comment were also considered in defining the boundaries of these areas. The process for determining commercial boundaries included an internal County review to ensure consistency with GMA criteria and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Proposed boundaries. for commercial areas were submitted to the Jefferson County Departments of Environmental Health, Development Review, and Public Works for reviews of limitations on future development imposed by water supply, septic constraints, critical areas, storm water, transportation, and capital facilities. County departments with regulatory or management authority over these areas provided recommendations regarding appropriate boundaries and issues of concern. Final Comprehensive Plan boundaries for rural commercial areas resulted in a substantial reduction in the amount of commercial land available for development in rural Jefferson County from 1994 zoning. This reduction in commercial land was accomplished through the application of GMA criteria for rural lands, including those established in 1997 legislative amendments. Boundaries were drawn based predominantly on the pre -July 1, 1990 built environment. Logical boundaries were drawn around existing commercial uses in order to contain and limit development to existing areas of more intensive development. The criteria used, including both GMA criteria and local considerations, were as follows: 1. Criteria from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c): • Contain or control rural development; • Assure visual compatibility with surrounding rural area; • Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development; • Protect critical areas and surface and ground water resources; • Protect against conflicts with the use of designated natural resource lands. 2. Criteria from RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), the 1997 GMA amendments: • Logical outer boundary of an area or use existing in July, 1990; • Prevent new low- density sprawl; • Clearly identifiable and contained area of more intensive development; • Delineated predominantly by the built environment; • May include undeveloped lands if limited; • Preserve character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities; • Use physical boundaries (bodies of water, streets, topography); • Prevent abnormally irregular boundaries; • Provide public facilities and public services so as to avoid low- density sprawl; • Existing industrial areas are not required to principally serve existing and projected rural population. 3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a), the boundaries were also evaluated based on the following local considerations that could affect boundaries or require the application of special conditions: • Regional transportation concerns, traffic volumes, access, and safety. • Proximity to incompatible uses. • Partial designation of large parcels that are not fully developed for existing uses, to prevent sprawl. • Home businesses /cottage industries should not be used to determine boundaries. i Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -15 August 28, 1998 LAND USE AND RURAL Open Space and Recreation. The designated boundaries significantly reduce the area available for corrunercial land use activities. The boundaries promote the protection of the County's scenic resources, open spaces and recreational opportunities. Environment. The commercial boundaries minimize the impacts on natural features and critical areas, especially those connected to the County's water and fish and wildlife resources. The County Development Review Department reviewed the boundaries for critical area concerns prior to their adoption. Citizen Participation. Citizen participation is a cornerstone of Jefferson County's planning process. Comments and concerns expressed by the residents of Jefferson County have been seriously considered in the delineation of the county's commercial areas. While the County understands it cannot satisfy every resident, it can make balanced choices that provide for the greatest public benefit. Public Facilities and Services. Review of the commercial area boundaries by the County's Public Works Department concluded that the areas as defined are consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Capital Facilities, Utilities, and Transportation Elements Plan. Such goals and policies require that development not occur until it is determined that the facilities and services are either in place or programmed to be in place prior to development. Because the County's capital facilities Level of Service Standards are based on population forecasts, they are not affected by the designated boundaries. A review of commercial boundaries by the Jefferson County Department of Enviroiunental Health for 3 impacts on water quantity and quality, septic constraints, wellhead protection, and ground water recharge identified no significant issues other than the water supply issues for Quilcene, Four Corners, and Chimacum discussed above. Issues that were identified are manageable through current and proposed regulations and processes. Historic Preservation. The preservation of historic communities has been supported by the recognition of existing commercial areas in historic rural communities. By focusing future commercial and industrial development in clearly defined existing areas and strictly limiting growth outside of these areas, the County is helping to ensure that valuable historic, archaeological, and cultural sites will be protected from inappropriate and/or incompatible development. The interim commercial boundaries designated in this Plan are represented in the proposed zoning maps for Rural Crossroads, Rural Village Centers, and the Port Ludlow Village Commercial Center on pages 3 -36 to 3 -47. INDUSTRIAL LANDS STRATEGY Land designated as industrial land in this Plan is based on existing industrial uses in areas previously zoned as industrial. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d), Counties may recognize areas of more intensive industrial development and contain them within logical boundaries to limit infill development. Designated under this Plan are the following industrial zones: Port Townsend Paper Mill as Heavy Industrial (HI - interim), Glen Cove as light industrial and associated commercial (LC - interim), Quilcene as light industrial (LI), and forest resource -based industrial zones (RBIZ) at Gardiner, Center, and the West End. All areas met the following minimum criteria for designation of industrial land: Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -27 August 28, 1998 LAND USE AND RURAL 1. A pre-July, 1990 existing area or use of more intensive development; 2. The area is currently zoned as industrial; and 3. Is not located on designated natural resource lands. Port Townsend Palter Mill Heavy Industrial Area The Port Townsend Paper Mill has provided employment for several generations of Jefferson County residents. The mill property has been designated as heavy industrial (HI) for the mill and for activities ancillary to the mill. The heavy industrial boundary is an interim boundary that will be revisited upon completion of the Glen Cove /Tri -Area Special Study. Within the designated industrial area, the County will allow the development of only those uses that are directly related to the mill. The property includes a water treatment lagoon and a port facility on Port Townsend Bay that are directly related to activities at the mill. The mill is recognized as a heavy industrial activity because it is a large -scale and intensive industrial activity that must meet extensive environmental permitting requirements under industrial standards for air quality, water quality, and wastewater treatment, Glen Cove Industrial Area Uses for the Light Industrial/Commercial (LC) designation at Glen Cove include commercial and retail uses that are directly associated with the light industrial uses. Associated commercial and retail uses may include commodities and products, mechanical or electrical supplies, warehousing and storage, or may provide support services to those who work in the industries, such as a small cafe. Allowing broader commercial uses at Glen Cove would require addressing concerns regarding pedestrian and traffic safety, infrastructure, and incompatible uses both visually and in terms of hazardous materials storage. Thus the commercial designation for Glen Cove is restricted to uses which differ considerably from those in Rural Crossroads and Rural Village Centers. Light industrial/commercial uses allowed at Glen Cove include but are not limited to: industrial parks, light manufacturing, construction yards, engine repair, metal fabrication or machining, plumbing shops and yards, printing and binding facilities (non - retail), research laboratories, excavating contractors, furniture manufacturing, software development, lumber yards, vehicle repair and restoration, warehousing and storage, boat building and repair, craft goods, blacksmith or forge, commercial relay and transfer stations, boat storage, and associated commercial uses as discussed above. Also permitted as conditional uses are those such as: amateur radio towers greater than 65 feet in height, caf6, car wash, electronic goods repair, fitness center, kennels, ministorage, and nursery/landscape materials. The Glen Cove interim industrial boundary for light industrial/commercial uses recognizes a contained cluster of existing uses, and is an interim industrial designation and boundary that will be revisited on completion of the Tri- Area/Glen Cove Study. The interim boundary for this Plan reduces the zone from 295.9 acres to 68.96 acres to contain existing uses. The study will evaluate issues for Glen Cove related to infrastructure needs, countywide projected needs for industrial and commercial land, the potential for a Final Urban Growth Area, and will present options for uses that may be allowed as well as options for designation. During the planning process, the County held discussions with the City of Port Townsend regarding the designation of interim boundaries at Glen Cove, the Port Townsend Paper Mill, and all commercial areas, to determine that interim designations are consistent with Countywide Planning Policies. The City may have an interest in annexing the Glen Cove area to the Port Townsend Urban Growth Area, an issue that will be addressed following completion of the Special Study. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -28 August 28, 1998 Industrial Area Port Townsend Paper Mill 1994 Designation and Acreage Heavy Industrial 292 acres Current Use Pulp and paper mill Comprehensive Plan Designation and Acreage Heavy Industrial (Hl) interim 283.8 acres Glen Cove Industrial Light Industrial- Multiple light industrial Light industrial - Area Commercial and associated Commercial (LC) 295.9 acres commercial interim 68.96 acres Quilcene Industrial Heavy Industrial Sawmill, machine shop, Light Industrial (LI) Area 20.2 acres industrial stora a 22.3 acres Airport Cutoff Heavy Industrial None Rural Residential 1:10 Industrial Area 11.5 acres 0 acres industrial State Route 19/20 Light Industrial- Gravel pit and Mineral Lands of Long- Commercial associated processing term Commercial 70.9 acres Significance 0 acres industrial Center Valley Heavy Industrial Sawmill and associated Forest Resource -Based 12.6 acres activities Industrial Zone (RBIZ) 3.84 acres Forest Resource -based Gardiner Industrial Heavy Industrial Sawmill and associated Industrial Zone (RBIZ) Area 32.2 acres activities, gravel pit 24.9 acres West End Light Industrial- Sawmill and associated Forest Resource -based Commercial activities Industrial Zone (RBIZ) 193 acres 122.5 acres TOTAL 928.3 acres 526.3 acres The industrial areas designated as shown above result in a reduction in industrial acreage of 1994 zoning designations from a total of 928.3 acres to 526.3 acres, an overall reduction of 43 %. The application of GMA criteria protects the economic viability of existing uses while restricting industrial activities to existing areas. The Glen Cove /Tri-Area Special Study will provide the County with information on which to base future decisions on industrial activities. It is anticipated that the Glen Cove area will be determined to be the appropriate location for the majority of the County's future industrial development. Maps of the designated industrial area are provided on pages 3 -48 to 3 -53. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3 -30 August 28, 1998 hP GLEN COVE INDUSTRIAL AREA INTERIM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL ZONE (L /C) IECEND: IS OMM>T.'FS INC. ER CONTRAC70R5 MARIMO{ISi 1 I CHEM AUTO BOBT A" TOMMC FRANWS AUTO REPAIR 1■ NOS SCHOOL or SC ALL =CRT C1T•AM1HC RRTICiS R NOTOASPOM S POET TOEMEM MRO STORAGE 17 EUSS' AUTO 7 om CLINIC 9E BOAT MAREROUSL A NMI STORAGE is PORT TO'Bi� 7SIER1<1ARIAN w'_�P,,i'NC i OTTO STREET STORAGE 6 PACIFIC OIL PROPUCTB CM cTINIC 1s SUBURMAN PROPANE as 86 LZE no= NAME 7 NORTBRLST ELCM13C APPARATUS MC. Es rETrrr Od CO. e< E WBALL MOOBMOM B OLYMPIC STEEL CONSr. S7STEKS 11 POUNTAIR Imm C=rm 37 B=*S MAXI- STORAC9 P i P INSUL4TION 1R IMC134P1'S RETAIL BUU>IMG 44 •111u) . 10 ALLYGA POWER t T111"IDNE CO. RA TWUEE CRAFT Rom sA SATE7IIE SffiTM SCAIE. CORPORATE OMCES YS En PLUTMC AM METAL ►IIILSRING I MCC= AM GIGGLES CLOTNMC MANUFACT M Ws n SpalluS Moe" LTV. _ 1 s 430 TO )E AU-BOAT STORAGE 17 OLYMPIC SIOBAP'E ' 13 PORTSIDE RAIIMOCES E6 supow E PROPANE J" 1'r 14 TBERIami6 NORTRMYSF INC. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3-48 August 28, 1998 JOINT GROWTH MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Dan Harpole called the meeting to order at 4:16 PM at the Lower Level Conference Room, Jefferson County Courthouse. Members present: Dan Harpole, Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt, County Commissioners; Forrest Rambo, Mayor of the City of Port Townsend; Geoff Masci and Joe Finnie, PT City Council; and Larry Crockett, Port of Port Townsend. Members absent: None. Staff Present: Bruce Laurie and Jim Pearson, County Public Works; Reid Shockey, Study consultant; Al Scalf, County DCD; Bob Sokol, Port of Port Townsend Commissioner; and Bob Leedy, City BCD. Guests: Members of the public who signed the guest list were George Barber, Andy Barber, Nancy Dorgan, Linda Tudor, Jenny Bell, Al Boucher, Guy Rudolph, Allen Frank, and Dan Titterness, PUD #I Commissioner. Quorum: There was a quorum. Dan Harpole raised a piece of unfinished business from the BOCC's earlier workshop. He noted that the BOCC had its follow -up public hearing regarding; Tri Area incorporation on the evening of August 26. He stated that, unfortunately, the county could not meet the decision date required to make an incorporation vote possible. However, by law, the BOCC must complete its public hearing. He suggested that the BOCC use that meeting to basically present where the process stood, including the scenarios going forward for public hearings and the calendar. The presentation should include any findings of fact substantiating either scenario. Dan Harpole stated that the second topic was that the BOCC would next be in session on September 7. While the BOCC had discussed publication of information on the possible scenarios and the calendar, the BOCC would not have time to review or verify anything Public Works may draft for publication. The BOCC agreed that Public Works should put something in the local paper for at least September 8 and 15 without their prior review. Mr. Harpole noted that the Planning Commission had scheduled public hearings on the scenarios for September 15 and 22, with their final workshop to formulate a report on September 29. The BOCC agreed by consensus that Public Works should go ahead with the publication of a description and maps for each scenario. 2. TRI AREA /GLEN COVE SPECIAL STUDY Dan Harpole expressed his appreciation that many of the Steering Committee members were present during the BOCC's workshop immediately preceding, this JGMSC meeting. He summarized that the workshop had resulted in the BOCC's direction regarding the draft decision document and the next steps in the process, which included public hearings by the Planning Commission and BOCC. Reid Shockey provided a brief presentation on the FSEIS. The FSEIS consisted of the fact sheet and a summary of each of the alternatives discussed. Mr. Shockey stated that the bulk of the document was taken up with the comment letters received and the responses to those comments. There were also colored maps of the alternatives. He stated that, in response to some comments, a sample decision alternative was also included [Figure 2 -4 and Page 1 -81. It incorporated a so- called fifth alternative, which was suggested in several 1 comments received. Finally, another Citizen Summary was prepared which included the citizen comments and their answers. Bob Sokol asked that the BOCC briefly summarize the scenarios suggested. Dan Harpole replied that the BOCC had come to a preliminary decision on two scenarios to bring forward for public consideration. Scenario #1 was a combination of a Tri Area UGA and an expanded logical boundary in Glen Cove. Scenario 42 was the same expansion of the logical boundary in Glen Cove as that in Scenario #I and an alternative strategy in the Tri Area that basically expanded the logical boundaries in the Port Hadlock and Chimacum areas and did not designate a UGA. Dan Harpole stated that there was a preference on the BOCC currently for Scenario 41, which was a Tri Area UGA and an expanded logical boundary in Glen Cove. However, there was enough sentiment on the BOCC that they should offer an alternative scenario for public and Planning Commission feedback that Scenario #2 was suggested. Forrest Rambo asked for clarification of "logical boundary", asking if it meant the tightline boundary. Dan Harpole responded that they were synonymous. He explained that the BOCC, in the Comp Plan, had used the HB 6094 strategy to capture pre- existing 1990 businesses and draw logical boundaries around them. Mr. Harpole stated that the Comp Plan policies stated that the County "shall" revisit the logical boundaries upon completion of the Study. Mr. Harpole stated that now that the Study was completed, the BOCC felt they had a couple of tools to address what seemed to be a need for more commercial /industrial area. It could be done either through designation of a UGA and/or the expansion of the logical boundaries to capture the identified deficiency. Forrest Rambo stated that the reason he asked the question was because under the RCW, expansion of the logical boundaries was not possible. Mr. Rambo stated that the logical boundaries froze in place what was on the ground in 1990. They could not be expanded to include new areas or uses. They must include clearly identified and contained areas. Dan Harpole responded that the BOCC was aware of that concern at that time, and noted that the Comp Plan even contained policy language that the County "shall" re -visit the logical boundaries in response to that concern. Mr. Harpole stated that there had also been a significant amount of discussion about the definition of "as built ". For Glen Cove, in particular, there was a lot of water and road infrastructure in place that the BOCC did not capture in the logical boundary. Mr. Harpole reported that they had put the question to the County's consultant and the BOCC was under the impression and understanding that the County was able, since policies were included in the Comp Plan, to, in fact, re -visit the logical boundaries. Glen Huntingford stated that when the County was discussing the Comp Plan, the question was asked of DOTED. Their response had been that the County had that ability, based upon the need to complete the Study. Mr. Rambo asked what "re- visiting" the logical boundaries meant in terms of how they may be adjusted. Mr. Rambo stated that the City's reading of the RCW indicated that what was on the ground in 1990 was the limiting factor to the boundaries. Richard Wojt stated that the question at the time was what could have been included in the boundaries because of infrastructure [water, roads and power] that was in place in 1990. That was still the decision the County was working with. Mr. Harpole reiterated that when the County reviewed the question with DCTED, they assured the County that the boundaries could be re- visited because the outcome of the Study was unknown at the time. Geoff Masci referred to RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(v)(B), which stated "on the date the county adopted a resolution ". He noted that the County had opted into planning under GMA. Therefore, the 1990 date would not apply; it would be 1994 when the County opted in. A copy of the pertinent RCW was handed out to each Committee member. Dan Harpole reiterated that the County had been under the assumption for the past year that it had the ability to re -visit the boundaries. The County had received that assurance from DCTED and the Comp Plan contained clear policy statements about it. Mr. Masci stated that the concern was that it be legally 2 tenable, and the City had some questions about its legal stability. Joe Finnie asked if the County Prosecutor or a third party attorney had been asked for an opinion about changing the logical boundaries. Dan Harpole replied that the County attorney had been involved in the discussion, although there was no written opinion. Mr. Finnie stated that the City had serious questions about whether the logical boundaries could be changed. Glen Huntingford asked how serious the issue was for the City, noting that the County had tried to address the issue as best it could. He asked whether it was something the City would appeal over. Forrest Rambo replied that one of the reasons it came up was because the Study was based on that. He expressed some confusion about the Study area, noting that there were up to six logical boundaries within the entire Study area. Mr. Rambo stated that they wanted to make sure when talking about logical boundaries exactly what was there. Mr. Rambo stated that the reason for that was the City may have another scenario to present that may be different from either Scenario 41 or #2 that also had logical boundaries. Mr. Rambo stated that it was a general question about what the logical boundaries were on what specific date, because it was pertinent to the other items the City may want to discuss. Geoff Masci stated that the issue related to citizen comments about what was left out [of the boundaries] or what was put in and what the infrastructure was at a particular time. Mr. Masci stated that the City was responding on a very tight schedule, and they were mentioning what carne to their attention. It was relative to citizen comments received from existing businesses in Glen Cove about the location of the logical boundaries. Mr. Masci suggested that, rather than quibble about what constituted a logical boundary, the Committee move on to the next issue. Forrest Rambo asked for clarification about the Study area, offering the opinion that it meant the entire County and the City. Reid Shockey replied that there had been a lot of discussion on that issue as well. He stated that the BOCC had asked for specific findings that the Study area was the north county, from the Chimacum area to the north including the City. Mr. Rambo referred to Page 2 of the draft decision document which stated that the questions to be answered were about how much land was needed for commercial and industrial uses and the Tri Area incorporation issue. Mr. Rambo stated that when the Study area was discussed, he wanted to be sure what the area actually was. Bruce Laurie stated that the original scope of work required a regional economic analysis [the Trottier report]. That indeed covered all of Eastern Jefferson County. Mr. Laurie clarified that the Study area had always been characterized as the Tri Area/Glen. Cove area, which got more to the second paragraph Mr. Rambo mentioned. He agreed that it could lead to confusion. Forrest Rambo stated that it led to a second question, which was why the paper mill was left out. Mr. Laurie stated that the mill was included in the inventory. Geoff Masci asked why it was not included in the logical boundary, since it was a pre - existing use. I reply to Dan Harpole's question, Al Scalf stated that the mill was currently zoned Heavy Industrial. Mr. Masci stated that the mill was not included in any of the Glen Cove logical boundaries. Secondly, a Glen Cove UGA and Tri. Area logical boundary had not materialized as a possible decision scenario. Mr. Masci stated that the mill was contiguous with the City and Area 1 was contiguous to both the mill and the City. He stated that if you left the mill out of the proposal, it began to look like strip development. He felt it was an oversight and flawed the decision- making process. He did not believe it was consistent with good planning to leave the mill out. Geoff Masci referred to Figure 2 -4, which was a sample Alternative #S. He noted that there was discussion of expansion of the Tri Area logical boundaries. Jim Pearson clarified that the Figure 2 -4 alternative was not depicted on the scenario maps. It was only a response to the comments about doing a different, sample alternative from the four alternatives in the Study that still fell within the "bookends ". Reid Shockey stated that it was only put in the FSEIS as an illustration that there could have been another alternative. Mr. Masci stated that the comment was that when talking about expansion of logical boundaries, there was no map to illustrate what that might be or any kind of designations. Consequently, when the reference was read, it was meaningless 3 y because there was nothing to reference. Mr. Shockey stated that the discussion of the different scenarios that the BOCC asked the consultant to pursue did not occur during the comment period. Mr. Shockey stated that what did occur during the comment period was several citizens raising the question about whether the County had to stay with the four alternatives in the SEIS. The answer was "No ". The consultant was asked to frame that out in the FSEIS, so that was done. Mr. Shockey reiterated that it was for illustration purposes only. Mr. Shockey stated that the decision on the two scenarios, including the decision about expansion of logical boundaries, was only made that afternoon. Concerning the Glen Cove portion of Figure 2 -4, Mr. Shockey stated that there was an original Action Alternative which showed an expansion of the logical boundaries. The purpose of the illustration was to show that you could take a portion of those; you did not have to take all of Analysis Zones 1 through 7 to expand the logical boundary. He again reiterated that it was depicted in Figure 2 -4 only for example purposes of what might be done in Glen Cove. Forrest Rambo stated that it would be helpful to have a map. Forrest Rambo stated that the paper mill's adjacency to the City, and the fact that it was basically an adjacent urban use that happened to have an industrial tenant, raised the question of whether there was a bias in the Study that said the mill was not part of Glen Cove. Or, was Glen Cove being looked at as a discrete area, which flawed the Study because it was supposed to be looking at industrial and commercial area in total. Mr. Rambo stated that the mill was a logical area. It seemed like a glaring omission to not include the mill. Mr. Rambo stated that the City would like any scenario that the City would participate in to include a discussion of the mill. Reid Shockey referred to earlier discussions when possible alternatives were being discussed that the mill was discussed as the possible eastern terminus of the logical boundary. He acknowledged that the City had different representation at the time. However, the mill was designated as an interim Heavy Industrial area under the County Comp Plan. It was decided not to extend the logical boundary that far over because it would take such a large "chunk" of land in between it would stretch the definition of infill under the RCW. Forrest Rambo asked about starting from the mill and then going down into Glen Cove, Mr. Rambo stated that if it was an adjacency to the City, which had urban services, and then went the opposite direction, the whole tenure of the area changed, especially since there was water service already in the area and roads and it could have sewers. Richard Wojt stated that the mill had both water and sewer privately owned by the mill and they planned to continue to own both. Mr. Wojt stated that unfortunately for the water availability issue in the Tri Area, the mill controlled the water. Mr. Wojt stated that discussions with the mill about their water right was something that still should be resolved. In terms of the mill requiring urban services from the City, Mr. Wojt stated the opinion that it would not occur. Geoff Masci stated that what was being discussed was a matter of perspective. Mr. Masci stated that to proceed from the borders of the City and to move south and include the mill, all the definitions of urban services existed; it would just become a governmental designation. Mr. Masci stated that since the mill pre- existed, it did not affect the 212 acre deficiency. If that area were designated a possible UGA, then the expansion of an urban level of services could occur in an orderly, coherent, and cost- effective manner. Mr. Masci stated that the way Scenario #2 was set up, it was basically strip development without any urban service provision and no contiguous borders with an area of urban services, especially if you cut off the northern piece of Sub -Area 1. Mr. Masci stated that it impacted the City because no matter what occurred, a UGA would incur a nominal or a fantastic amount of expense. Mr. Masci stated that since the City residents had already incurred the expense of infrastructure provision and costs, if a UGA was declared that did not fall within a rational distance from City boundaries for expansion of services, the City residents should not fund such expansion. Mr. Masci stated that the point was that the City residents had already funded an urban level of service for the City, and the concern was that, if another distant UGA was declared, the City residents would be taxed to pay for another UGA at a distance that had no discernable benefit to the City. Richard Wojt stated that the people in the Tri Area felt they had paid for the services the City provided in that area and they had not necessarily gotten fair treatment for the amount they paid. Whether or not that was true, he did not know. Mr. Wojt expressed the opinion that raising the issue indicated that there must be something underlying it that he 4 did not understand. Mr. Wojt stated that the scenario suggested was no UGA at Glen Cove; it was a recognition of what was on the ground; it was the logical boundary concept; it was not a UGA that was separate from the City at all. Bob Sokol stated that the mill had come into the discussion. He stated that the mill was a resource based industry and was permitted as a stand -alone industry as a land use. Mr. Sokol asked if just the mill could be designated as a stand- alone, industrial UGA. Richard Wojt replied that the mill and Allen Logging on the West End were both designated Heavy Industrial. Mr. Sokol asked if the mill could be identified as a stand -alone UGA. Mr. Woit stated that the County would want a lot of discussion before it considered declaring that area a UGA. Reid Shockey stated that his understanding was that the mill property lines were contiguous to the City limits. Mr. Shockey stated that there was nothing to prevent the City from petitioning the County to expand the City's UGA boundary to include the mill. Mr. Shockey stated that the purpose of the Study was to find areas where any potential commercial or industrial deficit could be satisfied. That deficit could not be satisfied with the mill, so it was never a. candidate to include it as a potential UGA or logical boundary. Mr. Shockey stated that if the mill was contiguous with the City UGA boundary, it was simply a matter of proposing that the City boundary be adjusted. Mr. Wojt qualified that statement by saying that it depended upon the County's desire to do that and the mill's desire for it to happen. Mr. Shockey stated that it was a docketing issue. Bob Sokol addressed some comments to the process, stating the belief that the Study was not an update to the Comp Plan; it was a continuation of the Comp Plan process because the Comp Plan was not complete pending the results of the Study. To docket the mill issue as a Comp Plan amendment would be a separate, distinct process. Dan Harpole stated that the County had opened a process for Comp Plan amendments and that application deadline had passed. Mr. Harpole stated that he did not understand the process well enough to simply say that the mill issue could be docketed and addressed this year or whether it would have to wait until the year 2000 process. Mr. Sokol stated that his understanding was that there were two separate processes. One was the Study and how it would update the Comp Plan and the other was general Comp Plan amendments. Mr. Sokol stated that the mill could be addressed as part of a Comp Plan amendment process. Joe Finnie stated that the way the City was interpreting the Study documents was that they addressed 1999 amendments to the County Comp Plan, Mr. Finnie stated that the City Comp Plan spoke to a long -term goal of the Glen Cove area being annexed to the City. Mr. Finnie stated that the new City Council had held a monthly dialog with the paper mill recognizing the problems with the water service agreement. Mr. Finnie stated that the City felt it was the best municipality working with the mill to solve that issue long -term, because it was a contract between the City and the mill. Mr. Finnie stated that the City's sense was that they would like to have the BOCC consider a variation of the two scenarios as a part of the 1999 Comp Plan amendment process. It was a scenario that provided for re- designing the logical boundaries and to recognize the paper mill as part of the scenario. It would be an alternative to the two presented earlier today. Mr. Finnie stated that there was a legitimate ongoing discussion in looking at the terms of the extension of that agreement with the mill, ESA, and problems with consumption of water by the mill. Mr. Finnie stated that the City felt that maybe it might be the better landlord. Dan Harpole stated that he was concerned that there was a lot of grey area concerning the mill. Mr. Harpole stated that the Study indicated that assuming a 4.0% growth rate, the additional need would be 212 acres designated for commercial and industrial, but only 25 acres of that would be needed for industrial. His question was, given the process gone through so far., how to get to a defensible position to designate the mill property. He guessed the mill property at 600 to 700 acres. The Committee discussed the City's proposal and how many acres it included. The City proposal included Sub - Areas 1 and 2 and the mill. Geoff Masci skated that it would leave about 90 acres to be added to the Tri Area. The Committee discussed the proposed area on the west side of Highway 20. The City representatives stated 5 that the area on the west side of the highway could be deleted. Glen Huntingford asked how the proposal would be of benefit to his constituents in the Tri Area. He stated that he could see the benefit to the City. Mr. Huntingford asked what effect the proposal would have on the rest of the logical boundaries. Richard Wojt stated that he walked the Larry Scott trail across the mill property. He noted that it was in forest land and the mill intended to retain it as a buffer. Mr. Wojt stated that he did not understand why the issue was being raised, because there was so much discussion that would have to go into it. Forrest Rambo stated that talking about constituents was immaterial because the GMA required that urban growth be funnelled into urban style areas. Mr. Rambo stated that the City's contention was that the only identified UGA in the county at this point was the City. Mr. Rambo stated that the City could make the argument that the City was the only UGA in the county and these kinds of things should logically spread from, and be a part of, an organic expansion of that UGA. Mr. Rambo stated that it could be argued that to have a UGA in the Tri Area went beyond the whole concept of GMA. Mr. Rambo stated that GMA provided for logical boundaries to provide a "relief valve ". Mr. Rambo stated that the City's proposal was an expansion of the City UGA and the Tri Area would be a logical boundary. Mr. Huntingford stated that, in that case, the City should accept and plan for all of the urban residential population growth, because the Tri Area would be rural. Geoff Masci countered that because there were logical boundaries in the Tri Area, there would be densification of population as well. The issue would have to be re- visited at the fifth anniversary of the Comp Plan. Dan Harpole stated that he was concerned about the numbers involved in the proposal. He thought it would require well over 200 acres to be designated just to get contiguous to the mill property. Geoff Masci stated that since a lot of the boundaries appeared to be gerrymandered, they had gerrymandered their proposal so as not to take up all that acreage. While he agreed that it might start out at 11.8 acres, it could be trimmed to far less than that. Mr. Harpole did not see how you could get down below 118 acres and get to the mill. Glen Huntingford stated that the City was saying that the mill property would not count because it was developed already. The Committee discussed the sub -areas in Glen Cove and their acreages. Joe Finnie stated that the City thought they had a right to consider the City's needs and respond with a scenario. He explained some assumptions they made. One was that Sub -Areas 1 through 4 had the ability to accommodate virtually all of the employee forecast under the 4.0% growth scenario. Mr. Finnie stated that, more importantly, they did not come to the meeting assuming all the answers were known. They asked that the BOCC at least entertain the concept the City proposed [a Scenario 2A]. It would include the mill property. Mr. Finnie stated that the response from the County was what was a fair and equitable solution that would give the Tri Area a place to put some commercial business and residential growth. Mr. Finnie stated that they did not come to the meeting with an answer to that question. He was hoping to see a willingness to consider the alternative and then to try to solve the answer to that question. Bob Sokol referred to the decision document, noting that at the bottom of Page 2 it said that the Study results would be an extension of the 1998 Comp Plan adoption process, rather than an amendment to the adopted Plan. Therefore, it made a specific differentiation between Comp Plan amendments and the Study. Richard Wojt stated that there were two parts to the process. Once a final decision was made on a scenario, it would require amendments that were not part of the regular amendment process. They would be necessary because there were things that would be inconsistent in the Comp Plan to whatever designation was made. Mr. Sokol stated that it was really two different processes. One related to amendments necessitated by the Study results. The other was related to general Comp Plan amendments. Forrest Rambo stated that, in adopting the extension of the Comp Plan from last year [the Study], the current year's amendment process was not precluded or exacerbated. Mr. Rambo stated that the more the issue were addressed now, the less question there would be in the process for the amendments for this year. Richard Wojt stated that the proposal for the mill would take the process a long time, because there were a lot of agreements that the City and County would have to come to with respect to that. It was not as simple as designating the mill an industrial UGA. Mr. Wojt stated that whatever Col agreements were come to, they would have to consider what the ramifications were. Mr. Wojt stated that the mill issue had a lot of implications, financially and in other ways, for the City, County and Tri Area. Dan Harpole clarified that Sub -Area #1 did abut the mill property. Mr. Harpole stated that a problem that could arise was what the zoning would be for that entire area. Mr. Harpole stated that the Study indicated that only 12 %, or about 25 acres, of the 212 -acre deficit should be industrial. On the north would be the mill, which was heavy industrial. On the south within the current Glen Cove logical boundary was light industrial /commercial. The roughly 100 to 120 acres inbetween would require quite a bit of discussion to resolve the issue. Geoff Masci stated that it came back to Page 3 -4 of the DSEIS which addressed Sub -Areas 1 through 4. Joe Finnie read the reference. Geoff Masci discussed the acres in the City's proposal and the acres that could be allocated to the Tri Area. Mr. Masci stated that it should be remembered that the focus was that you must come to a decision first whether it was a UGA, and if it was an additional contiguous UGA, if its needs were able to be met. If the needs could not be met, then there was the second area to go to. It became a zoning issue. What the County was deciding was where the areas ought to be allocated. Mr. Masci acknowledged that the City was proposing another scenario. Mr. Masci stated that everyone's constituency had the same response and acknowledged that they were looking at it from the City's point of view. Richard Wojt stated that 21st Century had looked at Glen Cove and other county areas and decided that they did not fit their needs. His question to them had been "Why not ? ". Mr. Woit offered the opinion that they were using Jefferson County to promote their business elsewhere. Mr. Wojt asked what the City would say when a prospective business looked at Glen Cove and did not want to build there but found a place in the county where they did want to build. Joe Finnie stated that last year the County did not have an adopted Comp Plan to address the 21 st Century issue, Now the County had an MID policy that may allow a business to site in the county. Mr. Finnie stated that his goal through growth management was to have a solution for a 21 st Century- type business. He anticipated that there would be businesses that would not be satisfied putting their business in whatever UGA location the County may finally adopt. However, now the MID policy provided for such a circumstance. Bob Sokol raised the issue of 25 acres of industrial land out of the 212 -acre total. Mr. Sokol referred to the Glen Cove area, noting that the City Comp Plan indicated it was visualized as a regional shopping area while the County Comp Plan visualized it as a light industrial /commercial area. Mr. Sokol offered the opinion that we were missing the point in talking only about 25 acres. Mr. Sokol referred to the example of the winery with a tasting room, questioning how it would be counted. He advocated letting the market be the driver and to delete the reference to the 25 acres. Mr. Sokol referred to the 21 st Century example, which wanted a 25 -acre campus setting. He wondered whether the entire 25 acres would count against the industrial acres. Mr. Sokol stated that whether a business met the definition of commercial /light industrial was far more important than the number 25. Ile thought the number should be deleted and only recognize that some land would be commercial and some would be industrial. Forrest Rambo stated that one of the questions from the last meeting was how much of the area in the Tri Area UGA would be commercial and how much would be industrial and how much would be residential. The response was that it would be determined later through the sub -area plan. Mr. Rambo stated that the same argument could be applied to a UGA that would be adjacent to the City. Dan Harpole clarified that the proposals the County had come to did not include a UGA next to the City; it was expanded logical boundaries. Mr. Harpole stated that the BOCC had been going down a different path. That was why that question was not raised. Mr. Rambo stated that his point was that if a Tri Area UGA was being considered and the acreages for zoning would be figured out later, he thought the same logic should apply to Glen Cove or other areas. Bob Sokol commented that the numbers were someone's best guess, but all too often we took them to be hard and fast rules that must be followed. Mr. Sokol stated that to find the exact 212 acres that would be used up over a 20 -year period would take someone of superior intelligence. 7 Geoff Masci referred to Page 3 -3 of the DSEIS for Alternative 2A which proposed to connect the logical boundary with the City to provide the City with the commercial lands to support the 4.0% growth scenario and to include some areas of larger, undeveloped parcels. Mr. Masci stated that it presupposed that the residents of that area would ask for annexation to the City. Bob Sokol stated that his reference to the City's Comp Plan indicated that the City thought that alternative to be a preferable track to provide a sufficient supply of commercial land for the City so the City would not have to change residential zoning inside the City. Richard Wojt explained his understanding of how and why the City arrived at a decision to take basically 40% of the population growth. It had to do with the City's sewer capacity. Mr. Wojt stated that the decision led to a lot of the scenarios about where the other 60% would go and under what conditions. Dan Harpole summarized that the City, at least, requested that the BOCC ultimately propose a Scenario 3 for public consideration. Scenario 3 would be the current Sub -Area 2, continuing up through Sub -Area 1 to the City limits, but only that portion east of Highway 20, and the mill property. The consideration would be a contiguous UGA to the City that would be a combination of commercial and industrial. Mr. Harpole stated that the scenario could still be paired up with a Tri Area UGA designation. The City representatives agreed. Glen Huntingford stated that the south county still needed some consideration. Mr. Huntingford asked if the City would be opposed to allowing expansion of the boundaries in Quilcene and Brinnon so that they could do some things there. Mr. Huntingford stated that the south county needed to have some opportunities as well. Mr. Huntingford stated that if we spent all of the acres somewhere else, the south county would be "stuck ". Dan Harpole stated that there were findings in the County Comp Plan that identified some things that were unique about Quilcene, Brinnon, and Discovery Bay. They each had their own historic reference and sense of community and a. strong relationship to the Highway 1.01 corridor. Mr. Harpole stated that while the Study had analyzed the needs for the north part of the county, the south county was not really considered as part of the Study area. Mr. Harpole stated that he shared Mr. Huntingford's concerns that it had been the BOCC's intent, no matter which scenario was considered, that ultimately they wanted to re -visit the south county communities. Joe Finnie asked if it meant expanding the logical boundaries in the south county. Mr. Finnie stated that his personal opinion was that any decision would have to address the question of whether we were encouraging sprawl under GMA. If it would not, it may make sense. Glen Huntingford suggested that the City further review HB 6094 and realize that HB 6094 was passed because rural counties and rural areas in those counties needed economic development. You could not say that you could stop all sprawl. Mr. Huntingford stated that the Governor's Rural Economic Development package provided tools to allow that development. There had to be a way for the rural communities to grow. Richard Wojt stated that one of the answers for him with regard to Glen Cove was the history of how it was formed, the fact that it existed, the fact that infrastructure was provided, and that there was at one time an agreement between the City and County with respect to how Glen Cove would grow. What the County was doing with the one scenario was to recognize what existed, period. To suggest adding Sub -Area 1 plus all of the forested mill property was talking about a lot of area. Dan Harpole again summarized the City's request. It was for a third scenario proposal, including all of Sub - Area 2, that part of Sub -Area 1 east of Highway 20 and contiguous, and include the mill property. All of that area would be designated a UGA contiguous to the City. It would also have to go through a UGA sub -area plan much as if the Tri Area UGA went forward. Scenario 3 would match up that designation with a designation in the Tri Area as depicted on the map marked Exhibit A, and both would go forward concurrently. Forrest Rambo stated that what the City was proposing was urban -type growth going into urban -type areas. Mr. Rambo stated that the growth that may occur in the south county was not urban -type growth. Therefore, the two things were compatible in his opinion. It was a question of allocation. Dan Harpole stated that the BOCC 8 was unanimous a year previously about recognizing a distinction between what was happening in the north county and what was happening in the south county. Dan Harpole stated that the BOCC would have to consider whether it wanted to go forward with a Scenario 3 to the public process. It would be a pairing of a Tri Area UGA depicted on Exhibit A and a Glen Cove UGA to be depicted as Exhibit D. Mr. Harpole suggested that the Committee could advise the BOCC first, but the BOCC would have to make the decision whether to proceed with the third scenario. Glen Huntingford suggested that since the mill was already designated in the Comp Plan as a resource based industrial area, his preference would be to not have the boundary include the mill. However, if the mill was included, it should clearly state that it already had a designation and we were only considering the UGA boundary. The purpose would be to somehow separate the mill property from the inclusion of Sub -Area 1 in Glen Cove as commercial space. Reid Shockey asked if Mr. Huntingford was suggesting that as a way of identifying and computing the difference between commercial and industrial properties. Mr. Huntingford replied in the affirmative. Joe Finnie stated that the public should know what the City's vision was, which was that the mill property would be an extension of the City UGA. Glen Huntingford asked if the City could show that there was a need for the expanded UGA. Forrest Rambo replied that the City might. It raised his earlier comment that the County was required to re -visit the entire Comp Plan in 2003. As a practical matter, he wondered what could be done in 36 months. Geoff Masci preferred that Scenario 3 be left as the City proposed it. Mr. Huntingford clarified that the City did not really care what the commercial acreage numbers said; the City was interested to see if people would support the scenario. Mr. Masci agreed that was a fair summary. Reid Shockey stated that staff needed to remind the Committee that staff would have to consider the SEPA implications of Scenario 3. Mr. Shockey stated that the 283 acres of the mill property was already designated an industrial zone, so it did not count against the 212 acres. Mr. Shockey stated that there were some issues between the City and County having to do with the mill property. Mr. Shockey stated that Mr. Scalf would have to consider, as the responsible official, and decide whether Scenario 3 fell outside the "bookends ". Mr. Shockey stated that if it was strictly the 283 acres, already designated industrial, and it would be added to the existing City UGA, it would probably be okay. To the extent that the issues between the City and County related to and could be analyzed in the EIS [water rights and distribution, etc.], there was a possibility that it would fall outside the "bookends ". it was something that would have to be determined by the SEPA official. Dan Harpole asked if it fell outside the "bookends" because of the issue of annexation or if it fell outside right now without that issue. Reid Shockey explained how the mill implications might affect the "bookends ". Richard Wait pointed out that counting the mill property inside the City, the acres could actually be 300 to 400 acres. Reid Shockey agreed it was a pertinent comment. Mr. Shockey stated that the other issue was that the mill had 283 acres that were currently zoned industrial and the assumption was that it would remain so. The question he had was, if it came into the UGA, would the mill still keep the full 283 acres as mill property and not develop it? If the mill decided that since it was inside the UGA they would develop a portion of that acreage, it may fall outside the scope of the EIS. Ilan Harpole stated that the Comp Plan was specific that the mill could develop any of the other mill property only for its own uses. Mr. Harpole agreed that if something else were allowed, the numbers would change. It was an issue that would have to be resolved if Scenario 3 went forward and was adopted. Al Scalf clarified that the City proposal would stop the proposed UGA boundary at the Sub -Area 1 southern boundary. It would not include Sub -Area 2 as part of the UGA; that would remain a logical boundary. Glen Huntingford objected to such a scenario. Forrest Rambo stated that for the sake of moving the discussion 9 forward, the City would support the whole Glen Cove area [Sub -Area 1 east of the highway and Sub -Area 2 and the mill property] as a proposed UGA. The scenario also included Exhibit A for a Tri Area UGA. The new Glen Cove map would be Exhibit D. Therefore, Exhibit D and A made up Scenario 3. Bob Sokol stated that the issues of infrastructure were raised with a two -UGA scenario. Richard Wojt stated that he was concerned that Scenario 3 could be supported by a finding of fact. The Committee agreed to take an advisory vote on Scenario 3, which would be Exhibit A and Exhibit D combined. Larry Crockett stated that the Port was a county -wide entity with economic development as its charter. Mr. Crockett stated that the Port had gone on record supporting a UGA designation in the Tri Area. He stated that was still the Port's preference, and he would submit that in writing. Concerning the boundaries, the Port recommended that under Scenario 1 the County also identify an urban reserve area extending to Chimacum to reflect future intentions to consider UGA expansion when warranted. Concerning the south county, Mr. Crockett stated that the County needed to act quickly for their future. Concerning Scenario 3, Mr. Crockett thought the Port was ambivalent at this point. The advisory vote on Scenario 3 resulted in five in favor, one opposed, and one abstention. Glen Huntingford stated that the result would be almost the same amount of alternatives as we started with. Mr. Huntingford stated that the Committee probably should have met before the BOCC's workshop. Dan Harpole stated that the advisory vote was a recommendation to the BOCC. Mr. Harpole stated that the BOCC should take up its decision on Scenario 3 outside of the Committee meeting. Dan Harpole reviewed the calendar, noting that the BOCC would meet on September 7 to review findings of fact substantiating at lease Scenarios 1 and 2 and possibly 3. Mr. Harpole stated that it must be very clear that the Planning Commission public hearing was on two nights [September 1.5 and 22]. It should be clear that the public comment ended on September 22. The Planning Commission would then draft its report to the BOCC on September 29. The BOCC would hold a public hearing on October 5. Reid Shockey requested that, depending upon how the BOCC vote came out, the City send him draft language that he could include in the decision document as a third scenario. Forrest Rambo stated that they would do so. ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:01 PM. Immediately following the adjournment, Dan Harpole re- convened the BOCC meeting in order to address the Scenario 3 recommendation. He solicited a motion on the issue. Glen Huntingford moved that the BOCC accept the recommendation of the Steering Committee on a Scenario 3. Dan Harpole seconded the motion for discussion purposes. Glen Huntingford stated that whatever the comments were that would be received over the next few weeks and wherever they led, there would have to be some serious discussion about the annexation issue. Mr. Huntingford stated that he had not heard any Glen Cove property owners say they wanted to be annexed to the City. Mr. Huntingford stated that there were some serious financial ramifications to the County. Mr. Huntingford stated that being on the steering committee for the Counties Association, he had seen how growth management had devastated a lot of counties. Mr. Huntingford stated that the BOCC could let the public look at the scenario and see what the comments were, but before the County went much further, some serious discussions would have to 10 occur. He did not think they would be easy discussions. Mr. Huntingford stated that just as the City i. representatives were looking out for their citizens, the BOCC needed to look out for the County citizens. Mr. Huntingford stated that there would have to be some serious considerations, depending upon what came back from the citizen input and the Planning Commission. The motion carried with two in favor and one opposed. Dan Harpole stated that approval of the motion meant that Public ''Works would have the additional scenario to publish. Forrest Rambo stated that there had been a lot of discussion within the City about the timelines for the Comp Plan amendments and the Study results. Mr. Rambo stated that the perception on the part of some county residents, and as expressed by the Planning Commission, was that the City had not had adequate public process '` a on the issue. Mr. Rambo suggested that the proposal brought forward was a demonstration of the City's interest a in coming up with creative solutions in trying to get additional public comment on the County Comp Plan. Mr. Rambo stated that if the proposal did nothing else except get additional City citizens involved in commenting i on the County Comp Plan, he would be satisfied. Dan Harpole shared Mr. Rambo's sentiments. Mr. Harpole noted, however, that he had been harangued at the County Fair about the BOCC not making a decision and that there had been plenty of public input. Mr. Harpole stated that there were all kinds of perceptions out in the public. Mr. Harpole expressed the hope that the three alternatives would increase the dialog a bit more. The BOCC meeting was adjourned at 6:08 PM. iT 11 -N- 640n Cove Logic Bo4nda f~ ........... .... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... .. . -7 --7 -T- -.1 T -i %�EN Covr) . r V. rJ. 6 g!P�ECKS S .-J ............ J, ... ........ . ...... .... 4 -4 Q ....... -SET RD. Legend: Scenario I Boundary 25 Foot Contour Intervals 100 Foot Contour Intervals Buildings (1991) 7 Tf .. .. .. . ...... . II mi I. A Y ; EM BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD OLYMPIC ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL et al., ) Petitioners, No. 00 -2 -0019 ) V ) FINAL DECISION JEFFERSON COUNTY, ) AND ORDER Respondent, ) and, ) BRUCE and BARBARA BAILEY, ) Intervenors ) SYNOPSIS OF THE ORDER We find the following map amendments and comprehensive plan (CP) amendments referenced in our order to be noncompliant. The expansion of limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRDs) fails to meet the requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA, Act) to establish logical outer boundaries delineated by the built environment. The "clearly erroneous" mapping amendment method was inappropriately applied to mapping errors in the magnitude of 600 acres. It also precluded public participation. We do not find that the density results of the County's action were noncompliant. We find the amendment rezoning the Bailey property to be compliant. We do not find substantial interference with the goals of the Act. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners Olympic Environmental Council, et al. challenged Jefferson County's comprehensive Plan amendments and its use of the "clearly erroneous" mapping error method in changing the zoning for several Jefferson County properties. The hearing on the merits of the case was held September 28, 2000, in the City of Port Townsend Council Chambers at City Hall. All three Board members were present. Janet Welch appeared for petitioners. David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, represented Jefferson County. Stephen Sheehy represented Intervenors Bailey. PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.320(1), the CP amendments are presumed valid upon adoption. The burden is on Petitioners to demonstrate that the action taken by Jefferson County is not in compliance with the requirements of the GMA. RCW 36.70A.320(2). Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.320(3), we "shall find compliance unless [we] determine that the action by [Jefferson County] is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements of [the GMA]." In order to find the County's action clearly erroneous, we must be "left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." Department of'Ecology v. PUD 1, 121 Wn.2d 179, 201 (1993). SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES Petitioners challenged actions of the County which expanded three LAMIRDs, charging that the expansions went beyond logical outer boundaries, were inconsistent with the Growth Management Indicators (GMIs) called for by the CP, and were untimely in that the CP calls for a reevaluation of boundaries only after the "Fri -Area Special Study was completed. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 99 -01, 99 -02, 99 -05. They further alleged that commercial- industrial expansion is inappropriate within LAMIRDs, particularly when it causes LAMIRD expansion. Petitioners asserted that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) failed to comply with the CP by responding to site - specific rezone requests rather than awaiting the results of the Study to set final boundaries. They maintained that LAMIRD boundary expansions do not comply with the Act. Regarding "clearly erroneous" mapping errors (Jefferson County's term), Petitioners alleged that there was no documentation of a technical error or inaccurate information causing the purported error. Map corrections (MCR) 98 -0001, 99 -0001. They maintained that there was no provision in the CP for properties to revert to preplan zoning, such as the densities found in the Interim Growth Strategies Ordinance (IGSO), densities assigned to the Scout Camp, the recreational vehicle park, and the golf course owned by the Baileys, (MCR 99 -0001) and to mineral resource lands (MCR 98- 0001). Petitioners contested the rezone of the Bailey property from the "mapping error" rezone (one unit per 10 acres) to a second rezone through the CP amendment process (one unit per 5 acres). They asserted that the BOCC used an "old pattern of low - density residential sprawl as a basis for A allowing the development of a new pattern of low - density sprawl." They noted that the County had failed to apply GMls as called for by the CP. We decline to review MCR 98 -0001, as it was not included in the petition for review or the prehearing order. CONTENTIONS LAMIRDS Petitioners observed that the amendments to the CP diminished the excellence of a fine document. Petitioners noted that the question of whether LAMIRDs are expandable has not previously been addressed by the Growth Management Hearings Boards. Petitioners maintained that the object of LAMIRDs was to limit more intensive rural development. Therefore, they are not expandable except under certain conditions of a CP. In this case Petitioners noted that the CP provided for changes to LAMIRDs after special studies regarding urban growth areas (UGA) were complete. Petitioners further noted that we had insisted on this condition since the very first Jefferson County case in 1994. The County has still not completed the study. Expansion of LAMIRDs, they argued, was therefore inconsistent with the CP and noncompliant with the GMA and our previous orders. In arguing against expansion, Petitioners noted that County Finding of Fact #52 identified the ;7. properties as adjacent to existing commercial property which, they claimed, is "the exact argument that has in the past led to strip development and commercial sprawl." They commented that "intll" onto vacant property within a commercial boundary is very different from expansion of that boundary to include adjacent vacant land. They argued that this definition of "infill" could best be described as "outfill." Further they noted this would not concentrate growth into limited areas whose boundaries are delineated predominately by the built environment. The County responded that this was the very same CP which we had earlier found to be an d. excellent document for growth management. Cotton v. Jefferson C'vunty, 98 -2 -0017. The County described its actions as de minimus, and asserted that the need for expansion was the result of originally "tight- lining" the boundaries of LAMIRDs. It pointed to a need for an additional 300 acres of commercial area as a strong justification for expansion of LAMIRD boundaries. The County also pointed out that we had never made a ruling against LAMIRD expansion. MaPPinR Error and CP Amendments Petitioners argued that it was a mistake to use the "clearly erroneous" mapping error approach for an area larger than 600 acres and pointed out that staff had recommended using the second mapping error approach, involving a CP amendment. They stated that the assignment of residential density for more than 600 acres of rural land was a GMA action and should have been subject to full public review as recommended by staff (Ex. 3 -28, Staff Report, p. 3). They also asserted that reversion to an ordinance predating the CP (the IGSO) resulted in a land use map that was internally inconsistent as well as noncompliant with the GMA. They alleged that there was no public participation, no documentation of the action, and that the action was counter to staff recommendations. With regard to the CP amendment rezoning the Bailey property (CPA 99 -13), Petitioners stated that "if the County's intent is to preserve the golf course for open space and recreational purposes, then it should have zoned the county land appropriately, requiring the property to be maintained in large acreages with appropriate clustering provisions available." They claimed that the BOCC action had accelerated the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low - density development. The County maintained that the three properties in MCR 99 -0001, including the Bailey property, needed underlying density, and that this density was omitted in the Private Reserves and Recreation (PR &R) zoning classification, owing to an oversight. The County asserted that this enactment would not reduce the variety of rural densities as it was only a small percentage of the rural area. The County acknowledged that GMIs include population growth, land capacity, economic indicators, changes in technology, omissions or errors, or a declared emergency. The County asserted that "it is doubtful that the County's plan intended the GMIs would have any significant bearing on whether or not the plan amendments should succeed." The County recognized that it is "forced to give life to al I of the language in its plan." Yet, claimed the County, "this should not change the outcome of this petition for review." Intervenors Bailey argued that they intended to preserve space for recreation, and noted that 130 acres were already devoted to the golf course. The 70 undeveloped acres needed to be more dense than the one to 10 density assigned after the mapping error approach because the golf course development would not otherwise be economically viable. l CONCLUSION LAMIRDS We conclude from the record in this case that the County was clearly erroneous in approving CPAs 99 -01, -02, and -05, allowing expansion of LAMIRDs, and thus failed to comply with the Act. In each case the expansion went beyond the original logical outer boundaries as predominantly delineated by the built environment. The expansions were also inconsistent because the County failed to apply the GMIs called for in the CP. Further, the County was clearly in error in assuming that LAMIRDs were an appropriate target for commercial industrial expansion in the County in general. LAMIRDs were never designed to accommodate large commercial industrial tracts. The Act calls for such accommodation in UGAs or other special districts under GMA sections .365 and .367. The Discovery Bay property, including the motel of Mr. Moa, was expanded by amendment beyond the logical outer boundary of the Discovery Bay Neighborhood/Visitor LAMIRD. The County ordinance precluded use of residential areas for drain fields to support commercial enterprises. Without the rezone and expansion of the LAMIRD, the motel could not expand. The added land is vacant. In Vines v. Jefferson County, #98 -2 -0018, the County denied an l addition to a LAMIRD preventing Mr. Vines from expanding his commercial enterprise. Like the Vines LAMIRD, the Moa expansion does not provide a logical outer boundary r predominately delineated by the built environment as of 1990. It is more properly termed "outfill" than " infill." The same holds true for the Spigarelli and Smith LAMIRD expansions. LAMIRDS were never designed to be used as a safety valve for commercial growth and expansion. LAMIRD commercial activity is limited to infill development and redevelopment within the logical outer boundary as predominately delineated by the built environment in 1990. In and of itself; need for additional acreage is not a justification for expanding LAMIRDs beyond their logical outer boundaries. Commercial acreage should be encouraged within Urban Growth Areas. LAMIRDs are not required to have population assigned to them, whereas UGAs are. Expanding LAMIRDs to increase commercial acreage or population removes incentives for directing population growth to UGAs. The BOCC may wish to "fully utilize any and all opportunities provided by law that might promote rural commercial growth." County brief p. 18. Expansions of LAMIRD boundaries is not an "opportunity provided by law." The "limited" in LAMIRD means just that. The CP states that when the Special Study is complete the County will decide whether or not the LAMIRD interim boundaries are sufficient in light of the need for additional UGAs. The County notes in its brief that the Tri -Area Special Study was released in 1999 by Trottier (Regional Economic Analysis and Forecast). In contrast, Petitioners allege that actions to expand LAMIRD boundaries were untimely because they were taken prior to the completion of the Special Study. Petitioners pointed out that the Trottier report was only the first phrase of the Tri -Area Study. ,r The CP further requires GMIs to be a basis for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan regarding UGAs and LAMIRDs. The CP delineates the indicators which shall be considered as the basis for findings regarding the necessity for UGA designation or LAMIRD expansion. The record shows no clear findings regarding the three subject LAMIRDs. We found the County's action regarding the application of GMIs to be inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. Mappina Errors and Other CP Amendments We have a firm and definite conviction that the County's use of the "clearly erroneous" mapping error approach failed to comply with the public participation requirements of the Act. Public participation is required for a change of this magnitude of more than 600 acres. The need for public participation is underscored by the Bailey's own statement in Ex. 133 (12 -1 -99 letter to the Planning Commission): "On July 16, 1999, we submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application to Jefferson County for the approximately 200 acres of our property, that presently contains the Chevy Chase Golf Course. We did so because: 1. When we were made aware of a decision by Jefferson County on March 1, 1999 that was an attempt to correct, a "clearly erroneous mapping error" that identified our property (as well as other privately owned land parcels) on the Comprehensive Land Use Map as "Private Reserves and Recreation." With this correction our prope was assigned a densily of RR 1 /10 but we were never informed of and/or included in this decision making process. Obviousl had we been informed in March we would have made then the same case we have in this current formal a lication. "(Emphasis supplied) This approach was also internally inconsistent, as GMI were not applied. We note, however, that the densities assigned through this approach were in compliance with the GMA requirement for a variety of rural densities. We do not find they contributed to low- density sprawl. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate clear error on the part of County regarding CPA 99- 13, despite the fact that the stated aim of the Baileys in preserving a County recreational facility will be more difficult to meet because the County failed to distinguish the property as a unique zone for recreational purposes, and because of the absence of clustering provisions, which would make the operation of the golf course and properties more economically viable. The County was within its discretion to consider surrounding densities in its rezone deliberations. One unit to 5- acre density does not, per se, constitute low - density sprawl. We do not find that reliance on the densities in the IGSO constitutes failure to comply with the Act as the resultant densities are within the parameters of varieties of rural densities called for in Section .070 of the Act. Invalidi A Petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the County's noncompliance substantially interferes with the goals of the Act. ORDER We find CPAs 99 -01, -02, and -05 and MCR 99 -0001 fail to comply with the Act and remand them to the County. Within 90 days of this order the County must return the logical outer boundary of the Chimicum Neighborhood Visitor Crossroad, Ness' Corner General Crossroad, and Discovery Bay Neighborhood Visitor Crossroad, to their positions prior to the County's approval of the above- noted CPAs. MCR 99 -0001 (Recreational Vehicle Park and Scout Camp only) must be reconsidered under the map amendments approach involving an error in interpretation of criteria. This approach includes full public participation. With regard to the third property under MCR 99 -0001 (Bailey's Chevy Chase Golf Course) the spirit and intent of the public participation requirements, including consideration of GMls, was achieved through the CPA 99- 13 process, and need not be repeated. RCW 36.70A.140 Any findings of noncompliance included in previous sections of this final decision are incorporated in this order by reference. Findings of Fact pursuant to RCW 36.70A.270(6) are adopted and attached as Appendix I and incorporated herein by reference. So ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2000. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD Les Eldridge Board. Member Nan A. Henriksen Board Member William H. Nielsen Board Member FINDINGS OF FACT APPENDIX I 1. Logical outer boundaries (LOBs) of LAMIRDs must be delineated predominately by the built environment. 2. After establishing such LOBs, Jefferson County expanded its LAMIRDs into vacant land beyond these LOBS in CPA 99 -01, 02, and 05. I There is no provision in the Act for interim LAMIRD outer boundaries. 4. GMIs were not applied to the CPAs in question. 5. One unit per five acres does not constitute low - density sprawl under this record. b. The failure of the County to provide density for more than 500 acres of PP &R space does not constitute a "clearly erroneous" mapping error under the terms of the CP. Public Utili District #1 Of Jefferson County May 24, 1989 J Ted Stricklin City of Port Townsend Department of Public Works City Hall 540 Water Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Glen Cove Water System - Water Contract Dear Ted, Board of Commissioners: Richard M. Shipman, District 1 Kenneth McMillen, District 2 John L. Reep, Jr., District 3 Robert A. Leach, Manager Per our telephone conversation of a couple of weeks ago, I am now requesting that the City of Port Townsend review its commitment to provide water to the Glen Cove Water System. In the original contract (see attached), the City agreed to provide up to 50,000 gallons of water per day to the PUD for its use in the Glen Cove Water System Service Area; that sum was somewhat arbitrarily chosen at the time because it made sense as a place to begin. Over the last few years, the Glen Cove Water- System has experienced considerable growth as new connections have been placed on -line and this growth is continuing. The original 50,000 gallons of water have been "committed" to those property owners who have pledged and paid for the taps that financed the system's construction and the new subscribers are in danger of not having water available to them. The PUD must be able to serve those property owners within the Glen Cove Water System Service Area, therefore, we are requesting that the City of Port Townsend consider an increase in the maximum water quantity per contract (subject to future negotiation for increase) to 150,000 gallons per day. This increase will allow the PUD to adequately and legally serve those parties that have requested consideration for either planning or construction purposes. Please keep me advised of whatever additional information you may need in this issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter Sincerely, ` K�Q Robert A. Leach, Manager attachment: copy of City /PUD Water Service Agreement -Glen Cove 24 Colwell Street / P.O. Box 929, Hadlock, Washington 98339 (206) 385 -5800 Future CT Compliance Station 0 • In-City Master A49tar • Chlorine Residual - _ �;,�.;.. •.�� ^.j-. -mot - ±� ,• .�:''- ... - - .. - - - r - .i • • • • f ��i,/ ? t i }7 i'"1'P•!jS }F ". F V+ t s.• r a 7 ''ate _ - 7•s .��x�r {^ � -�� - •...�✓ ..r"`^ '_.yam• � �_ .; � - ..... . "r a;1 -�:'= =_may � -_r•,- Indian ...:. Island (US Navy) �f - "[i /i�:��l ` .• _ :' 'l fir; a Y' -i ' =J'• ~ tip ; �•_ Meter (to Naval 12 own) Cc•. ` 31ao10a rffJ Jefferson County Commissioners 3 -18 -02 P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA. 98339 FILE COPY Dear Commissioners, I am writing this letter on behalf of Northwest Woods Inc. in hopes that you can see and understand the on the ground circumstances that are in existence today in and around the Glen Cove area as well as touch on a few facts that will remind you some of the history of what has been happening in and around the same area. In the first stages of planning the commercial area in and around Glen Cove there was a long and drawn out process that took staff expertise and public participation to come up with what was called the Highway 20- corridor plan. This plan stood the test of public scrutiny and planning theory and was put into place as the policy that was to be used for nearly 20 years. The folks that either owned land in this corridor or had purchased land here did so with the understanding that was, and it would be, commercial /light industrial. The prices that were garnered and the activities that went on were all consistent with that Highway 20 Plan and the fact that this land was looked upon as commerciaPlight industrial. I will also mention that the assessor looked at this land as commercial as well and taxed folks accordingly. Then as you know under the ax known as GMA the county took a very aggressive stance and downzoned not only a good deal of this area but also many other areas in the county as well ignoring the Highway 20 plan that had been in place for many years. There are a couple of facts that I would like to point out that I feel should be brought forward and hopefully be included in your decision making process, The first thing is that the highway 20 plan had always included BOTH sides of Highway 20 from Old Fort Townsend North to the Mill Road. This is best seen in and around Fredrick's Street and some of the land South. The next thing is that the backside of that property on the West of Hwy 20 is a section line and is a logical boundary according to the definitions in the law (GMA). Also there are only 7 parcels of land south of the last business (Ty's Computer Shop) on the west side of 20 (two of which are already permitted working commercial properties) thus making this far more compatible for some reasonable Commercial /light Industrial development on a scale that makes sense instead of small lots which exist mostly on the East side of the highway and the North end of the West side of the highway. I wi Il also mention that a good portion of the lots that are available are already built out and simply not available. The last issue I would bring up about the small lots is the fact the many of those lots are in multiple ownership. What this means is that if some company wishes to locate among the small lots the company would have to purchase from multiple owners, which very quickly as per my own experience, becomes cost prohibitive. There again making the case that the larger parcels on the west side should be included to give companies an option of location and keeping real estate prices affordable to those who would like to locate here. The last thing I would like to mention is that it is my belief that the Port Townsend Paper Mill is not long for the County. I believe that the folks that are running the mill are trying their best to save it. I believe however that it is not salvageable. With the bag plan already gone, world markets being what they are in paper industry, the world economy in the toilet and the fact the management just announced a 25% cut in pay. It does not look good. 1 would hope that I would not have to go into great detail of what will happen when the mill is gone without having made any arrangements to create opportunity in the commercial /light industrial areas. We will of course suffer tremendous financial hardships in all areas. In closing I would simply encourage you to error on the side of more than enough property included than on not enough. I would ask that you include the west side of highway 20 to the Old Fort Townsend Road. (see attached map) This is the responsible thing to do. It has been designated commercial for way longer than it has not. Thanks for you cooperation. d William S. Marlow On behalf of North West Woods Inc. FILE COPY Date: 18 March 2002 To: Glen Huntingford, Dan Titterness, and Richard Wojt Jefferson County Commissioners From: Willene Jaqua C,I Co-Owner of Nimba Forge, 353 Glen Cove Road Port Townsend 98368 MAR 19 ?0C2 Re: Glen Cove Boundary Analysis JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF r 0 Mro I Having given up my individual slot to address the Commissioners' public hearing this afternoon, I am following up on Mr. Huntingford's suggestion that I submit a statement in writing. I agree with the rationale of applying the criteria of "any man-made improvements above or below ground" to define a boundary of light industrial zoning in the Glen Cove area. This is not only a logical, but a compassionate outer boundary which respects the good-faith investment of many local employers and citizens. The history of our development in Glen Cove is a pertinent example. My husband, Russell Jaqua, a longtime resident of Port Townsend and internationally known artist-blacksmith, was asked to relocate his blacksmith shop from Fort Worden facilities in 1993. Russell approached Jim Holland, then a county planner with Jefferson County and was advised to purchase property in the Glen Cove industrially zoned area. As the industrial power hammers we use require 3-phase power and the only available parcels with access to such power were on Glen Cove Road, Russell purchased Lots 7-13, Blk 8 DennVs on December 10, 1993. On August 23, 1994 our zoning application 1ZA94-0047 was approved for a blacksmith shop and showroom. On August 24, 1994 our building permit BLD94.0480 was issued and we celebrated the receipt of our final permit, after seven years of building as we could obtain financing, on August 22, 2001. From 1993 to 2001, we invested just over $250,000 in our plant. We cannot imagine why any government agency, be it city or county, would not feel obligated to restore our existing business to its original and proper zoning of light industry. We are responsible business owners who have beautified our property and complied with all laws. We manufacture the highest quality ironwork products and our industry has almost no impact on the environment, except for noise. Our labor is highly skilled and we pay living wages ($20.00/hour for our piece work). We are here because we had a respect for and belief in planned growth. It made sense to us to locate in a designated "industrial park" and we welcomed the chance to have industrial neighbors who had similar manufacturing businesses. 4 J Page Two Willene Jaqua 18 March 02 in closing, I want to plead that this lengthy process of writing letters and testifying about the fact of our existence, sanctioned by previous county processes in no way represents knee -jerk "economic expedience." I cannot imagine how anyone can ethically justify removing Nimba Forge and our other Glen Cove Road neighbors from an industrially -zoned designation, nor can I imagine why anyone would want to. It was illogical when the tightline was drawn, it is illogical now, and it will be illogical in the future if nothing is done now to rectify the situation. We are not big box commercial retail threatening the local retail businesses, we are not polluters; we are not storage rental facilities taking up lots of land, but generating no jobs. Have those who oppose the larger boundary actually bothered to come see what the Glen Cove Road industrial development actually looks like and who we are? Try us, you'll like us. Orphaned by regulations that are unable to care about real people and their real lives, we look to government leaders to restore us to our industrial community. 4 ,ham v a S NHL tCC7��Cl- J 89 STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW r PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8350 • (360) 725 -2800 March 18, 2002 C MAR 2 2 20C? .1EFFFRSON COWI Y BOARD OF �`k ii SIVERS The Honorable Richard Wojt Chair, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: Revision of Glen Cove Interim LI /C Zone Boundary per RCW 36.70A.390 Dear Commissioner Wojt: Thank you for sending the Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) your Notice of Public Hearing scheduled for March 18, 2002, at 2 p.m. on the proposed revision of the Glen Cove Industrial Area Interim Light Industrial /Commercial Zone boundary. We received this February 27, 2002, notice on March 6, 2002. The Notice states that "(R)evision to the Glen Cove boundary will occur pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and will utilize optional provisions contained in the Growth Management Act related to `Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development' [RCW 70.36A.070(5)] ". On March 12, 2002, we downloaded a partial copy of the Glen Cove Boundary Analysis (this document did not include the Figures 1 -7 or the Appendices prepared by Jefferson County Department of Community Development). Based on reviewing the Notice and the partial Glen (.'nve Boundary Analysis, we have the following concerns about the process being used to consider the proposed action adjusting the boundary of this zone: • The adoption of a revised interim boundary for this area under RCW 36.70A.390 is inconsistent with the process in your Comprehensive Plan (LNP 1.4 and LNP 11.3.2.) The initial designation of the Glen Cove Industrial Area Interim Light Industrial /Commercial Zone boundary was made under RCW 36.70A.390 and application of the provisions of RCW 70.36A.070(5). The adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan addresses the need to revisit interim rural area boundaries following the completion of the Glen Cove /Tri Area .Special Study and establish final boundaries through an amendment to the comprehensive plan, ® 18 0.1 The Honorable Richard. Wojt March 18, 2002 Page 2 consistent with Land Use Policy (LNP) 1.4. Similar language is also contained at LNP 11.3.2. Also, amending your zoning map without amending your comprehensive plan will also create an inconsistency between your zoning map and your comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.040(4)(d) requires that development regulations be consistent with comprehensive plans. Therefore, we recommend that, when you consider a boundary change to this zone, you do so along with an amendment to your comprehensive plan during your regular amendment process. Comprehensive plans can only be amended once a year according to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) except in the case of an emergency. The need to revise the Glen Cove Area Interim Light Industrial /Commercial Zone boundary does not seem to represent an emergency. Amending the Glen Cove Industrial Area Interim Light Industrial /Commercial Zone boundary according to RCW 36.70A.390 appears inconsistent with the intent of this statute. The provisions of RCW 36.70A.390 are intended to preserve the status quo and protect an existing area from potential harm prior to a formal public decision making process, and not to expand coverage of an established zoning ordinance prior to completing a needed plan amendment. • RCW 36.70A.106(3) requires that jurisdictions amending comprehensive plans and development regulations give at least 60 days advance notice to OCD to allow adequate time for our agency and other state agencies to review the proposed plan amendment and provide comments if necessary. Our agency has not received 60 -day notice of your intent to adopt this boundary change. Notice of a public hearing generally is not the manner in which Jefferson County has notified us in the past of amendments to your plans and development regulations. Because we have not received formal 60 -day notice of your intent to change the Glen Cove Industrial Area Interim Light industrial /Commercial Zone boundary, we have not analyzed whether the boundary change is appropriate according to the changes you made to your designation criteria for limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIR.Ds) in your 2001 annual amendments to your comprehensive plan. In that regard, we would like to reiterate the comment we made on that change in the December 11, 2001, letter to the county from Anne Fritzel: Amendment MLA01 -00225 changes .the way LAMIRDs are designated in Jefferson County from the set of criteria. in Policy LNP 5.1 based on commercial zoning to a different set of criteria based on the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c) and. (d), and on local considerations in Policy LNP 5.2. We recommend our publication Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character & Planning for Rural Development to assist you in making boundary determinations. Calling the boundaries `interim' is not necessary. Without calling the boundaries `interim,' you can still apply your new criteria to your The Honorable Richard Wojt March 18, 2002 Page 3 current boundaries or to designate future LAMIRDS. If you choose do this, we encourage you to keep a careful record of your decision making process." ' I: This letter comments only on the process through which you propose to change the boundary for this LAMIRD. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues, please call me at (360) 725 -3046. We extend our continued support to Jefferson County in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, N:.. Douglas L. Peters Senior Planner Growth Management Services DP:lw M. Al Scalf, Community Development Director, Jefferson County j Randy Kline, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning, Jefferson County Jeff Randall, Planning Director, City of Port Townsend CC: ��3 Al Scalf, Director The Honorable Glen 71 g€dr& v LJ� � Jefferson Co. Dept. of Com. Dev. Jefferson County Board of 2 ZOC 2' 621 Sheridan St. Commissioners Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County Court House RSON uUONTY Port Townsend, WA 98368 �?��IPy4��P1ER5 The Honorable Dan Tittemess Jefferson County Board of The Honorable Richard Woit Commisioners Jefferson County Board of Jefferson County Court House Commissioners Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County Court House Port Townsend, WA 98368 The city and the county has said repeatedly that it wants to encourage locally owned businesses and marine related employment. Captain Jack's, Nimba Forge, Lopes' Blacksmith, Reynold's Machine Shop, and Atlas Technologies (to name a few) are willing to provide that employment. By your refusing to act on this interim . ordinance for Glen Cove (or by your down zoning) you have hurt these businesses and any other business relying on your commitments to them. My own business, Captain Jack's will be adversely affected by you're decision not to act on this interim ordinance. I respectfidly request that you stand behind your commitment to local businesses and Captain Jack's Sincerely, Captain John Nesset P.O. Box 214 / 2215 Washington St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 FROM SEVERNS- KELLER FAX NO. Mar. 21 2002 10:25PM P1 cc: 'Er—D 314 C E LQ) MAR 2 2 20C2 JEFFFRSCN GojNTY 00APF) OF COMMISSKOi'ERS TO: Honorable Jefferson County Commissioner Glerl Huntingford and Colleagues: FRONT: Angelo 7-amperin and Walli Zarnpenin DATE: March 21, 2002 When we purchased our property, West of H.W. # 20, known to the Jefferson County Assessor and the Treasurer as S.21 -T.30 -RAW., N.1 /2, # 001212408, it was considered to be defined NW.NW., Real Estate parcel as "Commercial -Light Industrial ". A new boundary has been proposed to _reduce the Glen Cove overall acreage. We are not in favor of the new proposed change because our property and other properties are left out of this new plan. r to keep bound as it is presently signed and We much refer p �'Y P approved by the Honorable Commissioners Glen Huntingford, Robert Hinton, and Richard Vojt, on the ` 1"d of August 1994. We hope you, the Commissioners, �xT;l1 consider our wish: to keep the former boundary and not implement this new plan. Sincerely, Angelo Zamperin Walli Zamperin k, ' -C 3'�pa, Page 1 of 1 Lorna Delaney From: JT [tjskt @yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:57 To: Lorna Delaney Importance: High Please make the following letter part of the BOCC record regarding the Glen Cove LAMIRD: Jefferson County BOCC 21 Mar 02 I am opposed to the Jefferson County BOCC's plan to pass an Interim Ordinance that would expand the Glen Cove LAMIRD from 84 to 157 acres. I question the motives of the BOCC when it provided inadequate time ±' for the Port Townsend city council to comment on the proposal. Why wasn't this issue brought before the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee at its 6 Feb 02 meeting?!! Furthermore, I am getting tired of the BOCC wasting my tax dollars fighting the Washington Growth Management Act instead of using it to prevent urban i sprawl in our county. Passing an interim ordinance is NOT one of the methods for amending the Comprehensive Plan that are listed in Chapter 9 of the Unified Development Code. It is high time that the BOCC start working for the good of the entire county instead of for a few land speculators. Jim Todd 1515 Fir Street, Port Townsend Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards. http://movies.yahoo.com/ 3/22/02 cc: LX_'D� March 22, 2002 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Re: Expansion of Glen Cove LAMIRD Commissioners: E L PQI MAR 2 2 2002 JEFFERSON RSON COUNTY BOARD 01' COMM!gir };� q l?S One of the major concerns I have about the proposed action is based on your previous 2001 decision to vastly expand the bulk and dimensional standards for the County's industrial districts. When the two actions are combined, the cumulative impact is far more than what was ever addressed by the FSEIS /DSF,IS for the Glen Cove /Tri -Area Special Study. No Glen Cove LAMIRD expansion under rural levels of service was reviewed with the new bulk and dimensional standards allowing 60% parcel coverage by building(s) alone, no height or size caps, and almost unlimited impervious surfaces. This permissiveness is compounded by the fact that the County does not have a surface water management program with monitoring; and enforcement provisions. The potential degree of impervious surface that is now possible at build -out is also aggravated by the fact that Glen Cove is mapped in the Comprehensive Plan as a Critical Area - Aquifer Recharge Susceptible Area (CP 8 -13), as well as an area of Soil Limitations for Septic Systems (8 -23). Even at its current size, the Current LAMIRD could result in serious impacts to the environment. Doubling the size of the LAMIRD doubles that risk. With the listing of the Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook, it is the County's responsibility to adopt protective measures to restore listed salmonids. Neither the revised bulk and dimensional standards applied to critical areas nor the geographical expansion of those areas is a good way to address the 4(d) issue. Attached are some materials to remind you of your 4(d) responsibilities. I urge you to reconsider the proposed expansion of the Glen Cove LAMIRD. Sincerely, Nancy Dorgan People for a Liveable Community W ' NKPP 700 JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter of the } Endangered Species Act Listing } RESOLUTION NO. 64 - 00 of Salmonid Species } WHEREAS, Hood Canal summer run chum, Puget Sound chinook, and bull trout are listed as threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC §1531 et seq.); and, WHEREAS, Salmonid species are a significant cultural and economic feature in Jefferson County; and, WHEREAS, For many years the community of Jefferson County has shown support for salmonid habitat restoration and protection efforts; and, WHEREAS, Jefferson County has been an active participant with the community in these efforts; and, WHEREAS, Jefferson County needs the continued participation and support of its citizens to protect and restore listed salmonids; and, WHEREAS, Compliance with the Endangered Species Act may require additional protective measures; and, WHEREAS, Recovery to sustainable and harvestable levels of these species will require a collaborative ef- fort between land use, harvest, and hatchery managers and between local, state and federal regulatory agencies; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Jefferson County will lead a comprehensive ef- fort to prevent extinction through a commitment to protective practices, education of its citizens, adoption of appro- priate regulations, and promotion of environmental stewardship; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Jefferson County accepts its responsibility as representatives of, and for, the community and will serve as a conduit to communicate local concerns and to advocate for consistent and non- contradictory laws and policies related to this issue at the local, state and federal levels of government; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, as local government officials and land use managers, it is the policy of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to responsibly comply with the Endangered Species Act by seeking for- mal protection under Section 4(d) of the Act. APPROVED AND SIGNED this 17`b day of July, 2000. um 7 O ,fir^' :p. � � ►; jam,, + � , �� CA 5 f M j Lorna L. Delaney, CIVIC Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dan Harpole, M er g 7 S t a f f D r a f t INTRODUCTION Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook salmon have been listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).' The summer chum and Chinook listings affect east Jefferson County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) listed bull trout as threatened. The bull trout listing affects the west end of Jefferson County. The listings will mean that activities that cause harm to salmonids or salmonid habitat will be prohibited and can be classified as a "taking" of the threatened species. This document presents the issues surrounding compliance with the federal ESA rules to protect habitat for summer chum and chinook. This document accompanies, and provides background for, the paper entitled "Staff Recommendation. Response to ESA Listings of Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook." NMFS has proposed rules under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act that define "taking" by providing specific examples of activities that cause the taking of threatened salmonids and specific activities that are exempted from being considered a taking of threatened salmonuds. The prohibitions on taking Hood Canal summer chum or Puget Sound Chinook do not go into effect until the Section 4(d) Rule becomes final. The U.S. FWS has not adopted a Section 4(d) Rule yet, but the prohibitions on taking bull trout have gone into effect without that rule. Some of Jefferson County permitting programs and some of the County operations may be vulnerable to the "taking" prohibitions. To address this issue, Jefferson County staff has had a series of meeting over the several months to review the proposed rules and the current Jefferson County programs and ordinances. The recovery of Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook is likely only when habitat protection and restoration are coupled with changes that are needed in harvest and hatchery management. The circumstances that have lead to the decline of these fish are complex. The solutions for recovery will not be simple. Although significant changes in land use regulation, permitting, and construction practices have been made in the last decade, salmon populations continue to decline_ The Endangered Species Act listing of Hood Canal summer run chum and Puget Sound chinook salmon as threatened species will require additional conservation, restoration, and regulatory measures. To recover threatened salmon, Jefferson County must improve habitat conditions and begin to restore properly functioning river ecosystems. This will require enhancing the protection offered by land use regulations. However, Jefferson County does not have the authority to affect many of the factors that have contributed to the decline of salnionids. 1 16 U.S.C. § 1533. A brief description of the pertinent sections of the ESA is provided later in this report. S t a f f D r a f t Harvest regulations and hatchery management, in particular, are not under the control of Jefferson County but play a role in the decline and recovery of fish populations. Additionally, some significant land and water uses (especially logging practices) that have impacted salmonid populations throughout Western Washington are under the authority of state and federal agencies. Any effective recovery effort must address all of the factors for decline. Recovery efforts require defensible science, coordinated policy development, cooperation between State, local, Tribal and federal governments and sufficient funding. Many areas of salmonid habitat in Jefferson County are not degraded and can support healthy salmon runs. These habitat areas must be protected. While both restoration and protective measures are needed, resources for the protection of high quality habitat should be prioritized above restoration or enhancement activities in degraded habitat. This document relies on analysis of the current permitting system, standards for salmon habitat protection and best available science for an analysis of the ESA - compliance issues. The technical standards were primarily from: An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation2 (the Mantech Report), Hood Canal /Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan. Final Draft (the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan), and the NMFS Status Review for chinook salmon.4 The Mantech Report identifies habitat requirements for salmonids and requirements for properly functioning riverine ecosystems. The Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan identifies factors for decline of the Hood Canal summer churn and factors for recovery in each major watershed in Jefferson County. The status report for chinook salmon identifies factors for decline for Chinook throughout Western Washington. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE NMFS SECTION 4(d) RULE On January 3, 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed a Section 4(d) Rule for seven threatened evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of coho, chum, chinook, and sockeye salmon under the federal Endangered Species Act. The ESUs that affect Jefferson County are the Hood Canal summer run chum and Puget Sound chinook. While recognizing the impact of global cycles in ocean conditions and climate, NMFS largely attributes the decline of the listed species to human "take." NMFS states: West Coast populations of these salmonids have been depleted by take resulting from harvest, past and ongoing destruction of freshwater and Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes,lt.P. Novitzki. 1996, An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR- 4501 -96 -6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. 3 The Point No Point Treaty Council, Skokomish Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 23, 1999, Hood Canal /Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, Final Draft. J Myers, J.M. et al., 1998. Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. US. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC -35. 2 S t a f f D r a f t estuarine habitats, poor hatchery practices, hydropower development, and other causes.' The proposed rule lists general activities that constitute "take" of a listed species and specific activities or programs that will be protected from the take prohibitions. The protected activities are conditioned by geographic location, in some cases. In all cases, the protected activities are conditioned by specific requirements in order for the protection to apply. Land use activities, habitat restoration activities, forest practices, fishery management, water diversions, pollutant discharges, and physical disturbances to streams and habitat are among the activities affected by the proposed rule. The requirements of the proposed rule, and the prohibition on taking a listed species, will not go into effect until a final rule is adopted. ESA Background Information The following background information may be useful for understanding the proposed 4(d) Rule. "Takings" Liability The consequences of land use decisions can have adverse impacts on habitat, endangered species, and water quality. Jefferson County can be held liable under the § 9 of the ESA for land use decisions that result in "taking," or harm to a listed species or its habitat. The liability of the County can result from direct or indirect activities that exact a "taking" of a protected species. Direct activities include road building and maintenance among other things. Indirect taking liability could be incurred from a third party conducting activities under a permit or other authorization issued by the County. Jefferson County could be vulnerable for taking liability if permits do not provide sufficient protections to address the needs of summer chum, Puget Sound chinook and other listed species. Section 9 Prohibitions & The Broad Definition of "Take" and "Harm" In order to list a species as threatened or endangered, the first in a list of needed findings is that the habitat upon which the species depends is threatened: "the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range. "6 Section 9 of the ESA makes it illegal to "take" a listed species. Take is defined very broadly. Under ESA, to "take" means: ... to harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct.? 5 65 FR 170, 6 16 USC 1533. 7 16 U.S.C. § 1532. 3 S t a f f D r a f t In regulation, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service more explicitly defile harm: Harm in the definition of "take" in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns. including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering.R The section 9 prohibition against the take of a listed species is broad but not absolute. The ESA provides processes where a person could be allowed to incidentally "take" a listed species — through a 4(d) rule, a section 7 consultation, or a section 10 incidental take permit. Under both NMFS and U.S. FWS, take prohibitions for endangered species go into effect immediately after the final listing decision appears in the Federal Register. For species listed by NMFS as threatened, "take" prohibitions do not go into effect until a final Section 4(d) Rule defines "take," whereas section 7 federal nexus consultations go into effect 60 days after the listing. Under U.S. FWS listings, such as bull trout, the take prohibitions for threatened species generally go into effect immediately after the final listing decision appears in the Federal Register. 4(d) Rule For species that are listed as threatened, NMFS can issue 4(d) regulations9 defining "take" and "limits on the take prohibition," in effect, providing a safe harbor for specified activities under certain conditions. The term "4(d) Rule" comes from that section of the ESA that requires the Secretary of the Department of Commerce (NMFS' parent department) to issue: ... such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened secies any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife ...1 In practice, the 4(d) Rule can list activities that the NMFS believes will result in harm to listed fish and activities that will be exempt from the prohibition under specified conditions and in specific geographic locations. Previous 4(d) rules often have been very broad prohibitions on taking a listed species with narrow exceptions for activities such as scientific research and emergency actions. & 50 CFR 222.102 and 50 CFR 17.3. s The U.S. FWS usually applies the same regulatory prohibitions on take for threatened species the same as if the species were endangered (i.e., the U.S. FWS usually does not issue a 4(d) rule defining a take prohibition for a threatened species). 10 16 U.S.C. § 1533. 4 i S t a f f D r a f t Section 7 Consultations ESA section 7 consultations relate to federal agency actions or actions that require a federal permit. Section 7 requires: Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter referred to an "agency action ") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species ... 11 In addition to requiring consultations with NMFS on activities planned by federal agencies, when a private activity requires a federal permit, a "federal nexus" is said to exist and a consultation is likely to be required. A federal nexus may exist for activities that require, for example, a federal NPDES permit. During the consultation, NMFS will issue a biological opinion regarding the effect of the proposed action. NMFS may find that the proposed action does not harm a listed species or, it may suggest alternative to avoid harm, or it may determine that the proposed action would result in unavoidable harm. Section 10 Incidental Take Permits Under section 10 of the ESA, NMFS may issue a permit for an activity that may result in a take of a listed species for scientific purposes or if the take is "incidental to and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." 12 For example, in the December 22, 1999 Federal Register, the California Department of Fish and Game applied to NMFS and Fish and Wildlife Service for a section 10 incidental take permit to authorize incidental take of the threatened Sacramento River winter chum, Central Valley spring chinook, delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, and the giant garter snake, during the implementation of the Striped Bass Management Program. This permit application included a proposed Conservation Plan describing the proposed project and mitigation, and would be in effect for 10 years. In order to issue an incidental take permit, NMFS must consider the status of the species, the potential severity of the impact, the availability of monitoring; techniques, the use of "best available technology" to mitigate the impacts, and the views of the public and scientists (See 50 CFR 222.307(c)(1).) NMFS also must make the following findings (50 CFR 222.307(c)(2)): 1) The taking will be incidental; 2) The applicant will monitor, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking; 3) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival; 4) The applicant has included any measure NMFS deems necessary in the conservation plan; and, 5) There are adequate assurances that the conservation plan will be funded and implemented. It 16 U.S.C. § 1536. 12 16 U.S.0 § 1539. 5 x r a S t a f f D r a f t The Proposed 4(d) Rule The proposed 4(d) rule covers seven ESUs of west coast salmonids: Oregon coast coho; Puget Sound, lower Columbia and Upper Willamette chinook; Hood Canal summer -run and Columbia River chum; and, Lake Ozette sockeye. The proposed rule is divided into two main parts: 1. Activities that are very likely to result in violation of ESA (i.e., likely to result in a take), and 2. Activities that are exempted from the take prohibitions (in the Federal Register notice, these are called "limits on take prohibitions "). Likely Violations Activities that are very likely to result in violation of ESA are divided into three groups. The first group is a list of activities that "... are very likely to injure or kill salmonids. and result in a violation of this rule unless within a limit on the take prohibition provided in this proposed rule." (65 FR 172). The proposed rules states that NMFS is likely to apply enforcement resources to this first list, which includes: 1) Illegal harvest; 2) Unscreened water diversions; 3) Physical disturbances of the streambed while spawners or redds are present (this listing includes several examples, including, gravel mining, trampling of redds by livestock, and driving vehicles in a streambed); 4) Discharges of toxic chemicals (such as gasoline) or other pollutants (such as sewage) into waters or riparian areas particularly when done outside of a valid permit; 5) Blocking fish passages; 6) Interstate or foreign commerce of listed species without a valid ESA permit. The second list of activities that are likely to result in takes violations. NMFS may initiate enforcement action on these activities but will not likely focus enforcement resources on these activities. NMFS states that it prefers that persons who believe their activities present a significant risk to modify the activity to avoid a take, to modify the activity to fit within one of the limits on takes, or to obtain an incidental take permit. This second list includes: 1) Water withdrawals that impact spawning or rearing habitat; 2) Water diversions or discharges that result in excessive, or excessive fluctuations in, stream temperature; 3) Destruction or alteration of stream habitat, including activities such as dredging, draining, ditching, altering stream or tidal channels, removal of large woody debris, etc.; 4) Land use activities that adversely affect habitat (examples that are given include, "... logging, grazing, farming, urban development, or road construction in riparian areas." 65 FR 172); 5) Physical disturbances where spawning gravels are present; 6) Violations of discharge permits that "...actually impact water quality, and thus may harm listed salmonids." (65 FR 172); i 6 S t o f f D r a f t 7) Pesticides and herbicide applications that adversely effect the biological requirements of the listed species; 8) Introduction of nonnative species that re likely to prey on or displace the listed species; and, 9) Altering the habitat of listed species in such a way that promotes predator populations or makes the listed species more susceptible to predation. The final category of activities in the section of the proposed rule is a list of activities that are not significant as individual actions but may cumulatively cause significant adverse impacts to the listed species and habitat. The focus in this list is on activities that cumulatively cause water quality changes. NMFS urges individuals to "...alter their daily behaviors to reduce these impacts as much as possible, and for governmental entities to seek programmatic incentives, public education, regulatory changes, or other approaches to accomplish that reduction." (65 FR 173). This third list includes: 1) Discharges to streams; 2) Energy consumption; and, 3) Maintenance of individual residences and gardens. NMFS emphasizes that the three lists of activities that are known to cause adverse effects to listed species are not exhaustive and are intended to serve only as examples. Limits on Take Prohibitions This section of the proposed rule describes 13 programs where it is "...not necessary and advisable to impose take prohibitions because they contribute to conserving the ESU or are governed by a program that adequately limits impacts on listed salmonids." (65 FR 171). These activities would be protected from the take prohibition only under the conditions specified in the proposed rule. The 13 activities that would be protected from the take prohibition under the proposed rule are: 1) Activities conducted in accord with ESA incidental take authorization; 2) Ongoing scientific research for up to six months; 3) Emergency actions related to injured, stranded or dead salmon; This protected activity applies only to certain official personnel. The agency acting under this exception annually must report the numbers of fish handled. 4) Fishery management activities; These activities would be protected only under a formal MOA exists between the State and NMFS and only where the State has an approved Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan that limits the take of listed salmonids. S t o f f D r a f t 5) Hatchery and genetic management activities; These activities would be protected only if a formal MOA exists between the state or federal agency and NMFS and only where an approved Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan is implemented. 6) Activities in compliance with joint Tribal /State plans; In the same Federal Register as the proposed Section 4(d) Rule (65 FR 108- 111), NMFS proposed to limit the take prohibition for activities that comply with any Tribal resource management plan developed jointly by the states and tribes in consultation with NMFS after the plan is available for public review and comment. 7) Scientific research permitted or conducted by the state; NMFS concludes that scientific research " ... will help to conserve the listed species by furthering our understanding of the species' life history and biological requirements..." (65 FR 178). The proposed rule describes specific circumstances under which scientific research would be protected. 8) State, local, and private habitat restoration activities; NMFS describes habitat restoration activities as "...an activity whose primary purpose is to restore natural aquatic or riparian habitat processes or conditions; it is an activity which would not be undertaken but for its restoration purpose. NMFS does not consider herbicide applications or artificial bank stabilization to be a restoration activity." (65 FR 179). NMFS believes that restoration activities are most beneficial if conducted in accordance with a watershed or basin -wide analysis. This protection applies to habitat restoration activities "... found to be part of, and conducted pursuant to, a State - approved watershed conservation plan with which NMFS concurs." Further, the proposed rule states: "The state in which the activity occurs must determine in writing whether a watershed plan has been formulated in accordance with NMFS - approved state watershed conservation plan guidelines..." The proposed rule discusses criteria that NMFS will use to evaluate watershed conservation plan guidelines. Until watershed planning guidelines are developed (but for no longer than two years), the following habitat restoration activities would be protected if carried out in accordance with the conditions described in the proposed rule: a) Riparian zone planting or fencing; b) Livestock water development off- channel; c) Large woody debris or boulder placement; d) Correcting road /stream crossing passage barriers; e) Repair, maintenance, upgrade or decommissioning of roads in danger of failure; and, f) Salmonid carcass placement. For other proposed habitat restoration activities, the proponent must consult with NMFS to determine if the project could be performed without takes, 8 S t a f f D r a f t otherwise the proponent must obtain an incidental take permit. A section 7 consultation would still be required for work with a federal nexus. 9) Properly screened water diversion devices; 10) Road maintenance activities in Oregon; This exemption applies only to road maintenance activities conducted by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). NMFS has worked with MOT for more than year on developing explicit guidelines for road maintenance work in Oregon. As part of the approved plan. ODOT has an extensive and ongoing training program for its workers. ODOT also has committed to regular tracking and reporting. 11) Certain park maintenance activities in the City of Portland; This exemption applies only to the City of Portland Parks and Recreation Department (PP &R). Central to NMFS approval of PP &R park maintenance activities is the integrated pest management portion of the PP &R program, including a waterway pest management policy. The PP &R program includes monitoring commitments and yearly assessment and reporting. 12) Certain development activities within urban areas; and, NMFS has outlined safeguards that allow new development to occur while minimizing the impacts on listed species. "This proposed rule further proposes that NMFS will not apply take prohibitions to new developments governed by and conducted in accord with adequate city or county ordinances that NMFS has determined are adequate to help conserve anadromous salmonids." (65 FR 184), NMFS must agree in writing that county development ordinances are adequate to protect fish. NMFS will rely, in large part, on the ManTech report13 for guidance in determining that local ordinances will be acceptably protective. These issues are discussed in the following section, where Jefferson County ordinances are reviewed. 13) Forest management activities in the State of Washington. This protection applies to "...non-federal forest management activity conducted in the State of Washington in compliance with the April 29, 1999, FFR [Forest and Fish Report] and forest practice regulations implemented by the Washington Forest Practices Board that are as least as protective of habitat functions as are the regulatory elements of the FFR" (65 FR 185). The proposed rule describes the elements of the FFR that provide protection to salmonid species in some detail. NMFS will work with other states affected by the listing to broaden this protection. NMFS plans to regularly evaluate the programs that are exempted to assure that the activities support properly functioning habitat conditions. NMFS may change the list of protected activities or modify the conditions applied to the activities if "...the program is 13 Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR -4501 -96 -6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. 9 u S t a f f D r a f t not achieving desired habitat functions, or where even with the habitat characteristics and functions originally targeted, habitat is not supporting population productivity levels needed to conserve the ESU." (65 FR 175). NMFS strongly emphasizes that the limits on take prohibitions described in the proposed rule are not prescriptive regulation. The activities listed in the proposed rule describe conditions under which an entity can be sure that an activity is not violating ESA; the listed activities would provide a "safe harbor' under the conditions specified in the proposed rule. Activities not listed in the Limits on Take Prohibition Section would have to rely on best available science to demonstrate that the action does not constitute a take. SALMON RECOVERY EFFORTS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County plays only a part of the role in salmon recovery, habitat restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Other governmental and non - governmental organizations are important for salmon recovery throughout the summer chum and chinook ESU. In addition to protecting ESA listed species through effective regulation, the County is taking active steps in the protection of habitat and the recovery of salmonid species. Since the mid- 19$0s, Jefferson County has committed funds to restoration activities. Funding for restoration activities will continue to be supplied. The future restoration projects will be directed by the needs identified in the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, by the watershed conservation plans that are specified in the proposed Section 4(d) Rule, and by the recovery plan that will be adopted by NMFS. See Table 2 for more details about restoration needs. Jefferson County recognizes that restoration is valuable, but expensive. Protection of high quality habitat should be prioritized above restoration because habitat restoration is more costly and less effective than protection of high quality habitat. Significant high quality habitat is available because of the low levels of development throughout much of Jefferson County. Both habitat preservation and habitat restoration require funding that will be beyond Jefferson County's financial resources. Preservation and restoration will require significant commitments of funding from state and federal agencies. Many state policies disregard the importance of protecting existing high quality habitat and high water quality. Changes to State policy in providing funding for protection and preservation will be critical. Jefferson County is involved in salmon recovery, enhancement and protection activities through restoration programs and protective ordinances. Although the Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook have continued to decline, community efforts have resulted in enhancement, protection and restoration of critical habitat. Jefferson County has been involved in projects that protect and restore salmon habitat. Many of 10 im b q S t a f f D r a f t the projects involve partners, including the Conservation District, nonprofit environmental and conservation groups, and Tribes. Examples of specific activities are described at the end of this section. Some of the pertinent programs include: Early Action Watershed Plans Jefferson County has participated in watershed planning for nearly ten years through state and federal programs. Jefferson County contributed staff time and other in -kind resources in the development of non -point pollution early watershed action plans through WAC 400 -12. The following WAC 40012 plans were developed: Ludlow, DaboblQuilcene, and Discovery Bay. These plans assessed the potential for nonpoint pollution sources to affect freshwater and marine water quality. Each plan contained action items to be implemented that would mitigate impacts from nonpoint water quality pollution. Fish Passage Barrier Mitigation Jefferson County is currently in a partnership under an Memorandum of Agreement with Washington Department of Nish and Wildlife, the Hoh Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe to remediate fish passage barriers caused by County roads and culverts. The partnership began when an interagency group formed to prioritize the existing barriers that should be eliminated according to potential fish usage and location within each respective watershed. Flood Management Boards Flood Boards have been established for the Dosewallips River, Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, and the Duckabush River. These flood boards were formed to provide local citizen input into decisions regarding floodplain management. The Quilcene Flood Board worked with the other members of the Local Interagency Team (LIT) to complete a floodplain management plan that incorporates fish habitat protection measures. The LIT members on this plan included WDFW, U.S. FWS, Tribal, County and conservation district staff, and community members. Implementation of the LIT plan will require an ongoing commitment of resources from Jefferson County. Forest Practices Permits Local governments may exercise limited land use planning or zoning authority on certain types of forest practices [RCW 76.09.240(1)a]. Jefferson County reviews all forest practice applications on lands that will be converted to a use other than commercial timber production. Jefferson County also reviews Class IV general applications on lands that have been platted after January 1, 1960. A property owner planning to convert property to a use other than forestry in the near future must obtain a Class IV General Permit. A SEPA review is required for all Class IV general permits. Jefferson County is responsible for the enforcement of forest practice rules on all Class IV General Permits. : S t a f f D r a f t Property owners that are not sure whether development will occur in the near future may apply for a Conversion Option Harvest Plan (COHP). A COHP is a voluntary plan developed by the landowner and approved by the local government entity and will indicate the limits of harvest areas, the location of open space areas, the possible development site and critical areas. Although the County reviews the COHP, the overall responsibility for these permits, including enforcement rests with the State Department of Natural Resources. Joint Growth Management Steering Committee The Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC) was established in 1991 to oversee the development of a countywide Planning Policy. Adopted in 1992, the Planning Policy serves as a foundation from which to judge consistency between County and City Comprehensive Plans. The JGMSC continues to function in an advisory capacity as a regional oversight body. The JGMSC has seven members, the Mayor of Port Townsend and two members of the Port Townsend City Council, a representative from the Port of Port Townsend, and the three Jefferson County Commissioners. The JGMSC functions as a body that is responsible to assure that population growth and development is coordinated between Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend. The ultimate goals are to prevent growth in areas where infrastructure is not in place; to make the most efficient use of existing resources; and, to minimize environmental impacts by directing growth in already developed areas. Land Acquisitions and Conservation Easements Conservation easements provide a means to protect property while retaining private ownership. Particular rights of ownership to a parcel of land that could adversely affect the habitat value are defined and permanently removed. A property owner may transfer mineral rights, timber rights, roads, utility easements, and development rights. Conservation easements apply to all future owners of the property. Jefferson County has worked cooperatively with conservation groups such as the Jefferson Land Trust to obtain conservation easements on property that is important to the protection and restoration of Hood Canal summer chum habitat. Another way to protect valuable land from harmful development is to purchase the property outright. Jefferson County has been directly involved in land acquisitions. Most of the acquisitions were motivated by concerns about current and potential development in areas that are frequently flooded, but these properties also are important to the protection and restoration of Hood Canal summer chum habitat. Jefferson County currently is pursuing land acquisitions in the Chimacum Creek and Big and Little Quilcene Rivers area. Marine Resources Committee Jefferson County recently established a Marine Resources Committee to help protect, conserve, and enhance the marine resources in the County. The Marine Resources Committee is expected to: 12 a S t a f f D r a f t • Initiate projects to identify and prioritize scientific gaps in the understanding of the marine resources of Jefferson County; a Work to ensure a net gain in the nearshore, intertidal and estuarine habitat; a Establish voluntary marine protected areas to assist in the protection and recovery of marine species; a Help to identify gaps in the protective strategies for nearshore habitats; and, a Reach out to the public on issues regarding marine resources. The Marine Resources Committee receives financial and technical assistance from the Northwest Straits Commission. The committee is expected to provide critical input to County decision- makers regarding necessary actions for the protection and restoration of the nearshore environment on which salmon rely. Noxious Weed Board The Jefferson County noxious weed board manages a volunteer community education program designed to reduce chemical application in the watershed and encourage effective, volunteer management of exotic and noxious vegetation. Improved water quality because of less pesticide use, reduced levels of noxious weeds that improves habitat quality, and an overall better awareness of the environment are expected outcomes of this board. Water Watchers The Water Watchers program is run by the Washington State University Cooperative Extension in Jefferson County. The program is set up to educate and train citizens in Jefferson County to protect water quality through every day practices. These citizens then provide volunteer time and labor to the community to "repay" the cost of the training. The Water Watchers volunteers receive an eight -week training program and volunteer over 1,000 hours annually on issues of water quality monitoring, stream restoration, riparian monitoring, forest stewardship, shellfish monitoring and community education. The WSU Cooperative Extension also organizes multiple events, classes, and programs with broad public education on environmental stewardship (i.e., realtor's workshops). Watershed Planning Jefferson County is part of five Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA), 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21. The following shows the percent of the County by landmass that is in each WRIA. WRIA 16 Skokomish- Dosewallips 13% WRIA 17 Quilcene -Snow 18% WRIA 18 Elwah- Dungeness 10% WRIA 20 Soleduc -Hoh 23% WRIA 21 Queets- Quinalt 36% Jefferson County is participating in watershed planning efforts under RCW 90.82 for three of these WRIAs -- 16, 17 and 20. Jefferson County is the lead entity for watershed 13 S t a f f D r a f t planning for WRIA 17 that covers most of eastern Jefferson County. Mason County is the lead for WRIA 16 planning. Clallam County is the lead for WRIA 18 and 20 planning. The "Planning Units" for WRIA watershed planning includes local, Tribal, and State governments, and water resource interests (or stakeholders). The goal of the Planning Units is to complete a water resource assessment, including an assessment of quantity, quality, and habitat. The assessments will lead to policy recommendations to the State Department of Ecology for instream flows within each WRIA. After development of in -stream flow recommendations, the Planning Units may choose to develop policies to improve stream flows. According to RCW 90.82, Planning Units are to address the use of water conservation, water reuse, and other policies that mitigate low flow conditions. _Water Utility Coordinating Committee The Water Utility Coordinating Committee represents the major water purveyors in Jefferson County. The group was established to complete and implement the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP), which was completed in 1998. The CWSP ensures that water system development occurs in an orderly fashion throughout the County. The CWSP also addresses conservation, water reuse, and water demand that is projected for eastern Jefferson County. Regional Coordination The factors affecting the decline of fisheries in the Northwest do not recognize political boundaries. Given this reality, cooperation among governments is essential to have an effective habitat restoration and protection program. Jefferson County participates in the following groups within the Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook ESUs that work toward a coordinated, effective habitat restoration program: • Hood Canal Coordinating Council and North Olympic Peninsula Salmon Restoration Group (both are Lead Entity Groups for State - sponsored Salmon restoration under RCW 75.46); • State- sponsored watershed planning for WRIA 16, 17, and 20 (RCW 90.82); and, • Southwest Puget Sound Chinook ESU Group. Other Participants in Salmon Recovery Jefferson County plays only a part of the role in salmon recovery, habitat restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Other governmental and non - governmental organizations are important for salmon recovery throughout the summer chum and chinook ESU. The North Olympic Salmon Coalition and Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group are regional fish enhancement groups that work toward restoring critical salmon habitat. Both Regional Enhancement groups are engaged in numerous habitat restoration projects. Wild Olympic Salmon has been a key player in the restoration of many miles of streams in Jefferson County. Wild Olympic Salmon has provided the administration of the State 14 S t a f f D r a f t Jobs for the Environment Program, which retrains displaced timber and fish workers with salmon restoration skills. Wild Olympic Salmon also provides various educational and outreach programs. Jefferson County Conservation District has provided technical assistance to farmers, and worked toward development of farm plans on all Jefferson County farms. The Conservation District has actively worked with landowners in salmon restoration projects such as re- meandering streams, culvert replacement, fencing, bank stabilization, tree planting, water quality monitoring, the CREP program, and public education. Jefferson Land Trust is a non -profit organization that works with willing landowners to purchase land or to establish conservation easements. The Land Trust was a key player in a $1 million (approximate) grant from the Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation that is being used to set aside critical salmon habitat in Chimacum Creek. The list of salmon habitat projects that have been made possible by Jefferson County Conservation District include: • Salmon Habitat Restoration & Protection: These projects improve and/or protect salmon habitat (not including acquisition and purchase of property or projects aimed at salmon stock enhancement/re- introduction). These projects range from cleaning out reed - canary grass- clogged reaches of streams to more aggressive structural changes like re- meandering channelized reaches and adding LWD. The bank protection projects listed include habitat improvement elements in addition to reducing sediment inputs. A total of 21,630 feet (4.1 miles) of these projects have been implemented since 1985. • Riparian Fencing Projects: The amount of stream fencing constructed since 1985 totals 90,820 feet (1.7.2 miles). This is not the total feet of stream fenced as some projects have fenced both sides of the stream while others only fenced one side. Buffers created by these fences are generally narrow, ranging from eight feet to 100 feet wide. Since all fencing efforts were based on voluntary cooperation by the landowners for existing uses, the buffer width depended on what the landowner allowed. Although narrow, these buffers provide a significant improvement from the situation prior to fencing and have resulted in substantial improvements in water quality and salmon habitat. • Riparian Planting Projects: A total of 12.3 acres of riparian plantings have been established, all in conjunction with projects listed under the previous classifications. Chimacum Creek activities focusing specifically on Hood Canal summer chum salmon include: • Wild Olympic Salmon -- Chimacum Creek Summer Chum Reintroduction Project. Summer chum are considered "extirpated" from Chimacum Creek. This project is a long -term project (6 -12 years) where WOS volunteers have built up the numbers of native summer chum in Salmon Creek to a level high enough to move some of 15 r r S t a f f ' D r a f t the eggs over to Chirnacum Creek. The first return of spawning three -year -old adults to Chimacum Creek occurred in the late summer and early Fall of 1999. • Organizing the purchase or donation of conservation easements or land purchases in the reach of Chirnacum Creek used by summer chum (the lower mile). The riparian habitat in this reach is in good shape (except for excessive fine sediment in the gravel) but needs to be protected. The Jefferson Land Trust has spearheaded this effort. • Wild Olympic Salmon eel grass planting project to increase the eel grass density in the nearshore environment at the mouth of the creek. Salmon Creek activities focusing specifically on Hood Canal summer chum salmon include: • A Wild Olympic Salmon project to build up the numbers of returning native spawners. Volunteers have constructed and operated a small hatchery on a Salmon Creek tributary. Summer chum eggs are obtained from fish returning to Salmon Creek and raised in the hatchery to boost survival levels. This has been a successful project. • Fencing of the creek by the landowners to exclude livestock from spawning areas. Snow Creek activities focusing specifically on Hood Canal summer chum salmon include: • The lower reaches of Snow Creek have experienced serious channel aggradation. In 1995, a project was undertaken to lower the streambed, to construct pools, add LWD and widen the channel in the estuary to promote better estuarine function. Big Quilcene River activities focusing specifically on Hood Canal summer churn salmon include: • Removal of 800 feet of dike in the lower reach of the river utilized by summer chum to restore natural stream functions. • Yearly excavation of 3 small gravel traps in exposed gravel bars to help control channel aggradation in summer churn habitat. • Bank stabilization projects to reduce the amount of sediment and gravel destabilizing summer chum spawning habitat. • Big Quilcene River Flood Management Plan. This plan was developed by the Big Quilcene River Local Interagency Team. It was developed with the participation of tribes and WDFW to ensure the integration of habitat protection and approaches flood management with an emphasis on restoring natural river and estuary functions. • Purchase of 30 acres of developed property in the lower river floodplain by Jefferson County and removal of all structures to restore natural riverine functions. Additional property in this area will be purchased from willing landowners as funding is available. Additional dikes can be removed with the purchase of key properties. Yearly surveys of river cross - sections in chum spawning area to monitor channel changes. 16 S t a f f D r a f t FACTORS FOR DECLINE AND RECOVERY � 1 Information about habitat factors and recovery strategies are a part of a countywide ESA strategy. This section includes information about limiting habitat factors and suggested protection strategies for each watershed. The weakness of the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan is that it addresses only summer chum habitat. An overall ESA strategy needs to address multiple species and include provisions to include future listings. The habitat factors listed are those that the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan showed as being of high or moderate concern for the watersheds in Jefferson County. The Jefferson County streams and rivers that were included in the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan are listed in Table 1 for reference. Similar information is not available for Puget Sound chinook in the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers or bull trout in the West End Rivers, but many of the habitat constraints will be the same. As more specific information becomes available, it will be added to this report. The recovery planning process for the Puget Sound chinook and the Food Canal summer chum ESUs may identify additional factors for decline. As directed by ESHB 2496 of 1998, the Washington Conservation Commission plans to conduct a multi - species limiting factors habitat analysis to cover watersheds in eastern Jefferson County in the next two years. 'rhe Limiting Factors Report is required to describe "conditions that limit the ability of the habitat to fully sustain populations of salmon" and may provide additional information regarding that will assist Jefferson County in planning for salmon recovery. A Limiting Factors Report was recently prepared for WRIA 20, which covers part of the bull trout habitat.14 As Limiting Factors Reports for eastern Jefferson County watersheds become available pertinent information will be incorporated into Jefferson County recovery plans. 14 Washington State Conservation Commission. April 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 20, North Coastal Streams. 17 S t a f f D r a f t Table 1. Factors for Decline from the Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan (final draft dated March 23, 1999) Jefferson , Salmon Snow Chim UtQuil B gQuil Dose Duck County Stock Status Der y Der extinct Der Der Der De r Ran a RM p -2.0 0 -3.0 0 -3.0 0 -3.0 0-4.8 04.3 0 -3.0 Factors Flow winter 3? 3 2 2 12 1 11 summer ? 3 2 3 3 0 0 Water quality tern ? 2 2 - 10 0 DO, FC 1 1 1? p Sediment A radativn 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 De radativn 0 0 0 p 0 0 p Fines 2 i3 3 2 2 0 0 Channel Complex! LWD 3 3 1 3 3 3 w3 Channel Condition 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 Loss of side 2 3 1 3 3 2 ;2 channel Channel instabifi 1? Riparian Condition Species 2 3 2 I3 - 2 2 2 Composition ;A e 2 3 3 'I3 3 ;3 '2 Extent Flood lain Loss 3 1 3- 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 I Subestua 2 3 ' 1 i3 3 2 2 I Fish 2 1 0 1 0 0 Access /Passa e i2 I Mearshore ? Habitat mti c. - •�••• • +.••�•ia� i%cvV V VI.Y r"" Muwcateu tnat a rating of 1 was a slight impact, a rating of 2 was a moderate impact, and a rating of 3 was a significant impact to the decline of Hood Canai summer chum. A question mark by itself meant that the factor was unknown. A question mark next to a rating number meant that there was some question as to the rating, but that the rating was based on the best available information. `l 18 S t a f f D! r a f t As shown in Table 1, the following habitat factors are of limiting to Hood Canal summer churn in eastern Jefferson County: flow; water quality; sediment; degraded channel conditions; blocked fish access; and, subestuary conditions (diking, roads, filling, excavations). These factors are discussed in the ESA Strategy section of this document. Factors for Recovery While the factors for decline are critical for understanding the history of watershed degradation and the impacts to summer chum salmon, it is equally important to identify the factors for recovery. Many of the practices that contributed to the decline of Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound Chinook salmon, such as logging, development, agriculture, diking and dredging, occurred under a much different regulatory framework than exists today. The Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan includes a discussion of factors for recovery, intended to identify the particular activities and habitat measures that will help to recover Hood Canal summer chum salmon populations and habitat. This report summarizes the factors for recovery by watershed in tabular format. The factors for recovery include restoration requirements for habitat degradation, and protection strategies to prevent further habitat degradation and to protect existing high quality habitat. Table 2 summarizes the factors for recovery and presents the restoration and protective measures required. These factors for recovery represent many of the same issues in the proposed Section 4(d) Rule development standards. Table 3 cross - references the factors for recovery with the proposed Section 4(d) Rule standards for development. 19 S t a f f D r a f t Table 2. Factors for Recovery from the Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Hahitat Roravery flan tA/Faroh '71 1000 An "X" indicates that the factor was identified in the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan for the specific river or stream watershed listed. Although not identified by the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, many of the specific restoration and protection strategies would benefit all streams and rivers in Jefferson County. An absence of an "X" means that the strategy was not identified for summer chum recovery, but could be important for recovery of other saimonid species. i 20 RESTORATION STRATEGIES E LIU a± a .4 A D V O Remove Riprap or Replace with Bioengineered Materials X X X Create Stable Log Jams X X X X X X Restore Sinuosity to the Stream Channel X X X X Replant Riparian Forest X X X X X Fence Livestock from Stream X X Establish Functional Riparian Forest Buffer X X X X Reduce Sediment Aggradation from FS Land X X Remove Dikes and Purchase Property X X X X X X Convert Estuarine Roads to Causeways X X X X Improve Connections to Tidal Channels X X X X X Restore Floodplain X X X PROTECTION STRATEGIES Purchase Estuary / Subestuary Property X X X X X Protect Wetland Habitat X Assess Sediment Sources X Control Sediment Inputs X X X Protect Existing Riparian Forest X X X X X Assess Stormwater Sources X Conduct Assessment of Water Withdrawals X X X Protect Estuary X X X X X Protect Flood pla in/Cha nnel Migration Zone X X X An "X" indicates that the factor was identified in the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan for the specific river or stream watershed listed. Although not identified by the Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, many of the specific restoration and protection strategies would benefit all streams and rivers in Jefferson County. An absence of an "X" means that the strategy was not identified for summer chum recovery, but could be important for recovery of other saimonid species. i 20 r r S t a f f D r a f t Table 3. Matrix of Factors for Recovery from the Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of.luan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan (March 23, 1999 draft) with the development standards listed in the Proposed Draft Section 4(d) Rule An "X" indicates that the protection strategy addresses one of the development standards in the proposed Section 4(d) Mule. * Other requirements for development standards include: Provide all enforcement, funding, monitoring and implementation mechanisms needed to assure that the development will comply with the ordinances. Develo men Standards in the Proposed Section 4 d Rule'" C vi ' � •Ca � � -O R U L � Vi 'C C J�z 4 W C C L 6Q CU CL yo L G_ o R a u b 3E Cd L C3 G Q Yom. C S eC Y 7 G o m a o o c c o a C- ; a, t= PROTECTION STRATEGIES C Q y Q '� I= CC = Purchase Estuary / Subcstuary Property X X Protect Wetland Habitat X X X X Assess Sediment Sources X X Control Sediment Inputs X X X X Protect Existing Riparian Forest X X X X X Assess Stormwater Sources X X Conduct Assessment of Water X Withdrawals Protect Estuary X X X X X Protect Flood plain/C han nel Migration X X X X X Zone An "X" indicates that the protection strategy addresses one of the development standards in the proposed Section 4(d) Mule. * Other requirements for development standards include: Provide all enforcement, funding, monitoring and implementation mechanisms needed to assure that the development will comply with the ordinances. S t a f f D r a f t ELEMENTS OF A JEFFERSON COUNTY ESA STRATEGY Jefferson County must continue to perform the routine services of local government. In performing the routine services of local government, Jefferson County is vulnerable to ESA- compliance issues because some of these activities -- both direct actions and permitting decisions -- may have an incidental affect on listed salmonid species or their habitat, but believes those potential impacts can be mitigated. The impact of permitting decisions on ESA - compliance will be addressed in the planned development code update that was discussed earlier in this document. The direct activities, however, must also be addressed. The proposed Section 4(d) Rule limitations to the take prohibition include: 1. Activities conducted in accord with ESA incidental take authorization; 2. Ongoing scientific research for up to six months; 3. Emergency actions related to injured, stranded or dead salmon; 4. Fishery management activities; 5. Hatchery and genetic management activities; 6. Activities in compliance with joint Tribal/State plans; 7. Scientific research permitted or conducted by the state; 8. State, local, and private habitat restoration activities, 9. Properly screened water diversion devices; 10. Road maintenance activities in Oregon; 11. Certain park maintenance activities in the City of Portland; 12. Certain development activities within urban areas; and., 13. Forest mana ement activities in the State of Washington. Jefferson County has regulatory and direct activity impacts on items 48, 10, 11, 12 and 13. The following lists provide an overview of the proposed Section 4(d) limitations and the way that Jefferson County can avoid taking summer chum and chinook through habitat protection and mitigations. State, Local, and Private Habitat Restoration Activities The potential impacts that require habitat restoration activities include: 1. Sediment input to streams; 2. Nutrient loading to streams; 3. Lack of riparian vegetation; 4. Decrease in LWD recruitment; 5. Channel modifications; 6. Degradation of stream channel. Jefferson County will continue with restoration activities by: 1. Continue to work with landowners to limit activities in riparian buffer; 2. Support the Conservation District and other local restoration groups; 3. Participate in Watershed Planning; 4. Coordinate restoration efforts through watershed scale conservation plans, 22 i; g :i I i i i S t a f f D r a f t Road Maintenance and Construction The potential impacts of road maintenance and construction include the individual and cumulative impacts of: I . Intrusion of roads into riparian habitat; 2. Increased sediment loading to streams; 3. Contamination of streams by hazardous substances that wash off roads; 4. Use of herbicides and pesticides in road maintenance; 5. Stream blockages; 6. Increasing the magnitude and frequency of peak flows by more rapid runoff of stormwater to streams. The adverse impacts will be mitigated by: I . Following the NMFS- sanctioned guidelines and BMPs for transportation maintenance and emergency road repair operations; 2. Review County road maintenance practices, including training, monitoring, compliance and reporting, to ensure compliance with BMPs; 3. Systematically review current County road maintenance practices to identify and correct areas of concern; 4. Adoption and implementation of a Jefferson County stormwater management plan 5. Continue the County policy of not applying herbicides for road maintenance; 6. Continued compliance with State permitting requirements and with SEPA review; 7. Continue to identify and repair /replace problem culverts in the County; 8. Size culverts appropriately for the hydrologic requirements of fish passage. Management of Resource Lands; Management of Parks, Preserves & Open Spaces The potential impacts from the management of resource lands, parks, preserves, and open spaces includes. I. Intrusion in the riparian buffer, altering the riparian vegetation with loss of LWD and organic material recn- itment; 2. Increased stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, reducing infiltration and increasing peak flows; 3. Runoff of herbicides and pesticides applied for landscaping; 4. Sediment transport to streams during clearing and grading; 5. Sediment and nutrient transport to streams during resource land management; 6. Channel modification; 7. Runoff of herbicides and pesticides applied for landscaping; S. Irrigation and water withdrawals. The impacts of these activities will be mitigated by: 1. Update County requirements regarding native vegetation and protection of riparian buffer; 2. Limit use of herbicides and pesticides on County lands or develop Integrated Pest Management Plans for these lands; 3. Develop conservation easements with willing landowners to protect fish habitat; 23 w S t a f f D r a f t 4. Consider removal of problem subestuary structures as part of flood plain management; 5. Regulate clearing and grading activities so that fish habitat and water quality is protected; 6. Update Stormwater Ordinance to develop regulatory and design standards to mimic natural flows and infiltration; 7. Adopt and implement a Jefferson County stormwater management plan. Development Activities The potential adverse impacts of residential, commercial and subdivision permitting and development include: 1. Intrusion in the riparian buffer, altering the riparian vegetation with loss of LWD and organic material recruitment; 2. Increased amount of impervious surfaces; 3. Increased stormwater runoff_ reducing infiltration and increasing peak flows; 4.. Increase in septic discharges reaching streams; 5. Channelization of streams; 6. Runoff of herbicides and pesticides applied for landscaping; 7. Sediment transport to streams during clearing and grading; 8. Water withdrawals. The potential impact of these activities will be mitigated by: 1. Enforce riparian buffers that protect salmon habitat; 2. Develop maps to identify watershed areas of particular concern; 3. Develop conservation easements with willing landowners to protect fish habitat; 4. Restrict development in 100 -year floodplain according to recommendations developed under floodplain management planning and watershed planning; 5. Implement an on -site septic system operations and maintenance program (including a public education segment); 6. Adoption and implementation of a Jefferson County surface water management plan; 7. Regulate clearing and grading activities so that ESA- protected habitat and water quality are protected; 8. Adopt performance standards to ensure that stormwater runoff does not impact surface water quantity or quality. If the revised State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual is determined to be compliant with the final Section 4(d) Rule, adopt the revised Manual; 9. Maintain low population density in rural areas that do not have infrastructure to support high levels of development through the adopted zoning code; 10. Limit development activities if the State Department of Ecology finds that water is not available for allocation; 11. Perform a basin -by -basin study of impervious surfaces to assess potential impacts from development; 12. Consider incentives for low- impact development. 24 S t a f f D r a f t Forestry The potential adverse impacts of forestry activities include: 1. Increased sediment; 2. Loss of riparian canopy; 3. Lower recruitment of LWD; 4. Loss of channel complexity; 5. Increased surface water runoff; b. Decreased groundwater recharge; The County authority in regulated forestry activities is limited, however, the impacts of forestry that are under the County jurisdiction can be mitigated by: 1. Compliance with the State forest practices regulations. A County ESA strategy based on the proposed Section 4(d) rule address many of the factors for decline and recovery listed in the Hood Canal Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan. The factors for decline that are pertinent to Jefferson County include: flow; water quality; sediment; channel conditions; fish access; and, subestuary factors. Flow Flow problems under County jurisdiction can be addressed by: 1. Limiting development activities in basins that are closed to further water withdrawals (including exempt wells) if the State Department of Ecology determines that water is not available for allocation; 2. Updating the County ordinances to enhance the protection of ESA - listed species and habitat by providing increased riparian habitat protections; 3. Encouraging development standards that will maximize and retain open space and preserve riparian corridors and wetlands; 4. Adopting revisions to stormwater standards based on the update Department of Ecology Manual if the Manual is found to be Section 4(d) compliant; 5. Emphasize water conservation and reuse; 6. Completing a surface water management plan and revising the Stormwater Ordinance to adopt methodologies and technologies to minimize stormwater inputs from development into streams and rivers. Water Quality (Temperature and Nutrients) Water quality can be improved with the following actions by Jefferson County: 1. Require adequate riparian buffer to protect water quality; 2. Encourage the voluntary use of conservation easements; 3. Work with the Jefferson County Conservation District and landowners to modify agricultural practices to protect the riparian buffer; 4. Continue to require operations and maintenance (O & M) for onsite sewage disposal systems. This provision is consistent with state law that requires all counties to have an O & M program by the year 2000; and, 5. Adopt a Surface Water Management Plan. 25 * r y r S t a f f D r a f t Sediment Sediment impacts will be reduced by: 1. Identify watershed areas of particular concern based on soil type, geologic formation, and land use through the watershed planning effort; 2. Develop clearing and grading standards to ensure that sediment does not impact riparian habitats; 3. Maintaining roads with NMFS- sanctioned Best Management Practices; 4. Review and update, if necessary, the Stormwater Water Ordinances for erosion and sediment control; 5. Adopt requirements to assure that development minimizes sediment entry into streams. 6. Adopt Operations and Maintenance requirements in the Stormwater Program, Channel Conditions Jefferson County's strategy to address problems with channel and riparian conditions will be to: 1. Update the 100 -year flood plain map; 2. Restrict development in the 100 -year flood plain based on recommendations developed during flood plain management planning and watershed planning; 3. Restrict the use of bank armoring during the update of the Shoreline Master Program; 4. Review and update Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to ensure that development in floodplains does not interfere with river hydrology. 5. Protect riparian habitat by requiring an adequate riparian buffer that will recruit large woody debris and protect stream channel functions. Fish Access Jefferson County's strategy to address problems with fish passage will be to: 1. Assure that County projects do not block fish passage through compliance with WDFW Hydraulic Permit Process or use larger culverts sizing, if necessary, to provide adequate fish passage; 2. Continue to identify and repair /replace problem culverts in the County; 3, Continue to seek funding for improving fish passage for culverts on County roads and property. Subestuary Diking/RoadsTillingff xcavation Jefferson County's strategy to address problems with subestuary conditions will be to: 1. Seek funding and property owner concurrence for removal of problem structures as part of flood plain management; 2. Comply with the Army Corps of Engineers permits that prohibit incidental take of endangered or threatened species; 3. Update the Shoreline Master Program to ensure that the permit process for these structures is protective of salmon riparian and nearshore habitat. Nearshore Habitat Jefferson County's strategy to address problems with nearshore habitat will be to: 1. Update the Shoreline Management Master Program to be consistent with NMFS- approved standards; 26 Y S t a f f D r a f t 2. Provide adequate monitoring and enforcement of the updated rules; 3. Work with the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee and the Northwest Straits Commission to develop information about the nearshore resources of Jefferson County. Factors for Decline and Recovery Outside of County Jurisdiction Summer chum and chinook salmon populations have declined because of the combined impacts of habitat degradation, overfishing, hydropower operations, competition and predation from hatchery- produced salmon and steelhead, and ocean conditions that have decreased smolt survival. Many of these factors are outside of the County's authority. For recovery to occur, impacts from all factors causing habitat degradation and fish population declines must be addressed, such as: • Hatchery activities managed by WDFW and U.S. FWS; • Fisheries harvest managed by Federal Agencies, State Fish and Wildlife, and Tribes; • Mining practices regulated by the State Department of Natural Resources; + Logging practices on state and private lands managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources; • Logging practices on federal lands managed by the USDA Forest Service; * Land use activities on federal lands within the external County boundaries (e.g., U.S. Navy land on Indian Island and on the Toandos Peninsula); • Water withdrawals permitted by the State as allowed under State Law; • Water withdrawals with a permit exemption as allowed under State Law; • Water conservation and reuse: + Exemptions defined in the State Environmental Policy Act; • Projects under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers; • Shellfish harvest on State lands; • Commercial shellfish harvest operations; + Activities of the State Department of Transportation related to the impacts of state highways and state ferries; • Construction, operations, and maintenance of state and federal highways; and, • Farming practices regulated by the State Department of Agriculture and Department of Ecology. MONITORING & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Monitoring is a critical component of an effective environmental protection program. Monitoring is especially critical to assure NMFS that the ESA program is being protective of salmonid habitat. An ESA monitoring program will provide information for three essential components required by NMFS: (1) Reporting to NMFS on compliance with an approved Section 4(d) Rule exemption; (2) Supporting County enforcement of the rules and regulations and, (3) Updating standards through an adaptive management program. 27 S t a f f D r a f t Jefferson County's monitoring program will be developed and will include: • Monitoring impacts to water quality, water quantity, and habitat; • Monitoring permitting activities; • Monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of controls; • Monitoring the impact of County activities for ESA compliance. i Jefferson County will need to utilize an "adaptive management" strategy in its ESA response. Adaptive management is a term that refers to the need to build in "flexibility" into standards and programs so that as new information is obtained, the regulations and programs can be modified to accommodate that information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS Salmon are an important part of our culture and important to the citizens of Jefferson County. The staff recommendation is that Jefferson County make necessary revisions to its activities and ordinances and to seek Section 4(d) Rule protection for its activities that impact ESA- listed species and habitat. This path has the dual function of providing regulatory certainty for Jefferson County and identifies a route for salmon recovery in Jefferson County. To comply with the standards in the draft Section 4(d) Rule, Jefferson County will have to change both ordinances and County activities. Increased staffing, including additional technical staff, will be needed to develop and implement this program. In order for a County ESA program to be effective, a strong public outreach component is needed. Technical input is critical during the update of the development regulations. The recovery of Hood Canal summer chum and Puget Sound chinook is likely only when habitat protection and restoration activities that are described in this document are coupled with changes that are needed in harvest and hatchery management. Jefferson County is only a part of an overall recovery plan. The circumstances that have lead to the decline of salmonid populations are complex. Effective recovery strategies also will be complex. 28 x { S t a f f D r a f t REFERENCES Point No Point Treaty Council, Skokomish Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallarn Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 23, 1999. Hood Canal /Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, Final Draft. Lichatowich, Jim. 1993. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of Eastern Jefferson County. Prepared for the Dungeness - Quilcene Pilot Project, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Seduim, WA. National Research Council, 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR- 4501 -96 -6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. 1994. The Dungeness - Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan. June 30, 1994. Prepared by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Coordinating Entity for the Regional Planning Group. The Forest and Fish Report is dated April 29, 1999. The authors of the report include: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10); the Washington Governor's Office; the Washington Department of Natural Resources; the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Washington Department of Ecology; the Colville Confederated Tribes; the Washington State Association of Counties; the Washington Forest Protection Association; and, the Washington Farm Forestry Association. y x S t a f f D r a f t APPENDIX A REVIEW OF .JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES In order to make recommendations for ESA compliance and attempting to meet the Section 4(d) Rule threshold, the County ordinances and policies were reviewed. This review of Jefferson County ordinances is primarily from the perspective of salmon habitat protection, compliance with the ESA, and Section 4(d) considerations. This section considers the following Jefferson County ordinances and plans: • Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (05.0509 -94), The interim Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is designed to identify and protect critical areas against "development proposals that pose adverse environmental impacts which threaten public health, safety and welfare." The CAO allows for "tradeoffs among economic. social and environmental values." The CAO attempts to minimize the intrusion on individual rights to develop land. • Stormwater Management Ordinance (10- 1104 -96) , The Stormwater Management Ordinance adopts the technical guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) of the State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual (the "manual ") by reference. The BMPs currently represent best available scientific information regarding site - specific activities that minimize impacts from stormwater. • Forest Lands Ordinance (01-0121-97), The Forest Lands Ordinance sets criteria for forest land designation, but does not specify forest practice standards. The Forest Lands Ordinance attempts to: sustain forest resource operations; alleviate pressure to convert to more intense, non- forest uses; and, ensure that development on adjacent lands is compatible with forest management and other activities on forest land. • Interim Timber Conversion Policy (Resolution 37 -90), The intent of the Interim Timber Conversion Policy is: to allow harvesting of forest products; require that offsite impacts of forest lands to be converted are addressed; and to ensure that harvested lands are reforested. • Mineral Lands Ordinance (09- 0525 -95), The Mineral Lands Ordinance sets criteria for mineral land designation, but does not specify standards for operations and activities in mineral lands. The Ordinance focuses on protecting the economic viability of mining operations and resource lands for further development and not on protecting the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral lands operations. 30 S t a f f D r a f t • Agricultural Lands Ordinance (08- 0525 -95), The Agricultural Lands Ordinance sets criteria for agricultural land designation (agriculture lands of long -term commercial significance), but does not specify standards for operations and activities in agricultural lands. The permitted uses on agriculture lands extend beyond what generally is considered agriculture. • On -Site Sewa a Disposal Code Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.15); The purpose of the On -Site Sewage regulations is to protect public health from the effects of exposure to sewage; to establish design standards for on -site sewage systems; and protect environmentally sensitive areas from sewage. • County Comprehensive Plan; The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was adopted to comply with the State Growth Management Act. The intent of the Plan is serve as a decision - making tool for determining future growth and development in the County. • Clearing and Grading Jefferson County currently does not have clearing and grading controls. A discussion of the need for clearing and grading controls also is included in this review. Additional ordinances and policies will be affected. These ordinances will be updated with other ordinances and should incorporate ESA protections: • Shorelines Management Master Program The Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program presents a plan to balance reasonable uses with the management and protection of the County's shorelines. The Plan was not reviewed in this analysis because it currently is undergoing significant revisions that are expected to be completed in the Fall of 2000. • Subdivision Ordinance ffo. 04- 0526 -92) The Subdivision Ordinance establishes criteria for subdividing lands based on the approved zoning map and land use designations, and requires compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, and Jefferson County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, the Stormwater Management Ordinance and other codes. The Ordinance contains measures that will encourage "cluster development" that minimizes impervious surfaces, roads, and infrastructure and creates opportunities for stormwater retention/detention facilities and designated open space. • State Environmental Policy Act Implementing Ordinance The County SEPA Ordinance contains the County procedures and policies to implement the State Environmental Policy Act. • Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (18- 1120 -95) The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance is intended to: protect the public; minimize the expenditure of public money for flood control projects; minimize the impacts to business and public facilities from floods; ensure that buyers of property are notified if the properties are located in flood areas; and, ensure that those occupying flood areas assume responsibility for their decision. Jefferson County is required by the GMA to update ordinances, policies and procedures to support the Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County has begun the process to update 31 i S t a f f D r a f t the development and land use ordinances under a Uniform Development Code and has allocated funds to complete the task over approximately a two -year time period. The revision of development ordinances will include creation of three new ordinances (ciearing and grading, enforcement, and forest practices) and the revision of the following ordinances: Zoning Code Subdivision Ordinance Critical Areas Ordinance SEPA Implementing Ordinance Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance Resource Lands Ordinances (Forest Lands, Agriculture Lands, Mineral Lands) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Stormwater Management Ordinance Shoreline Master Program The revision of development and land use ordinances will occur regardless of ESA - driven concerns. This ordinance update could incorporate scientifically supportable, habitat protective changes required for a Section 4(d) exemption. As discussed in detail earlier in this document, the development standards that are proposed under the NMFS Section 4(d) Rule. and are, in large part, the basis for this review are: 1. Site development in appropriate areas. 2. Avoid stormwater discharge impacts of new development. 3. Require adequate riparian buffers. 4. Avoid stream crossings by roads. 5. Protect historic stream meander patterns, flood plains and channel migration zones. Do not allow hardening of stream banks. 6. Protect wetlands. 7. Preserve the hydrologic capacity of all intermittent and perennial streams. 8. Landscape to reduce the need for herbicide. pesticide and fertilizer applications. 9. Prevent erosion and sediment runoff from constriction. 10. Assure that the new water supply demands of` development will not impact flows needed for salmonids. 11. Commit to regularly monitor and maintain detention basins. 12. Provide all enforcement, funding, monitoring and implementation mechanisms needed to assure that the development will comply with the ordinances. Table A -1 depicts how the proposed regulatory structure and County programs will address the protection of habitat, as proposed in the draft Section 4(d) Rule development standards. 32 S t a f f D r a f t Table Al. Matrix of draft Section 4(d) Rule development requirements compared to the Jefferson County development codes. [Note: An "X" indicates that the factor will be addressed with the update of the specific ordinance or program for 4(d) Rule compliance] Ordinances and Programs C c E c c 0 o 0 •� m tZ c M c c � � a R :9 0 N O 7► d c c p �p O M 2 .j m y CA o) 5 •E L w+ V .+ 1_ 2 `4; W 'a L c o 3 d 1° V a; c a c .c °o E = = �. Z °a 0) Draft Section 4(d) Development Requirements U _ LL F= O vn ° cn 0 v _oo u_ v � C Appropriate Siting X X X X X X Avoid impacts of stormwater / regularly monitor and X X X X X X X maintain detention basins Have adequate riparian buffers X X X X X X X X X Avoid stream crossings by roads X X X X X X X Protect stream meander patterns, flood plains and X X X X X X channel migration zones Protect wetlands X I X X X X X X X Preserve hydrologic capacity X I X X X X X X Appropriate Landscaping X X Prevent erosion and runoff X X X X X X Assure that new water supply demands will not X X X impact flows Provide all enforcement, funding, monitoring and X X X X X X X X X X X implementation [Note: An "X" indicates that the factor will be addressed with the update of the specific ordinance or program for 4(d) Rule compliance] S t o f f D r a f t Brief Conclusions from the Ordinance Review: • Site- Specific v. Uniform Standards: The County must decide what type of regulatory structure to apply in order to have protective, defensible standards in land use activities -- site - specific flexible standards v. uniform minimum standards. • Best Available Science: County ordinances and policies that impact the environment must be based on scientific principles of habitat and environmental protection. Standards should reflect best available science for protection of salmonid habitat. In addition to the guidance on selecting best available science that is being developed at the state level, the County should develop a way to identify, catalog and use best available science in specific habitat areas. • Focus of Ordinances: The goals of environmental and habitat protection and the use of best available science should be incorporated into the objectives of County land use ordinances and policies to enhance salmonid protection. • Exemptions from Minimum Standards: The basis for any exemptions from minimum protective standards must be documented, based on best available science, and must be protective of listed species and their habitat. When ordinances are amended, language similar to that found in the Stormwater Ordinance, "any provision of any other County ordinance conflicts with this ordinance, that which provides more environmental protection shall apply ..." should be added. • Cumulative Effects: The County should measure and consider the cumulative environmental effects of individual projects. Activities with long -term or irreversible effects or projects located in especially sensitive areas must be evaluated for cumulative effects and not exempted from regulation or review because of the individual size of the project. • Buffers: The riparian buffers provided in the Critical Areas Ordinance should be enhanced to provide additional protection for salmonid species and habitat. The County should evaluate and adopt riparian buffer standards that maintain a functioning river ecosystem. • Triggering Permits: The County should develop a means to regulate activities that do not otherwise require a permit, but have a significant adverse impact to water quality and fish habitat, such as clearing and grading activities. • Compliance and Enforcement: To enhance the protection of salmonid species and obtain Section 4(d) protection, the County must improve compliance with the protective standards. When special permit conditions are used, those conditions must be clear, enforceable and monitored for compliance. Discussion of Ordinance Review Issues Enforcement and Compliance In order to enhance the protection of salmonid species and habitat, the County must foster voluntary compliance. It is unwise, and probably not possible, to force compliance on an unwilling regulated community for a program with the broad scope of the ESA. In order for the community to comply with County requirements, clear, understandable, 34 S t a f f D r a f t enforceable codes are needed, and the public must be aware of the rationale for such standards. A public outreach and education program is needed to raise public awareness of the impacts of land use activities on salmonid habitat. Clear, understandable, enforceable codes will help to ensure that cases of noncompliance can be successfully remedied. An effective and timely inspection program is needed for a successful enforcement program. A code compliance officer will be valuable. In order to be most effective, though, a compliance officer must be able to rely on codes and permit conditions that are clearly written and verifiable_ Staff in all County departments that issue permits should receive training in enforcement issues so that the permits that they write are enforceable and so that enforceable cases can be developed when noncompliance is discovered. The County must demonstrate to NMFS that protective standards are effective because those standards will be maintained through voluntary compliance and effective enforcement. Site Specific vs. Uniform Standards There is a natural tension between the perfect fit of site - specific standards and the administrative ease and perceived fairness of uniformly applied minimum standards. On one hand, it is easy to determine compliance with strict minimum standards. The protectiveness of uniform standards does not rely on uncertain, and, perhaps. inconsistent staff application; the application of uniform standards is more likely to be consistent and fair. On the other hand, site conditions vary and protective solutions specifically designed for each site (or site type) can have a better likelihood of providing adequate protection while allowing the property owner use of a site. Applying site - specific standards will not result in regulatory uniformity and may appear to be inconsistent and unfair. The impacts of site- specific vs. uniform standards to staffing also must be considered. Compared to uniform standards, site - specific standards require more staff resources and staff that is more highly trained. Permit Conditions A frequent solution for the regulatory tension between site - specific standards and uniform standards is to grant exemptions from minimum standards with accompanying mitigation requirements. The resource commitment of routinely requiring additional mitigation measures in lieu of changing standards should not be overlooked. Permit conditions can require the same staffing requirements as site - specific standards because of the need for follow -up and monitoring. Extra permit conditions and required mitigation measures must be applied carefully to ensure that these are actually implemented, effective and maintained. For example, if native species plantings are required in a riparian buffer, a monitoring plan is required to ensure that the plantings are maintained and function over time. The reality of staffing constraints often means that such requirements may not be verified or monitored and that minimum standards may be waived without assurances of adequate mitigation. The County should consider innovative ways to assure that required mitigation measures are implemented. 35 S t a f f D >r a f t Best Available Science The current land use policies and ordinances are, like most laws, reflections of a balance between public good (in this case, environmental protection), cost, and private rights. Existing County land use laws are based, in large part, on the State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. They are not driven by the ESA or habitat requirements to protect ESA species, nor are they, for the most part, based on best available science I (although the GMA was amended in 1995 to require the use of best available science in protecting the functions of critical areas). 15 No County regulations require the use of best available science, although the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan calls for the use of J best available science. G e c nee. There is no requirement for objective scientific evaluation of species and habitat requirements in decisions to allow exceptions from protective requirements. There appear to be more onerous conditions for increasing the stringency 1 of requirements than for decreasing the stringency of requirements. The County must be able to demonstrate that any exceptions or variances to minimum standards will be protective, supported by science, and not arbitrarily applied. Even the Critical Areas Ordinance considers the needs of salmonid species and their habitat subordinate to the protection of the broader goals of the GMA and to enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Jefferson County. 18 While the Comprehensive Plan and the ESA suggest the use of "best available science ", deciding what actually constitutes "best available science" could become a contentious issue. Common definitions have included reliance on a qualified scientific expert and on valid scientific studies.19 In order to enhance the application of "best available science" in decision - making, the County should begin to identify, evaluate and organize the scientific information that is relevant specifically to the County's environment. The County could evaluate its current library and add relevant references, including the references supported by NMFS as best available science: the Hood Canal. Summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, 20 the Forest and Fish Report, 21 and the ManTech Report. 22 15 "In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries." 16 (RC W 36.70A. 1 72(l)). For example, see Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Water Resources Policy ENP 1.3, Page 8 -44, Environment Action Item 96, Page 8-45, Environment Action Item #22, Page 8-46, Critical Areas Strategy Action Item 94, and Page 8 -47, Critical Areas Strategy Action Item #11. `� See, for example, the requirements for the Administrator to increase a wetlands buffer width in the CAO Section 6.507 vs, the requirements to reduce a buffer width in CAO Section 6.506. !s See Sections 1.20.1 and 10.20 of the Critical Areas Ordinance. 19 One proposal regarding what constitutes a valid scientific process was put forward on July 23, 1999 in a pre - rulemaking discussion draft by the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and includes the following characteristics: peer review; reliable, valid methodology; logical conclusions and reasonable inferences; appropriate quantitative analysis; appropriate context within the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge; and, citations to relevant, credible literature. 20 Hood Canal /Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Churn Habitat Recovery Plan. Final Draft, March 23, 1999. Prepared by the Point No Point Treaty Council, Skokomish Tribe, Port Gamble 36 S t a f f D r a f t Impact of Additional Requirements The Critical Areas Ordinance is the most obvious vehicle to apply ESA - mandated protections, although it is important to note that these protections would apply only to new or on -going activities and will not address past activities. The Shoreline Master Program may be a similar vehicle for ESA - mandated impacts to the nearshore environment and many rivers and streams in Jefferson County. Some activities that can adversely impact ESA habitat and species do not require a triggering permit from the County. The County should develop a way to regulate activities that can impact ESA habitat and species even if the activity does not require a permit. Among the most significant non - regulated activities in the County are clearing and grading activities that do not otherwise require a permit. (The currently budgeted work on the County Unified Development Code includes the development of clearing and grading provisions.) Staffing requirements and the extra burden that ESA compliance will bring to Jefferson County is probably the most significant obstacle the County faces. The burden faced by Jefferson County is large and only minimal state or federal funding will be available to meet staffing needs. The County should consider alternative ways to fund additional staff or, at least, to increase access to specific expertise, such as specific scientific or enforcement expertise. Perhaps the County could establish a program of cross - training staff in areas where workload is high and numbers of knowledgeable staff is low. Another solution might be for the County to develop a central pool of internal County staff "consultants" that can be accessed for specific reviews, or to formally share staff that has needed expertise between departments. However it is accomplished, through specific training, hiring of new staff with needed expertise or sharing expert staff between departments, the County must have trained staff to make and support defensible decisions that are based on best available science. Review of Specific Ordinances Interim Critical Areas Ordinance The Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is the land use ordinance with the most comprehensive environmental scope. As discussed below, however, the CAO should be revised to enhance protection of fish habitat necessary to comply with ESA. S'Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S %lallam Tribe, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 21 The Forest and Fish Report is dated April 29, 1999. The authors of the report include: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 10); the Washington Governor's Office; the Washington Department of Natural Resources; the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Washington Department of Ecology., the Colville Confederated Tribes; the Washington State Association of Counties; the Washington Forest Protection Association; and, the Washington Farm Forestry Association. 22 Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. TR -4501 -96 -6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp. Corvallis, OR. 37 4 r I V S t a f f D r a f t Focus The focus of the CAO is on protecting against threats to human health, safety and welfare. "The purpose of this ordinance is to protect critical areas against development proposals that pose adverse environmental impacts which threaten public health, safety and welfare." (CAO § 1.20.1, emphasis added). There is no mention of preserving critical areas strictly for habitat protection or species protection. This focus is carried forward in the ordinance's definitions. In § 10, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, the purpose is stated as (emphasis added): 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 §1. 201. This ties the purpose of the Habitat Area section back to the human- focused goals of § 1.20.1. The focus on humans, instead of habitat function and critical species can result in harm to critical habitat. The County should strive to protect fish habitat in addition to protecting the needs of its citizens. The CAO should rely on best available science to protect fish habitat. The 1995 amendments to the GMA require the use of "best available science" in designating and protecting critical areas: RCW 36.70A.172 Critical areas -- Designation and protection -- Best available science to be used. (1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. [1995 c 347 § 105.] Definitions The definition of "endangered, threatened or sensitive species" in the CAO is limited to those species listed by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Although WDFW may update the state list to include federal listings, the County definition should be expanded to cover those species listed by NMFS and the U.S. FWS. A similar situation exists for the definition of "priority species." `Ihe definition of "fish and wildlife habitat areas" is limited to the presence of specified plant and animal species. The definition should be expanded to include habitat areas impacted by an ESA listing. The definition of "salmonid" should be expanded to include bull trout. The definition of "wetland buffer" extends to riparian areas, but, again, is focused on humans (e.g., "... necessary to protect the public from losses suffered when the functions and values of aquatic resources are degraded. "). Nonconforming, Uses Section 3.50 lists legal nonconforming uses under the CAO, including: • Existing non - buffered structures and uses; and, • Non - buffered vested uses and structures. 38 S t a f f D r a f t A legal nonconforming structure can be repaired and maintained or replaced after a calamity. The County should ensure that repair, maintenance and restoration activities do not cause additional damage or intrude further into a riparian buffer. The regulations should be structured so that it is clear that replacements or repairs may not encroach on salmon habitat, may not expand the structure, may not extend the use of the structure, and, where possible, encourage additional habitat restoration. This will reduce the future impacts of existing nonconforming uses on salmonid habitat. Exemptions The Administrator is authorized to "Make administrative decisions regarding waivers and exemptions from these regulations. "23 Written guidelines regarding exemptions from minimum requirements should be available to serve as a tool to support the Administrator's decisions. Section 5.203 exempts triggering applications for projects that were previously subject to critical areas review. A requirement to ensure that a project is compliant with current critical areas and ESA requirements may help to assure that up -to -date requirements are met. The provision for exemptions from standards adopted in the CAO should include definitive, objective performance criteria that are applied uniformly and are based on best available science and field verification, as needed, by staff. Given County staff resources, field visits for all exemptions would be difficult to justify, but the importance of verification monitoring cannot be overstated. The protection of habitat and use of best available science should be among the required findings for exemptions from protective minimum standards. If the Administrator clearly sets forth the basis for exemptions in writing, a record could be established to serve as a basis for evaluating the cumulative effects of such decisions. Exemptions must be protective of fish, habitat and ecosystem functions, both on a site -by -site basis and a cumulative- effects basis. 23 CAO Section 4.10. 39 x S t a f f D r a f t Buffers The issue of buffers is important because sufficient buffers enable proper river ecosystem functions to be maintained. Functions that are provided by buffers include shading by the tree canopy, woody debris input to stabilize river channels and provide habitat complexity, and infiltration of runoff to filter out sediments and pollutants. Section 6 provides standard widths for wetland buffers ranging from 150 feet for high intensity land uses of Class I wetlands to 25 feet of low intensity land uses of Class IV watersheds. 24 These standard buffer widths, especially the smaller buffer sizes, do not meet the proposed NMFS Section 4(d) standards and may not provide sufficient protection of habitat and ecosystem function. Section 6.507 allows the Administrator to increase the required buffer if necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This issue is much less important often if standard buffers that are sufficient to protect habitat are developed and required. In order to increase the standard buffer the Administrator must document one of several conditions including that the wetland is used by priority species as listed by WDWF. This listing should include all ESA - listed species, not merely those listed by WDFW. Standard Buffer Requirements are established in § 10.507. The buffer regulations are not based on best available science and do not provide sufficient protection. In order to protect riparian habitat, streamside buffer width averaging should be discontinued. Buffer enhancement plans should be required for all cases of reduced buffer widths. Buffer enhancements should consist of native species and composition. When possible, the buffer enhancement plans should be monitored for effectiveness and compliance, perhaps by requiring the applicant to submit documentation to show that the buffer enhancements arc maintained. The ordinance should include adaptive management processes to require additional conditions if the buffer enhancement plans are not as effective as expected. Marine shoreline buffers are addressed in the Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP), not in the Critical Areas Ordinance. If primary responsibility for marine shoreline buffers remains in the SMMP. the Critical Areas Ordinance should reference that program for ease of use. The adequacy of shoreline buffers for ESA requirements should be addressed when the SMMP is reviewed for ESA compliance. 25 An important component of the Critical Areas Ordinance buffers requirement is "buffer marking" (§ 6.504) that requires a notice to title for all buffers established for wetlands or fish and wildlife (stream) buffers. The intent of the title provision is to ensure that subsequent purchasers of the property are aware of the buffer and of their responsibility 24 The 4(d) rule proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service would require a riparian buffer of one site potential tree height (approximately 200 feet) from each side of the channel migration zone of all perennial and intermittent streams for "new urban development." (See 65 FR at 184, January 3, 2000). The proposed Section 4(d) rule does not address marine shoreline buffers. Unless the rule is modified before final adoption, there will be no 4(d) protection for these buffers and the County will have to rely on best available science to show that there is no harm to fish or habitat. 40 S t a f f D r a f t • f to maintain the buffer in native vegetation. The County should ensure that this provision is implemented because of the importance of maintaining functional riparian buffers. Updates Section 10.30 should be updated so that it automatically reflects the status of ESA listings. NMFS and the U.S. FWS should be considered reference sources for identifying habitat areas under Section 10.303. Staff Resources and Training Several provisions of the CAO require submittal of plans, reports or studies; for example, § 10.50 discusses submittal of a habitat management plan. The County should assure that the expertise is available to determine if a habitat management plan is adequate and protective, through existing staff resources or from other sources. Section 11.902 requires the person preparing a Habitat Management Plan to possess special qualifications. No less stringent qualifications should be applied to the staff that reviews such plans. 26 Additional Comments Section 11.402 Determining Accuracy & Sufficiency The Administrator is allowed only ten days within receipt of special reports to review the accuracy and sufficiency of the reports. This may not be sufficient time for the Administrator to give more than a cursory review to special reports, especially if the Administrator must hire outside expertise to assist in the review. Section 12.30 Reasonable Economic Use Variance The Hearing Examiner may grant a reasonable economic use variance that allows for adverse impacts on critical areas. This appears to be less stringent than the ESA that does not allow takings, although the CAO states that the variance must comply with all applicable federal law. The County should confer with NMFS on clarifying this issue so that the County can deal fairly with the questions that will be raised regarding property uses and vested projects. _Stormwater Management Ordinance The Washington Department of Ecology has recently released the public review drafts of the updated volumes I, 11, and IV of the "Stormwater Management Manual" to replace the previous 1992 version entitled "Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin." The updated manual incorporates new information and the new protective standards that will be important in the ESA discussion. Ecology expects to release a final version of the manuals in the year 2000. The County should review the draft manuals for consideration of adoption. Currently, the "Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound" provides the content requirement for the County stormwater ordinance. 26 The extension of this requirement to reviewing staff is implied but not explicit in the . Comprehensive Plan at B -6 on page 844. 41 S t a f f D r a f t Applicahility Section 2.4, Applicability, states that activities regulated under the Stormwater Management Ordinance include land use involving new development and redevelopment above certain thresholds, in addition to a list of other activities such as building permits, shoreline substantial development, class IV general forest practices permits, and conversion option harvest plans. The County can apply stormwater requirements to other land- disturbing activities if the County is aware of such activities. Clearing and grading requirements applied to activities that do not otherwise require a triggering permit could serve as an entry for all significant land disturbing activities into the stormwater management system. Section 2.4, Applicability, lists permit and development applications that are subject to the requirements of the ordinance making it appear that the ordinance is limited to those activities. Section 4. 1, on the other hand, lists land disturbing activities that are required to implement a stormwater management plan without mention of a required (or triggering) permit. It is not clear whether the ordinance is applied only to activities that require other permits. On -going stormwater maintenance of all projects should be addressed. Stormwater management and surface water management have two distinct components: Construction erosion control and post construction on -going management of stormwater generated by development. The Stormwater Ordinance addresses erosion controls during the construction phase, but does not adequately address the on -going operations and maintenance of projects that cumulatively impact water quality. Jefferson County must require both initial stormwater controls and ongoing stormwater management controls. Approval Standards Section 4.1 lists thresholds above which new development and redevelopment must prepare stormwater management plans. The County did not set the thresholds, but the County might consider determining whether there are significant adverse impacts to fish habitat within Jefferson County from cumulative impacts of development below the thresholds. Section 4.1.F applies the requirements of the stormwater management ordinance to specified activities, including development on existing sites with large amounts of impervious surfaces, development at sites where receiving water quality is poor, and sites where additional stormwater control measures are required. This section should be expanded to include areas where the receiving water is fish habitat or will adversely impact fish habitat for ESA - listed species. { I 42 S t a f f D r a f t Environmental Protection Section 2.3 of the Stormwater Management Ordinance requires that when "any provision of any other County ordinance conflicts with this ordinance, that which provides more environmental protection shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this ordinance." This language provides a "safety valve" for environmental protection that other land use ordinances do not provide. Similar language should be added to other County ordinances. Section 5.1 allows the Stormwater Administrator to vary from the performance standards of the Manual on specific written findings, including a finding that the variance provides equivalent environmental protection. The use of written findings may help the County to defend its decisions and will ensure consistency in applying exceptions to minimum. standards. Similar language should be added to other ordinances. Section 3.2, lists activities that are exempt from the requirements for a stormwater plan. The exemptions include commercial agriculture and forest practices regulated under WAC 222 (except for Class IV general forest practices permit applications that are conversions from timberland to other uses and conversion option harvest plans 27). Commercial agriculture and forest practices can cause significant adverse impacts from stormwater despite being exempt from stormwater provisions. Although the County has little authority over farm and forest practices, it should consider documenting adverse impacts to fish habitat related to these practices so that the County can determine the sources any adverse impacts. The forest lands that are exempt under the Stormwater Management Ordinance are those that are regulated under WAC 222, but it appears that not all of the uses permitted under the Jefferson County Forest Lands ordinance are regulated under WAC 222. Mining activities within certain thresholds, for example, are permitted uses under the Jefferson County Forest Lands Ordinance, but are not included in the definition of "forest practice" in the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Ordinance. Staff Training The staff that reviews stormwater management plans must continue to be offered training in stormwater engineering and management. Resources Section 4.1.1. refers to discharges to receiving waters that have a documented water quality problem. This section should be extended to waters that are fish habitat or impact fish habitat for ESA- listed species. 27 The language of the ordinance is not entirely clear, but class IV general forest practices permit applications are excluded from the exemption and, therefore, subject to the requirements for a stormwater management plan. Based on the extent of the proposed harvest, applicants are required to submit either a Small or Large Parcel Erosion Control Plan. 43 S t a f f D r a f t Forest Lands Ordinance and Interim Timber Conversion Polie The focus of the Forest Lands Ordinance is on designating areas as forest lands and not on forest practices. The County has little actual authority over forest practices unless a conversion to a non - forested use is requested. In the case of a Class IV general conversion, the County is the lead for SEPA. The County also has the authority to approve conversion option harvest plans (COHP) as part of an application to the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for a Class III permit. Class III forest practices are categorically exempt from SEPA review, 28 although the County requires a Critical Areas review and a Notice of Application is made (as described in the Land Use Procedures Ordinance). The ordinance does not specify forest practice standards. Among the forest land permitted uses that may have a significant adverse impact to ESA - listed species and fish habitat include, not only the activities necessary to the harvesting of timber, but also watershed management facilities (such as diversion devices, impoundments, dams, and hydroelectric generating facilities) and commercial mineral extraction. Jefferson County Resolution No. 37 -90, Interim Timber Conversion Policy, sets forth policy on timber conversions. This policy was never adopted as an ordinance and never received the review associated with a formal ordinance adoption. The policy includes a requirement that anyone considering conversion of forest lands to a non - forest use must submit a conversion option harvest plan to address environmental and land use issues. The conversion option harvest plan must provide a minimum of a 50 -foot buffer along wetlands. The resolution allows timber in the buffer to be selectively harvested or completely harvested under specified conditions. The 50 -foot buffer called for in the conversion harvest plan will not be sufficient to protect ESA - listed species and fish habitat in many streams. The buffer requirement is inconsistent with state forest practice rules and the proposed Section 4(d) Rule. The "Forests and Fish Report," recently adopted to regulate forest practices, calls for a larger buffer with a no -touch area closest to the stream. NMFS specifically proposed relying on the Forests and Fish Report as a protective program for forestry activities under the proposed Section 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum. 29 For forest practices under County jurisdiction, the County should adopt standards consistent with the state standards. Coordination between the Critical Areas Ordinance, the stormwater rules, and the forest practices rules should be examined so that habitat is protected from direct and indirect damage due to forestry practices. 28 WAC 197 -11- 800(25)(x). 29 65 FR at 185, January 3, 2000. 44 Mineral Lands Ordinance The Mineral Lands Ordinance focuses on protecting the economic viability of mining operations and resource lands for further development and not on protecting the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral lands operations. The Mineral Lands Ordinance is primarily a "designation" ordinance and not a minimum standard -of- practice ordinance. Operations that comply with this ordinance and the associated forest lands ordinance can have adverse impacts on ESA - listed species or fish habitat because no minimum standards of practice or environmental protection are required. The County should include consideration of impacts to ESA - listed species and fish habitat activities on mineral lands that are under County jurisdiction using the Critical Areas Ordinance or SEPA. The County does not require a permit for mineral activities on less than three acres. Mineral extraction and processing on three acres can cause adverse impacts to salmon habitat. To protect ESA species, the County should consider regulating mining practices in or adjacent to critical habitat below the three -acre reclamation threshold used by DNR. Coordination between the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Mineral Lands Ordinance should be examined so that critical habitat is protected from direct and indirect damage due to mineral lands practices. Agricultural Lands Ordinance Like the Mineral Lands Ordinance and the Forest Lands Ordinance, the Agricultural Lands Ordinance is focused on designating and conserving agriculture lands of long -term commercial significance. The purpose statement of the ordinance, however, includes recognition of the need for environmental protection: 30 ...agriculture is encouraged on all lands where it can be practiced without promoting conflict with adjacent land uses or posing a threat of environmental degradation. The permitted uses on agriculture lands 31 include extraction and primary processing of mineral resources, which can have a significant adverse impact on critical habitat. The ordinance does not contain environmentally protective minimum standards of practice or minimum buffers to protect critical habitat, although County authority in this area is limited. Coordination between the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Agricultural Lands Ordinance should be examined so that critical habitat is protected from direct and indirect damage due to any agricultural practices over which the County has jurisdiction. Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems The Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems Code 32 (Jefferson County Code, Chapter. 8.15) incorporates the regulations of the State Board of Health (WAC 248 -96 -018 through 30 Agricultural Lands Ordinance, Section 1.00. 31 Agricultural Lands Ordinance, Section 8.10. 32 These comments refer to the March 1999 draft revisions to the Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems Code. 45 ti 3 S t a f f D r a f t Mineral Lands Ordinance The Mineral Lands Ordinance focuses on protecting the economic viability of mining operations and resource lands for further development and not on protecting the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral lands operations. The Mineral Lands Ordinance is primarily a "designation" ordinance and not a minimum standard -of- practice ordinance. Operations that comply with this ordinance and the associated forest lands ordinance can have adverse impacts on ESA - listed species or fish habitat because no minimum standards of practice or environmental protection are required. The County should include consideration of impacts to ESA - listed species and fish habitat activities on mineral lands that are under County jurisdiction using the Critical Areas Ordinance or SEPA. The County does not require a permit for mineral activities on less than three acres. Mineral extraction and processing on three acres can cause adverse impacts to salmon habitat. To protect ESA species, the County should consider regulating mining practices in or adjacent to critical habitat below the three -acre reclamation threshold used by DNR. Coordination between the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Mineral Lands Ordinance should be examined so that critical habitat is protected from direct and indirect damage due to mineral lands practices. Agricultural Lands Ordinance Like the Mineral Lands Ordinance and the Forest Lands Ordinance, the Agricultural Lands Ordinance is focused on designating and conserving agriculture lands of long -term commercial significance. The purpose statement of the ordinance, however, includes recognition of the need for environmental protection: 30 ...agriculture is encouraged on all lands where it can be practiced without promoting conflict with adjacent land uses or posing a threat of environmental degradation. The permitted uses on agriculture lands 31 include extraction and primary processing of mineral resources, which can have a significant adverse impact on critical habitat. The ordinance does not contain environmentally protective minimum standards of practice or minimum buffers to protect critical habitat, although County authority in this area is limited. Coordination between the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Agricultural Lands Ordinance should be examined so that critical habitat is protected from direct and indirect damage due to any agricultural practices over which the County has jurisdiction. Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems The Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems Code 32 (Jefferson County Code, Chapter. 8.15) incorporates the regulations of the State Board of Health (WAC 248 -96 -018 through 30 Agricultural Lands Ordinance, Section 1.00. 31 Agricultural Lands Ordinance, Section 8.10. 32 These comments refer to the March 1999 draft revisions to the Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems Code. 45 S t a f f D r a f t WAC 248 -96 -175) by reference. The Jefferson County Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems Code provides additional requirements beyond what is required by the state code. The focus of the Onsite Sewage Code is limited to public health. The focus of the regulation may be expanded in some manner to include a concern about the impact on ESA - listed species and their habitat. There are several approaches to accomplish this expansion of the focus. The authority of the Board of Health does not extend beyond health - related impacts, so the manner in which the ESA impacts are addressed may not be as direct as simply adding words like "and the environment" after "public health" throughout the regulation. The regulation could be designed to include ESA concerns if written specifically to refer the jurisdiction of the Health Board to health issues and the ESA issues to other authorities, such as the Critical Areas Administrator. This solution would have the advantage of incorporating the pertinent issues regarding onsite sewage systems in one document. This solution, however, may not be workable because it would be more difficult to administer and because of the difficulty of having two separate areas of authority in a single regulation. Another more direct alternative is to retain the focus on public health, acknowledge the potential impacts to the environment (riparian habitat, in particular), and add specific references to the need for compliance with the CAO, the ESA, and other pertinent rules. The impact of failing septic systems is far more important for public health and water quality than for salmonid protection. Given the low densities in the County, the impact to salmonid species from the nutrient loading is probably much lower from failing septic systems than from other land use activities. The primary ESA - related issue with Onsite Sewage Systems is the potential for habitat degradation from clearing areas to install and maintain septic systems. This issue could be addressed by strengthening the requirements to protect riparian buffers. Violations A violation of the Onsite Sewage Code, described in § 8.15.050(19), is a failure to comply with the provisions of "applicable laws, rules or regulations including but not limited to instances or cases when...." Adverse impacts to the ESA - listed species or to their habitat should be added to the list of violations. Requirement for Adequate Sewage Disposal Section 8.15.060 enumerates the circumstances where adequate sewage disposal is required. The list should include location in, or probable impact to, a riparian buffer. Proposed Construction Plan and As -Built Plan A detailed, to -scale construction plan of the proposed sewage system and site is required as part of the permit application. The proposed construction plan is to include the information required in WAC 246- 272 - 09001, as a minimum. The County also should require the identification of all perennial and intermittent streams present on the site, adjacent to the site, or down gradient of the site and ensure setbacks from all perennial 46 S t a f f D r a f t and intermittent streams. The WAC is not clear that this is required although apparently it is the common practice.33 The Onsite Sewage Code requires as -built plans to include identification of the surface waters, springs, and wells. 34 It is not clear that this should include intermittent and perennial streams adjacent to or down gradient of the system. Operations and Maintenance Section 8. 15.160 lists the responsibilities of the owner of the onsite sewage system. The owner's duties do not include an affirmative duty to look for problems. The onsite sewage code, or the specific maintenance schedule prepared for the approved system, should include this requirement and guidance for performing this task. This section also states that it is the responsibility of the owner to "operate and maintain the system to eliminate the risk to the public associated with improperly treated sewage." This responsibility should be expanded to include the risk to ESA - listed species and water quality. Clearing & Grading Activities Vegetative removal, excavation, grading, construction, and other land - disturbing activities can increase soil erosion, off -site sediment flow to streams and adjacent properties, and increase runoff during storms causing a adverse impact to critical habitat and natural resources. The County has no effective regulatory controls over such activities unless a triggering permit is otherwise required. The County should find a way to apply controls to clearing and grading regardless of whether a triggering permit is required. Many counties have a clearing and grading ordinance; some counties have clearing and grading requirements within other land use ordinances. Regardless of how such regulations are implemented, clearing and grading activities must be controlled to protect critical habitat and water quality even if no other County permit or authorization is required. King County, for example has a clearing and grading ordinance that requires all land disturbing activities to provide controls even if a permit is not needed: Any activity that will clear, grade or otherwise disturb the site, whether requiring a clearing or grading permit or not, shall provide erosion and sediment control (ESC) that prevents, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site to drainage facilities, water resources or adjacent properties. 35 33 The Onsite Sewage Code refers to WAC §246 -272- 09001 for the required elements of the site plan. The dimensional site plan, found at subsection (c), does not mention streams, but does require indication of "site drainage characteristics." Subsection (b) requires a soil and site evaluation as specified under WAC §256 -272 - 11001(2) which requires a "person evaluating the soil and site" to "record" surface water. There is not a specific requirement to record the information on the site plan. 3a Onsite Sewage Disposal System Code section 8.15.110(7). ss King County Code, KCC 16.82. 47 S t a f f D r a f t The King County ordinance provides specific operating conditions and standards of performance, but there are other effective ways to regulate clearing and grading. For example, an ordinance could adopt a standard of practice by reference to acceptable BMPs. In some manner, the County must apply effective controls on clearing and grading activities that could have an adverse impact to ESA - listed species and habitat. Comprehensive Plan The changes suggested to the reviewed ordinances are not only being compelled by ESA requirements but also are suggested by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan serves as a tool for long -term planning in the County. If it is clear to NMFS that the County is using the Comprehensive Plan as a decision- making tool that includes environmentally protective language NMFS will have more certainty that future County decisions will be protective of ESA - listed species and fish habitat. The goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan can serve as a basis for adopting, implementing or amending ordinances to be more protective of the environment. The Comprehensive Plan contains specific goals and policies that, if implemented, would provide additional environmental protection. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan suggests: Critical Areas The goal of habitat protection is supported directly by the first goal of the environment section of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, "Land use decisions should recognize the priority of the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat in accordance with proposed listings of threatened and endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. "36 Best Available Science Using best available science is supported directly by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. • Page 8 -33, Water Resources Policy ENP 1.3, "Manage water resources using the best available scientific information and participate in collaborative processes to develop new information." • Page 8 -44, Environment Action Item #6, "Review standards for qualified experts and for technical studies used in permit review, including procedures for peer review, to promote data and analysis that are consistent with the best available science." • Page 8 -45, Environment Action Item #22, "Revise the Shoreline Management Master Program to ensure that setbacks, stabilization techniques, and other mitigation and protection measures are based on the best available science." • Page 8 -46, Critical Areas Strategy Action Item #4, "Review the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance to ensure that engineering, drainage and design standards for storm water management in landslide and erosion hazard areas are based on the best available science in the final ordinance." 36 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 8 -41, Policy 12.2. I 48 37 38 39 40 41 S t a f f D r a f t • Page 8-47, Critical Areas Strategy Action Item #11, "Review the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance prior to adoption as a final ordinance to ensure that buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas are based on the best available science." Stormwater The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to manage stormwater to "minimize adverse surface /storm water impacts from development.37 Forest Lands The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, states that the County should. Establish standards for conversions and Conversion Option Harvest Plans which carry out the provisions of the Washington State Forest Practices Act and the State Environmental Policy Act and are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, and other County land use and development standards. Mineral Lands The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states that the County should consider ESA in the regulation of resource management and harvest practices. Policy 2.239 states: Regulate resource management and harvest practices in a manner consistent with local, state and federal regulations for the protection of environmental quality and critical areas. Work with stakeholders in cooperative processes to protect the long -term viability of resource lands consistent with watershed management and fisheries recovery plans developed in response to proposed listings of fish species under the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, a goal of the County Comprehensive Plan is to "Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral extraction activities. "40 Clearing and Grading The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the threat of land - disturbing activities that have significant individual and cumulative impacts on the environment and calls for the adoption and implementation of a Clearing and Grading Ordinance. at As response to the current deficiencies of the local regulatory framework in regard to environmental protection, the County's regulatory strategy includes the adoption and implementation of the following: 1. A Clearing Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 1142, Goal 10. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policy NRP 5.4 at page 4 -34. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 4 -32. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 4 -37. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, page 8 -5. 49 7 S t a f f D r a f t and Grading Ordinance that provided criteria and defines a threshold to ensure adequate protection of critical areas and associated buffers for all types of significant land uses and land - disturbing activities. Also, Comprehensive Plan Action Item #4 on page 8-44. Develop and adopt a Clearing and Grading Ordinance that provides valid criteria and defines a threshold for protection of critical areas and associated buffers. In addition to implementing the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the County could use the Plan to help to focus County actions and revision of ordinances by developing specific hierarchical management goals, including: prevention of further damage to fish habitat; preservation of high quality resources; and, restoration of fish habitat. All County activities, ordinances, and policies should be compared to these goals. l S t a f f D r a f t APPENDIX B ACRONYMS BMPs ...............Best Management Practices CAO ................Critical Areas Ordinance COl-1P ..............Conversion Option Harvest Plan CREP ...............Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CWSP ..............Coordinated Water System Plan DNR ................Washington Department of Natural Resources ESA .................federal Endangered Species Act ESU .................Evolutionarily Significant Unit FFR .................Forests and Fish Report GMA ...............State Growth Management Act JGMSC ............ Joint Growth Management Steering Committee LIT ..................Local Interagency Team NMFS ..............U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES ............ National Pollution Discharge Elimination System RCW ...............Revised Code of Washington SEPA ...............State Environmental Policy Act SMMP .............Shoreline Management Master Plan UGA ................Urban Growth Area U.S. FWS .......U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAC ..............Washington Administrative Code WSDOT ......... Washington State Department of Transportation S t a f f D r a f t STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RESPONSE TO ESA LISTINGS OF HOOD CANAL SUMMER CHUM AND PUGET SOUND CHINOOK Jefferson County staff was asked to develop a recommendation regarding the approach that the County should take that would result in compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, would assist in the recovery of listed species, and would allow the County to continue to offer the services of local government. This paper outlines the staff recommendation to seek protection for Jefferson County under Section 4(d) of the ESA for Hood Canal summer -run chum and Puget Sound chinook. This recommendation and options were developed after internal County staff meetings. The options were analyzed with information contained in the companion paper entitled "ESA Impacts on Jefferson County: The Listing of Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook." If successful, protection under Section 4(d) would ensure that Jefferson County could continue to conduct County business without threat of federal sanctions or citizen lawsuits. The cost to implement a program that is protective of salmon habitat will be significant. Those costs, however, must be weighed against the costs of not acting — the continued decline of wild salmon populations in Jefferson County, the costs of federal enforcement actions, and the costs of defending Jefferson County against the citizen lawsuits that are allowed under the ESA. Jefferson County citizens have made it clear that salmon are an important part of the community in which they live. While the citizens of Jefferson County may not agree on the causes of salmon decline or the solutions to recovery, they agree that salmon should not be allowed to become extinct. The goal of recovery is supported. This is evident by the strong locally driven restoration efforts such as the Chimacum Creek summer -run chum reintroduction and the many restoration efforts coordinated by the Jefferson County Conservation District, Wild Olympic Salmon, and local landowners. Jefferson County faces the challenge of maintaining County operations and functions, complying with ESA requirements and of supporting a strong local effort to recovering wild salmon populations. The ultimate goal of an ESA - compliant strategy will include balancing the needs of Jefferson County's citizens and protecting private property rights while protecting ESA- listed species and habitat. The largest impact of the ESA on County activities will be the impact on the way that the County permits and guides development activities. Staff has explored three options for Jefferson County to respond to the ESA listings with regard to permitting of development activities. There are options in addition to those discussed in this paper, but the major choices are presented. The options are: Page 1 ELI S t a f f D r a f t 1. Directed Recovery Approach. Initially focus on studying the specific geographic and habitat areas where protection or restoration is needed then make appropriate changes to standards, programs, and restoration activities to be applied in the identified areas. This would mean, in effect, focusing on the long -range goal of restoration and recovery not on the intermediate steps needed for compliance with the ESA take prohibition as defined in the Section 4(d) Rule. 2. Compliance with Section 4(d) Rules. Make appropriate changes to applicable ordinances and programs, use state standards where appropriate and rely on Best Available Science as the basis for changes made. Develop training, monitoring, compliance and reporting plans, and submit the package to National Marine Fisheries Service for consideration of Section 4(d) protection. There are several sub - options under this option. 3. Continue Current Salmon Strate Continue to use the current development regulations and do not adjust staffing workplans to focus on ESA. The County would use the existing internal County "Water Team" structure to address ESA and Section 4(d) issues. Compliance with ESA would be completed through existing processes (i.e., SEPA, GMA). For each option identified, this section briefly lists the risks and benefits, the probability of success, the projected staff workload, and the relative cost requirements for implementation. Staff training, monitoring and enforcement are important components of any County ESA strategy. Monitoring and compliance are included in cost estimates. Staff training will add to the cost of all options. In the discussion below, cost ranking is given as a range of relative costs from 1 to 5, with 1 being low and 5 being high. The cost ranking reflects the additional direct staff' and other costs beyond what is already in the County workplan. Costs are described in more detail in the "Staffing and Cost Needs" section at the end of this paper. Possible legal costs and sanctions have not been factored into the ranking. Legal costs will be highest for options that do not provide adequate habitat protection and do not provide federal protection for Jefferson County under Section 4(d) of the ESA. Education and outreach are needed for any option chosen even when not explicitly discussed in this paper. Education and outreach are especially important because any County strategy has the potential to result in divisive community discussions as restoration goals and strategies and property uses are debated. Page 2 S t a f f D r a f t Option 1. Directed Recovery Approach In this "directed recovery" option, the County would initially focus on studying the specific geographic areas where protections are needed, such as riparian corridors and the nearshore environment, then make appropriate changes to standards, programs, and restoration activities that are needed in the identified critical areas. This would mean, in effect, focusing on the long -range goal of restoration and recovery, not on the intermediate steps needed for compliance with the ESA take prohibitions as defined in the Section 4(d) Rule. Pro: 1 This option would assure that activities and regulations are focused to help the fish. 2. This option will lead to habitat protection for the listed species because the studies would focus only on summer -run chum, chinook and bull trout. 3. When completed, this option would make it more likely that the County would prevail against lawsuits and enforcement action if it can be demonstrated that the basis of the standards is scientifically sound. 4. This option might engender community support if it is clear that the rules are based on a scientifically defensible study of each waterbasin. Con: 1. Jefferson County would be liable to enforcement action and lawsuits until the studies are complete and the required changes implemented, unless protective interim measures are enacted. 2. Staff' expertise is not available to complete the studies in- house, so this would require extensive use of consultants. 3. The process of identifying sensitive areas, protecting habitat and restoring degraded areas could take many years. 4. The option to restore degraded habitat on all rivers and streams with summer -run chum, chinook, and bull trout is expensive. 5. While studies are ongoing, the Jefferson County could be giving the impression that the County is not committed to recovery, and that could lead to citizen lawsuits. 6. Would be difficult to enforce effectively because of variable standards throughout the County.7. Would create fairness questions if nearby landowners were subject to different standards. Probability of Success: The probability of developing the standards to be used in performing the watershed/habitat studies is moderate. The state is currently working on such guidelines but these may not be available for two years. The probability of completing all the habitat restoration necessary to recover summer -run chum, chinook and bull trout is low to moderate. A habitat restoration approach could require large - scale property buy -out in areas that impact sensitive riparian zones. The restoration efforts associated with this option would be large -- on a scale not seen before in Jefferson County. Staffing Workload/Costs: Staffing costs would include approximately four to six FTEs eventually, with a need for 1.5 FTE this fiscal year. The four to six FTEs would be a permanent ongoing staffing need. Funding would be required to study watersheds to Page 3 S t a f f D r a f t assess how best to accomplish recovery of threatened salmon. The cost estimates for consultant fees range between $100,000 and $1 million, and would depend on the ability of Jefferson County staff to accomplish some tasks. Additionally, this option would generate a list of habitat restoration, property acquisition needs, and easement acquisition needs. These needs could represent substantial costs. Staff has the least confidence in the cost estimate of this option. Anticipated staffing needs this year 1.0 FTE Grant Writing and Grant Administration 0,5 FTE Technical Input on UDC Total 1.5 FTE B. Anticipated Staffing Needs during 2001 1,0 FTE Grant Writing and Grant Administration 0.5 FTE Technical Input on UDC 1.0 FTE Environmental Monitoring 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Planning and Biological assessments Plus. approximately $100,000 for consultant fees 1 Total 3.5 FTE C. Anticipated Staffing Needs after 2001 1.0 FTE Grant Writing and Grant Administration 2 -4 FTE Environmental Monitoring 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Plan monitoring and Biological assessments Plus, between $100,000 -$1 million consultant fees Plus, $1 million to $10 million for property acquisition (grant funds possible) Total 4 -6 FTE I Page 4 i� S t a f f D r a f t Option 2. Compliance with Section 4(d) Rules This option would require Jefferson County to make appropriate changes to applicable ordinances and programs, use state and federal standards where appropriate and rely on Best Available Science for the changes made. Develop training, monitoring, compliance and reporting plans. Submit the package to NMFS for consideration of Section 4(d) protection. Pro: 1. Could begin to be implemented before the final Section 4(d) Rule is effective. 2. Would be protective of habitat_ 3. Would provide protection against lawsuits and enforcement because of formal Section 4(d) protection through the ESA. 4. Much of what would be done under this option is being done already to comply with GMA requirements, and would just require ensuring that the standards comply with ESA needs. 5. The specific standards required to obtain Section 4(d) protection are outlined in the proposed Section 4(d) Rule. Con: 1. Must begin immediate dialog with NMFS. 2. Would not be certain of the final Section 4(d) Rule requirements until the final rule is adopted. 3. Standards would likely be based more strictly on the proposed NMFS Section 4(d) standards, which would not allow for much public process to craft rules that "fit" for Jefferson County, therefore, public acceptance could be limited. 4. If more restrictions on land use, especially in critical habitat areas, are adopted the County may be subject to "property takings" lawsuits. 5. Would require sigmificant staff education and retraining for effective implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. 6. Might require coordinating efforts with a regional group before NMFS will consider an application package from the County. 7. Surface water management planning is not part of the current workplan and would be a significant requirement for ensuring habitat protection. (See footnote #1.) 8. There would be staffing requirements to work with NMFS to obtain 4(d) protection for the County. Probability of Success: The probability of getting formal Section 4(d) protection is unknown because: (1) the final 4(d) rule standards have not been adopted, (2) NMFS does not have a track record for working with the large number of jurisdictions that are impacted by the listings of Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer chum, and (3) no Washington jurisdictions have received Section 4(d) protection yet. The Tri- County counties and cities have been working with NMFS for several years to craft In staff -level discussions with NMFS, NMFS has indicated that they prefer to review regional, not county-by- county, proposals. Although asked numerous times, NMFS has not been clear about what constitutes a "region." As examples, they have offered the Tri-County ESA alliance, the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity Group and the Hood Canal Coordinating Council as existing regional structures. Page 5 J S t a f f D r a f t specific Section 4(d) protection for their jurisdictions. We understand that Clallam, Kitsap, and Mason Counties are planning to seek Section 4(d) protection. Staffing Workload/Costs: Given the existing County organizational structure and current County priorities, the staffing costs for this option would include 3 FTEs during this fiscal year, and build to eventually include seven to eight permanent FTEs. It is anticipated that one of the FTEs, for Grant Writing and Administration, would be able to create more revenues through grants than the expense for the position. Staff has moderate confidence in the cost estimate of this option. Total costs may be reduced through organizational efficiencies or changing the focus of the existing efforts. Anticipated staffing needs this year 1.0 FTE Education and Outreach / Grant Writing and Grant Administration 0.5 FTE Meeting with NMFS and coordination with other jurisdictions 0.5 FTE Technical Input on UDC 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Planning and Biological assessments Anticipated Staffing Needs during 2001 1.0 FTE Education and Outreach / Grant Writing and Grant Administration 1.0 FTE Reporting to NMFS and coordination with other jurisdictions 0.5 FTE Technical Input on UDC 1.0 FTE Permit Review (includes UDC needs) 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Planning and conducting biological 1.0 FTE assessments 0.5 FTE Implementation of road maintenance standards Total 5.0 FTE Anticipated Staffing Needs after 2001 1.0 FTE Grant Writing and Grant Administration 1.0 FTE Reporting to NMFS and coordination with other jurisdictions 2.0 FTE Permit Review (includes UDC needs) 1.0 FTE Compliance Monitoring (includes UDC needs) 1.0 FTE Environmental Monitoring 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Plan monitoring and conducting biological assessments 0.5 FTE Implementation of road maintenance standards Total 7.5 FTE Page 6 S t a f f D r a f t Option 3. Continue Current Salmon Strategy This option would allow Jefferson County to continue to use the current development regulations, update the UDC for GMA compliance, and not adjust staffing workplans to comply with ESA standards. The County would use the existing internal County "Water Team" structure to address ESA and Section 4(d) issues. Compliance with ESA would be completed through existing processes (SEPA, GMA). Pro: 1. This would be the least expensive approach based on staffing requirements. 2. Current departmental budgets would not change. 3. Current management structure would not change. Con: 1. Citizen lawsuit would be likely. 2. NMFS enforcement sanctions would be possible. 3. May not be protective of salmon habitat for recovery. 4. Legal expenses responding to third -party lawsuits and enforcement action could be very high and may outweigh the lower staffing costs. Probability of Success: High. This is the status quo. Staffing Workload/Costs: Staffing costs would include approximately 1 FTE already budgeted for Public Works. Staff has high confidence in the cost estimates for this option. Anticipated staffing needs this year 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Planning and Biological assessments Total 1.0 FTE Anticipated Staffing Needs during 2001 1.0 FTE Permit Review (for UDC) 1.0 FTE Compliance Monitoring (for UDC) 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Planning and Biological assessments Total 3.0 FTE Anticipated Staffing Needs after 2001 1.0 FTE Permit Review (for UDC) 1.0 FTE Compliance Monitoring (for UDC) 1.0 FTE Surface Water Management Planning and Biological assessments Total 3.0 FTE Page 7 S t a f f D r a f t Other Options Other options for compliance with the ESA that are discussed briefly below, include: 1. Section 10 Incidental Take Permit; 2. Section 7 Federal Consultation; or, 3. Not taking listed species or habitat. Under Section 10 of the ESA, NMFS may issue a permit for an activity or a program that may result in a take of a listed species if the take is "incidental to and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." Section 10 permits, initially, were designed as a tool to address the impacts of single developments. They are now often used more widely for large -scale regional development planning. The Section 10 permit is an attractive route for some activities because the protection provided by the permit can be long -term and can provide protection for activities that may be impacted by species that are not yet listed. The Section 10 permit can apply to a specific project or it can apply to a program. A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) specifying the impacts that are likely to result from the taking and the measure to minimize or mitigate the taking is required for a Section 10 permit. Obtaining a Section 10 permit, including the development of the HCP, can be costly, time - consuming and procedurally difficult. The Section 7 federal consultation is required for all federal actions and private actions that have a "federal nexus" that are likely to adversely impact an ESA listed species or habitat. When a private activity requires a federal permit, receives federal funds or takes place on federal lands, a "federal nexus" is said to exist and a consultation is likely to be required. During the consultation, NMFS will issue a biological opinion regarding the effect of the proposed action. NMFS may find that the proposed action does not harm a listed species, it may suggest alternatives to avoid harm, or it may determine that the proposed action would result in unavoidable harm. Section 7 federal consultations will likely be used on specific projects that may cause take such as bridge repair or road construction. Conclusion and Staff Recommendation It is unlikely that Jefferson County can continue to issue permits, maintain roads, and maintain parks without "taking" listed species, considering the broad definition of taking in the ESA and associated regulations. It is not realistic to expect to be able to conduct County activities without incidentally taking listed species. The staff recommendation is to follow Option 2 and seek formal Section 4(d) protection from NMFS. This recommendation is based on a complete analysis of Jefferson County's existing regulatory framework (See the discussion in the attached companion paper. "ESA Impacts on Jefferson County: The Listing of Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook "), determining relative costs of the program changes that will be necessary, and weighing the relative advantages of each option, for County land development regulations, operations and maintenance activities. Option 2 will require Jefferson County to modify ordinances and policies to minimize impact on Page 8 S t a f f D r a f t listed species, and then to submit the package of ordinances, monitoring, training, enforcement and reporting to NMFS for consideration of 4(d) protection. Jefferson County is required by the GMA to update ordinances, policies and procedures to support the Comprehensive Plan. Jefferson County has begun the process to update the development and land use ordinances under a Uniform Development Code and has allocated funds to complete the task over approximately a two -year time period. The revision of development ordinances will include creation of three new ordinances (clearing and grading, enforcement, and forest practices) and the revision of the following ordinances: Zoning Code Subdivision Ordinance Critical Areas Ordinance SEPA Implementing Ordinance Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance Resource Lands Ordinances (Forest Lands, Agriculture Lands, Mineral Lands) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Stormwater Management Ordinance Shoreline Master Program The revision of development and land use ordinances will occur regardless of ESA - driven concerns. This ordinance update could incorporate scientifically supportable, habitat protective changes required for a Section 4(d) exemption. NMFS has stated that it will rely, in large part, on the ManTech report for guidance in determining whether local ordinances are acceptably protective of listed species and habitat. The Section 4(d) standards have been available as proposed regulations since January 3, 2000. Knowing what standards are likely to be imposed provides a regulatory certainty that Jefferson County and its citizens need. If the ordinance update is not consistent with the Section 4(d) standards and not based on best available science, the County will have to modify the ordinances or be subject to ESA enforcement action and citizen lawsuits. Even if the revised County regulations are based on best available science, the County may have to defend its standards in court because citizen lawsuits still would be possible without formal Section 4(d) protection. The costs of defending the County could outweigh the fiscal commitments for consistency with Section 4(d). Z Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR- 4501 -96 -6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. Page 9 cc. 3 faalaa Dale Goddard 209 Old Oak Bay Road - Port Hadlock, WA 98339 March 22, 2002 TO: Jefferson County Commissioners 'd"' 4--Richard E. Wojt, Dist. #3, Chairman Dan Tittemess, Dist. #1 •tie '' 3 Glen Huntingford, Dist #2 P; Dear County Commissioners: In response to the request for my views as to why I believe the property described below should be returned to it's original zoning of light industrial is as follows: Blocks 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40, 41, 42 and Lots 1, 2, 11, 12 of Block 32, also Lots 1 and 2 of Block 39. These parcels are shown on Proposed Glen Cove Boundary Revision and I have hi- lighted them with a yellow marker. Attached as Addendum A. As I understand the criteria for reinstating the commercial zoning is that the property be upgraded with power and water by the date of July 1, 1990. If this date was chosen because of some legislation or decision to down grade the zoning, why wasn't I made aware of it before I spent the time, effort and money to prepare this area for development as it was zoned at that time? I did this by extending a 10" water main 3 blocks from Fredrick St. to Eisenbeis Avenue. There is a fire hydrant and a tee installed at Charles Ave. The tee and blind was installed so the system could be extended S.W. down Charles Ave. Underground power and telephone was also installed. A transformer was installed at the corner of Louisa and Charles of a size to service the area. All of this was done in a step -by -step plan that began in 1987. Anthony E. Stroeder and I began this development process in January 1987. We did this by getting all approvals needed and then laying a 10" water line from Otto St., West on Fredrick Ave., and across Hwy. 20 then extended it to Louisa St. We also developed Fredrick St., including the access ramp from Hwy 20 West to Louisa St. Even though the Louisa extension was not done until 1992 it was a part of a plan that began in 1987 and at no time was I ever notified there was a plan to downzone this property prior to laying the 10" Louisa St. extension. I am thrilled to see that there is some attempt to restore some of the Glen Cove area back to it's original zoning. I am also left wondering what good has come from all of this down zoning? Jobs have been lost, tax base has been decreased, development stifled, plus all the money the county has spent in the process. I would like to know where are the winners? As far as I can see we are all losers. Respectfully, ell— Dale Goddard Proposed Glen Cove !L Boundary Revision Revised Boundary Existing Glen Cove LI/C Zone Provisional Urban Growth Area 600 0 ODD 1200 Feet NW Date; mach 4. jef(emon County Car" Servioes - j:M7�.Wp\*ncove.3pr Zi E Ell, ^� � ! / gdle \ h" been adop4ad by Jefferson County for purposes of land use raguWdons or zonIM CC; QOCL 01b 1f�4b�lnmrn 3 %filo� Additional PLC Testimony RE. Glen Cove LAMIRD Expansion John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community Commissioners: March 22, 2002 F, I,'> 7-1 � o ID) MAR 2 2 2 0 r,- This written testimony supplements the written testimony I submitted at the hearing on March 18, 2002 and my verbal presentation before the Board of County Commissioner on that date. RE. The County's 121412001 UDC changes. The County's UDC, Table 6 -1, p. 6 -3, table row "area of building coverage" and footnote 13 on p. 6 -4 shows that the area of building coverage in Glen Cove was increased to 60% of the parcel size. The prior size limit was 20,000 sq. ft., with a limit of one 20,000 sq. ft. building per site. Another 12/4/2001 change to the code articulated in note 14, p. 6 -4 says that in zones that still have build size caps based on maximum building square footage, a parcel may contain more than one structure of the maximum building size. RE. Aquifer Recharge Susceptible Areas. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, p. 8 -13, map entitled Critical Areas — Aquifer Recharge Susceptible Areas shows the Glen Cover area as a "hydo- geologically susceptible area" RE. Soil Limitations for Septic Systems. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, p. 8 -23, map entitled Soil Limitations for Septic Systems shows part of the Glen Cove Area as having "severe limitation" RE. Effects on City's water capacity. The City of Port Townsend took over the Glen Cove Water System from PUD #1 in January 2002. The combined impacts of the Glen Cove Expansion and increased bulk and dimension standards on the City's ability to provide water to the area have not been addressed. RE. Property and water taps owned by Discovery Timber and others. The accompanying map shows the land in the Glen Cove area, which was owned by Discovery Timber Co., the area's largest property owner. A complete list of all properties in the Glen Cove Water System Area, dated 4/2/1987,' shows Discovery Timber owned all the properties shown on the accompanying map entitled July 1, 1990 built environment with Discovery Timber's property. The properties in red are still owned by Discovery Timber. The properties in Green were sold by Discovery Timber prior to the passage of the Growth Management Act in July 1990. The properties in cyan were sold by Discovery Timber after July 1990. A list of properties sold by Discovery Timber in the Glen Cove water area and their dates of sale are: Sold Pre July 1990 7/1984 Greenway & Correll Kearney's 11 pre 87 Warren Erickson ? 2/1987 Ferris & Moore Kearney's 10 2/1987 Ferris & Moore Kearney's 9 Additional PLC Testimony March 22, 2002 RE: Glen Cove LAMIRD Expansion John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community 7/1987 Glenn Neet Kearney's 1 & 2 4/1988 Building Plus Kearney's 14 8/1988 Seb Eggert Kearney's 15 & 16 4/1990 John Sceeles Phillips Bay View Add. Blk 37, lots 1 -6 4/1990 John Sceeles Phillips Bay View Add. Blk 34, lots 10 -12 Sold Post July 1990 Blk. 27, lots. 1 -6 Add. Blk.8, lots 7 -13 9/1990 Henery Sukert Phillips Bay View Add. Blk 39, lots 1 -6 10/1990 Grey Pohl Denny's 2nd Add. Blk. 8, lots 19 -21 3/1993 Bruce & Sandra Seton One Hawkeye Park lots 1 -43. Gene Seton for Discovery Timber purchased 5 pre - construction water taps from the PUD as part of a discounted Pre - Construction Water Subscription Agreement, dated July 15, 1983. Presold taps were used by the PUD to help finance the installation of the Glen Cove water main. The only lot specifically identified to be assigned a pre - construction water tap in the Pre - Construction Agreement between Discovery Timber Co. and the PUD is Block 14 of Kearney's Plat, which lies at the intersection of Seton Rd. and Otto St. inside the current LAMIRD boundary. Discover Timber subsequently sold this Block to Building Plus in 4/1988. A letter dated June 19, 1984 transferred another water tap from Discover Timber to a Mr. Correll and Mr. Greenway who purchased a block, adjacent to Block 14 above, from Discovery Timber July 12, 1984. This Block is also inside the existing LAMIRD. I talked to Jim Parker, the PUD manager, on 3/14/2002 at 2:25 PM. Jim said that shortly after he came to work at the PUD in March of 1994 Gene Seton of Discovery Timber transferred his last outstanding water tap to Russel Jaqua for the property he had bought from Seton that lies just north of Glen Cove Rd. Our research shows that neither this property nor any other property in the expansion area was specifically assigned or otherwise had a water tap right in July of 1990. Jim said that when he came on board in 1994 there was moratorium on new taps on the Glen Cove water main because the line had reached the 50,000 gallons of water a day that the City of Port Townsend was contracted to provide to the line. Jim said his memory of the event was very clear because given the water moratorium he was pleased to be rid of an outstanding obligation. Jim said didn't know if this last outstanding water tap Seton was owed was one that had been purchased before or after July 1990. 2 Phillips Bay View Add. Blk 1, lots 1 -7 Blk. 2, lots 1 -6 Blk. 13, lots 1 -12 Blk. 14, lots 1 -14 Blk. 15, lots 1 -3, 5 -14 12/1993 Russell Jaqua Denny's 2nd Blk. 27, lots. 1 -6 Add. Blk.8, lots 7 -13 5/1995 Olympic Steel Denny's 2nd Add. Blk. 8, lots 14 -18 9/1995 Nicholas D'Andrea Denny's 2nd Add. Blk. 5, lots 22 -24 12/2001 John Stephen Lopes Denny's 2nd Add. Blk. 5, lots 25 -28 Gene Seton for Discovery Timber purchased 5 pre - construction water taps from the PUD as part of a discounted Pre - Construction Water Subscription Agreement, dated July 15, 1983. Presold taps were used by the PUD to help finance the installation of the Glen Cove water main. The only lot specifically identified to be assigned a pre - construction water tap in the Pre - Construction Agreement between Discovery Timber Co. and the PUD is Block 14 of Kearney's Plat, which lies at the intersection of Seton Rd. and Otto St. inside the current LAMIRD boundary. Discover Timber subsequently sold this Block to Building Plus in 4/1988. A letter dated June 19, 1984 transferred another water tap from Discover Timber to a Mr. Correll and Mr. Greenway who purchased a block, adjacent to Block 14 above, from Discovery Timber July 12, 1984. This Block is also inside the existing LAMIRD. I talked to Jim Parker, the PUD manager, on 3/14/2002 at 2:25 PM. Jim said that shortly after he came to work at the PUD in March of 1994 Gene Seton of Discovery Timber transferred his last outstanding water tap to Russel Jaqua for the property he had bought from Seton that lies just north of Glen Cove Rd. Our research shows that neither this property nor any other property in the expansion area was specifically assigned or otherwise had a water tap right in July of 1990. Jim said that when he came on board in 1994 there was moratorium on new taps on the Glen Cove water main because the line had reached the 50,000 gallons of water a day that the City of Port Townsend was contracted to provide to the line. Jim said his memory of the event was very clear because given the water moratorium he was pleased to be rid of an outstanding obligation. Jim said didn't know if this last outstanding water tap Seton was owed was one that had been purchased before or after July 1990. 2 Additional PLC Testimony RE: Glen Cove LAMIRD Expansion John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community March 22, 2002 I asked Jim if he could give me a list of what taps had been bought by Discovery Timber Co. and when they were used. He said that he could not. Prior to the above mentioned sale to Russel Jaqua, a State audit of the PUD in 1992 found that at a mobile home park outside the LAMIRD expansion area but inside the area served by the Glen Cove Water System (One Hawkeye Park owned by Discovery Timber) "24 mobile homes were illegally connected to the PUD's [Glen Cove] waterline" In May of 1991, the mobile home park had 11 mobile home units connected to the district's system. By November of 1991, the mobile home park had a total of 13 units connected to the district's system. All 13 units were billed at a flat rate of $9 a month. In May of 1992, the district discovered that in addition to the 13 units being billed, another 24 mobile homes were illegally connected to the PUD's waterline. The district did not know when these units were connected, but began charging them in April of 1992. The district made no attempt to establish when these additional units were connected and recover lost revenues. In January of 1992, the district began metering the units at One Hawkeve Park, the district installed 20 water meters free of charge. In February and March of 1993, the PUD installed another 18 meters and charged Bruce Seton $52 per meter instead of the established $150 per meter charge. However, Bruce Seton never paid for these 18 meters The last 5 meters were being installed at the time of our audit and charges for setting these meters were not billed In October of 1992, a district wide water rate increase went into effect. However, the district continued to bill One Hawkeye Park at the old rate of $9 a month until January 1993. Additionally, all the metered units were billed at the monthly flat rate until March of 1993. The district made no attempt to correct the billings and recover any amounts due The Pre - Construction Water Subscription Agreement between the PUD and Discovery Timber dated July 15, 1983 states that: "there may be additional charges in the future for additional taps not subscribed to herein, and a separate tap may be required for each billing or facility served by water from the water main line; that the tap shall be metered and that the owners will have to pay water useage fees based upon the water used as determined by the meters. " Although the PUD has been unable to provide an accounting of when Discovery Timber's Pre - Construction taps were used, it appears that any remaining Pre - Construction water tap rights were actually used by 1991 at the mobile home park, which was connected to the Glen Cove Water Main. It is likely that if Discovery Timber assigned its last pre -paid water tap right to Jaqua in 1994, that this was not a pre -1990 pre -paid water tap right. Before the sale to Jaque, the State Auditors report above makes clear, that by 1992, Discovery Timber had used an additional 37 metered water taps in One Hawkeye Park. Even if Jaqua was assigned a Pre - Construction water tap right in 1994, this assignment to the Jaqua property was not existing on July 1, 1990. All Pre - Construction water tap rights were usable by assignment either inside or outside the existing and proposed LAMIRD industrial areas. By 1994, after the Jaqua assignment, the record is clear that Discovery Timber no longer had any pre -paid water tap rights for any property in the proposed LAMIRD expansion area. Additional PLC Testimony RE: Glen Cove LAMIRD Expansion John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community March 22, 2004 Our review of the records indicates that prior to 7/1/1990, no Pre - Construction water tap right had been sold, assigned or otherwise transferred to any specific parcel in the proposed LAMIRD expansion area. We found that every Pre - Construction water tap right assigned to a specific parcel as of July 1, 1990 was either assigned to a parcel inside the existing LAMIRD or assigned to a parcel outside the current proposed LAMIRD expansion. ' Documents in the County's or PUD's possession that support fact provided in this letter are hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. 0 Additional PLC Testimony March 22, 2002 RE: Glen Cove LAMIRD Expansion John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community Attachments: Table 6 -1: Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards, page 6 -3, UDC The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (CP), p. 8 -13, map entitled Critical Areas — Aquifer Recharge Susceptible Areas CP, p. 8 -23, map entitled Soil Limitations for Septic Systems Glen Cove Water System Area, dated 4/2/1987, 18 pages, list all properties in the area Map entitled, July 1, 1990 built environment with Discovery Timber's property Jef. Co. Assessor parcel description and sales information for Greenway & Correll, Ferris & Moore, Glenn Neet, Building Plus, Seb Eggert, John Sceeles, John Sceeles, Henery Sukert, Grey Pohl, Bruce & Sandra Seton, Russell Jaqua, Olympic Steel, Nicholas D'Andrea, John Stephen Lopes Pre - Construction Water Subscription Agreement between PUD and Discovery Timber dated July 15, 1983 Taps pledged and Paid 1983 -1985 Letter June 19, 1984 form Discover Timber to PUD. Discovery Timber sells a property and transfers a water tap to Mr. Greenway. Also copy of deed of sale. Glen Cove Water System Pledges in Lieu of Assessments, 3/31/1987 Letter PUD to Discovery Timber, May 6, 1987 Letter PUD to Discovery Timber, March 29, 1988 re. final pre - construction water tap Letter from PUD to City, May 24, 1989 re. 50,000 gals. committed Letter PUD to Discovery Timber, September 21, 1989 re. three water taps State Auditor's Report on Jef. Co. PUD 41 for period 1/1/90 through 12/31/92 As built map stamped received Mar 28, 1994 of water line on Denny Ave., Denny's 2nd Addition Memo for record from James Parker, PUD #1 manager, 3/18/2002 Jef. Co. Assessor parcel description and sales information for David Vohs, Javes Prince, William Perka, Christopher Grace, Jillana & Paul Nelson, Dale Goddard, John Nesset Utility Billing Meter Information, PUD #1, 12/27/01 Water Customer List 3/18/02 5 �Cnc �CD n CD Q arn0 CD Q CD 0 CD a CD C) CD O O oZ3 N Q. A y 0 J w ZC D o K R �^ o c o 0 Cf)� W (W CD 'n O M a2_ �m n ° -oo° z y rn o w. cs cW a cnn C m 23 v= MCn -O v 01 o cwr o r- z d N CG C. = CD 6 o � 0 V (7 d z a �r co �O �v m° 5 o 0 rn v, z D 0 cD =1C co (D E cc 3 o o m CD O rn 'D n Oa CD on = B �° �' m c = n °— Z z sv �`' a M ,n' C d Ci7 a o °- ° o v m c r" C y + DJ Rural Village Center = O o cwi, (a n i'n ° N CD CD ° a �O z CD SM a n W D Cn N CD e CD y CD co o O n r z o ca p 7 (D E3 v vi N (0 N v N n General Crossroad z 0 CD M a n Resource -Based Industrial n m z CD �„ m n °cwno0 Amy ZC D o cwi, �^ o c o 0 cri W (W CD 'n O En �m n ° -oo° z y rn o w. cs cW z� Noy z o Cn T 01 o cwr o 0 r- z CD CD o C o � V (7 d z a �r co �O �v r MM m z rn v, z D o w cn =1C co (D T o 01 o o m O rn V Dz D m o A 1 DU MO 10 Acres m r= � Z z N M 1 DU 120 Acres � v � N o CD Ox = O c r" C z Rural Village Center = y o cwi, N o Cn o 0 0a a �O z CD z n W r M = a O CWT o O n D O z o " cn v z �" D' > o Cn o 0 z z M n General Crossroad z CD M M o n Resource -Based Industrial n m z <m �„ m n °cwno0 Amy z cNi, Cn � Z n c"I (Glen Cove) m o z� rnn M nv a r- Light Industrial Cn M D cs C." v D o cwn o 0 OZ 0 O M y ? Heavy Industrial Z M m Ka M —1 zi�y- o L" v ;o � ovw,00 O � N ° O z D rn O W cn CD m U, C. 0 it 0 `n CD O y o ccn M V Cn Z (W CD 'n O En M' T o --n ° -oo° z y rn o w. cs cW o o T Rural Forest N C/) -o c z CD CD o C o CL V (7 d z a �r co *+ �v r MM m z rn CD Cn W 1 DU / 5 Acres o =1C co (D O rn C . iZ n CJ O rn V Dz o o A 1 DU MO 10 Acres m r= � N M 1 DU 120 Acres � o N o CD Ox = c r" C z Rural Village Center mn a �O z CD z o ca �z a O CWT o CD C.1 r„ ° z Z Neighborhood/ v z 0 M. z W W W N -i Cn Cn O O x OW W W N cn cn o ° M Z W W W N v cn L" O o 0 c M m w w w N n Cn Cn O O Cn v M n Cr T Ln O o m v z Cn W W W N M cr cr o 0 0 O Z w in W W W N Cn [n O O olcw„�o�o o I o > I Agriculture - Commercial C) z �, L' 0 Agriculture -Local M E M' T o --n Commercial Forest ,rn mn o T r 0 o o T Rural Forest N z n C z a �r o *+ Inhoiding Forest r MM c �„ �;, 1 DU / 5 Acres �n O rn Dz o o A 1 DU MO 10 Acres m O r= � N ;0 1 DU 120 Acres � o N o Ox = c r" C z Rural Village Center mn a S Convenience Crossroad o ca �z r„ ° z Z Neighborhood/ v z n Visitor Crossroad m < z M n General Crossroad z M o n Resource -Based Industrial M 0 <m C) _j z Light Industrial /Commercial � Z n c"I (Glen Cove) mCn z� A M nv a r- Light Industrial Cn M v 0 O M y ? Heavy Industrial Z M v nv Parks, Preserves & Recreation cr co O� d 1:3 d fD �3 O Cy p R. 'O b n iA b 13. >y C'1 zz C% V C C17 O �v rn z a z CIOd a kol,J G-LO 'oN aouewpj0 ,fq pepuawy spepuelS luaiudojanao • g uogoaS apoo luawdoIanap pawuN J7-9 •jo1ej1slulwpy ay; Aq paulwaalep se algeolloeid lualxa wnw!xew ay; o; ,,915E no0 eoepnS snolnuadwl 10 eeiy„ ay; laaw Isnw pue 1•9 uo1loas oafl u! s ;uawailnbei jejamwiols ay; o; loafgns aje s;oulslQ lelluappsa�j lamb ui azls ui ejoe quo ueyl ssal pJooaJ 10 slol Ie6al 6ugslx8-91d '96 •azls 6ulpllnq wnwlxew ay; jo anlonils quo uey; aaow uleluoo Aew laoied y 'amlonuls lenpinlpu! yoea 101uud1ool ay; Aq paldn000 eaae ay; se pamseaw s! azls 6ulpllnq wnwlxeW --VI, •seen ;onils Ile to sluudlool ay; Aq paldn000 eaae jol lelolto abelueoied ay; Aq pamseaw s! 968JOA00 bulppq to eaje wnwlxeW •£6 •1981(9) any aq Ileys s6u!pl!nq ;no jot sjoeglas pjeA apls pue jeei wnwlulw ay; ulaJOLIM MOB (g) any uey; ssai pjooai to slol 6u1lslxe jol ldaoxe 'spays loo; jo spays a6eao;s 's96eJe6 payoelap se yons sasn lem;lnou6e ao 1e11uaplsa col saulpllnq }no o; lidde osle pays 6 -g aigel ul papinoid mioeglas aew pue apls Ieloads ayl 76 peo�l Mod 41noS 'peo�l 9�Apwo41 'peo�j tianoosla •S 'peod Aau;l4M lulod 'peon NeGJO fuuad 'peon{ Leg aslpered 'peon{ ABE! NeO `peo�i aNe-1 uosie-I 'peoll Mod IazeH '1sgM anuany sbu1lseH 'peo�:l ;unowa16e3 `peoj:i sjeuaoo .ino,j 'peo�l eueol!np •3 'peo�l 4sngeNona 'peocl sdlilemasot] 'peO}J •0'd gogeQ `peoU gogea 'peoU 9IAO0 'uolsualxd anuany 91000 'peo-�tl J018AUBO1O 'PEOU 96jo90 adeo 'peo�l l!!W aa8 'peo�j eNe-1 uOsjapuy •sao;aapoa JouIw • WON 4oH aaddn 'peo�1 ejoyS 41noS- lineulno 'peoU elepuoil 'peo�j wnoew140 `peoZj Ja ;uao '(peoZl .ialbeld pue peoZl a916e1d 01 peOU Aee 1e0 'peOU a0wo0 ,ss9N) 966 US 'sao1381100 JofeW •(11o1no 1Jodny pue 'antra Apoyd 'peoU A9II8A Janea8) 61, �JS 'sleuaIJe Jou1W •OZ Hs 'b06 2js ' 606 Sfl 'sleua:pe ledloulid :lldde Ileys suolleu6lsep pea 6u1nnopo1 ay; `uolloas slyl to sluawaimbei ay; yllM 1u91slsuo0 sg111ngoe luawdolanap JOI spegIes a41 Apielo of •suol;eolllsselo peoN • 6 6 'algeo!Iddy ION = V1N. '06 •seeie aso41 X01 sluawannbei leuolsuawlp pue N1ng ;uajall!p 4sllgelse Aew sueld eajegns panaddy '6 'slugwalnbei 146lay 6u!pllnq wnwlxew all woal Idwaxa aye sa11!n!loe lem11nou6e jol sleua;ew 10 e6ejols ay; i01 pasn samlorujS •g •sluewa.imbei jgbeq waI Idwaxa eje dlysjomjo sooeld y ;inn peleposse sajlds pue 'luawdlnbe jellw!s pue OVAH 'saolnap 6u1n1939J pue bulpues uolleolunwwoo 's14611ANs 'selod pue sau!I f4!1!ln 'selod6eg 'shays aolenala pajlnbaryQy 'sl!em 19dejed jo ay 'sNoelsallows 'sAeuw!4o 'L 'apoo s14; to suolslnoid ay; japun elgepllnqun pjooei 10 jol lebal a japuej pinom reglas yons to uolleolidde fouls ayl 11 goeQlas pea luoal wnwlulw a41 eonpaj Aew aolejlslulwpy ayl •jolejlslulwpy ay; Aq panoidde ssalun eaae peglas luoal eqj ul paleool aq Ile4s (segslp eplla ;es 'seuuelue se 4ons)' seomap uolleownwwoo jo sainloruls aaylo ON •sllnen pue 'seloyuew 'slelseped 'sajim 'salod se yons snlejedde �I!1!1n !(swaeq 6ulpnloul) 6uldeospuel !(dWS e4l ui ldaoxa) spleguleip pue swelsAs 011das !sj9l1eys snq !sasno4 dwnd !sham 'sexogl!ew of Aldde 1ou op sjoeglgS '9 •J90u16u3 /f}unoo ay; Aq peulwialap se 'suo!loasialui le scull 1y61s a ;es 6uuledwi uaynn jo (dWS) weJ6ad J91selnl aullaJoyS 94110 uollo!psunf ayl u! ldeoxe 'sluaweimbei reglas wail Idwaxa ale saouad •g •apoo slyl ui payloads aslnrie4lo ssalun '1991 (OZ) Ajuanq aq lleys reglgs ayl 'esJan aoln pue 'auoz jo asn leu;snpul ue ;nqe of pasodoad si asn lel3J9wwo0 a aanaJayM ';, •apoo slyl ui payloads esuw9ylo ssalun '1991(006) peipuny quo aq lleys �oeglas a4l 'esJan aoln pue 'auoz Jo asn leulsnpu! Aneay a ;nqe of pasodoad s! asn Ie1ju9pls9J a Jan919yM • •apoo s!yl ui payloads asimlaylo ssalun '1991(9Z) 9n1j- /C4u9N4 aq lleys Noeglas ay; 'esJan 991n pue 'auoz jo asn leulsnpu! 14611 a Inge of pasodad si asn lelluap!saJ a aanaJayM ;801(5£) any -Ajj!4I aq lleys i oeglas ay1 `eMn aoln pue 'auoz jo asn lepiewwoo a Inqe of pasodoad si asn legueplsai a aanaJayM • :sjoeglaS ap!S pue aea�j lepecIS '£ 'E•S•£ uogoaS uj payloads se spuel gomosai lueoefpe wa1 peimbei goeglas lepeds ay1 of loefgns I! ldg3x3 •Z •puasUmO I pod 10 A410 9y1 10 tiepunoq palejodiooul 941 o; OZ �:Is pue pe0y puesumol Pod p10 10 u01 .10 asialu! 941 woal 'luawdol9nap nnau X01 '(j91Inq ay; w01 )loeq ;as ,OZ a pue j011nq O£ a jo pesudwoo) Aemg6ly ay; to apls yoea uo 199109 eq lleys 0Z CIS 10 Aenn- to -ly6u ay; waI �oeglas 941 'easy- uLanoO uaio ay ; 10 uopod way ;nos ayl u! ldoueo aajl pue aopujoo lsajol ay; loalad o; ueld 9nlsuayejdwoo 9yl lO 0'66 JNl do luelul eql lueweldwl of • I, :sa1ON sa-avc dd.Ls LIB awcio-iaA9Q • 9 NOI109S FNVIRON,MFIN1' dr o- \ ' PORT TOWS:— cl kJ Lil.(�5�y1q. t "p` 1a 1l �~ ^�'I � r.r. i— •t.,,. ;L. c., ITN pp ..... ' r rn.. . �: t r • 1 i w t tf. ' � 1 I � • 1 TF v i � 0 a t ( 7 I � � t� �.� �•j(s.~F� ter, ® tipcciNl Ad U t ^vl.�v: Arnr h IV f ti TAY 1 ��y ^� CRITICALAREAS - AQUIFER RECHARGE Wvdarzmdnaw yryW.- ' I ,' SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS L r• "r HASTARN JFFFBRSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON �• .' � l i ..... - � � UATR rr.T.Y t2 t aN t�. _ 1'UN tNiNdiflATb4aL INNlP(tgv dNL'i - — nwwn JCITCrsun COUnt)�. Comprehensive Plan 8 -13 August 28, 1998 1:NVIRONMEN't T-- ----- –,-- –,- — ANW: 00 i: 01 tL J. rn z al U4 1. rn z O SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS (From S.C.S. soil designations) EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY RANIX M is JelTersoll COMM Comprehensive Plan 8-23 August 28, 1998 GLE`d COVE WATER SYSTEM AREA Page 1 ORDERED BY PARCEL NUMBER (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO OWNER SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 30 00116300 1 SECTION 21,T30 N,R1W :TX 28 00116400 7 GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT 2 3 -7 00116401 6 GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT :_1 VIEW 00116401 7 GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT 3 948600201 00116401 8 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :S112 NWNW 001212001 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :SW NW — 00121200 2 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 22 00121200 3 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :SW NW* 001212005 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 2 001212007 SECTION 21,T30 N,R1W :N1 /2NWNW 001212008 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 17 001212009 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 15 001212010 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 16 001212011 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 18 001212012 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 19 001212013 ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT :1 BAY 001212014 ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT :2 948600701 001212015 ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT :3 7: 001212016 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 20 001212018 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 21 001212019 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 18 001212020 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :1 001212025 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :2 001212026 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :3 001212027 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :4 001212028 EISENBEIS,BAY VIEW ADDN 1: 122 948600101 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 1: 3 -7 948600102 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 2: 1 -6 948600201 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 3: 1,2 948600301 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 3: 3 -6 948600302 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 1 -5* 948600401 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 1 -4 948600501 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 5,6 948600502 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 1 -3 948600601 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 4,5 948600602 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 6 948600603 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1* 948600701 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1* 948600702 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 2,3 948600703 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 4 -6 948600704 JEFFCO LUDWIG, FRANCES HARPER, ROBERT C EPPING, W H EPPING, W H THOMPSON, FRANCIS-17,18,1.9 BRADY, DALE LAMMERS, CLARENCE ANDERSON, VICTORS 200 OFW700) KIMBALL, FLOYD ZAMPERIN, ANGELO LILLIE —MARIE FOUNDATION RUBY, CHARLES E RUBY, CHARLES E KERR, THOMAS(SO OF SETON RD) LUNGREN INVESTORS BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 BELL, BURTON H BELL, BURTON H KVINSLAND, PHILIP G KVINSLAND, PHILIP G BELL, BURTON H(NO OF SETON RD) BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 'BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 MEISTER, VIRGINIA A HILSON, KARMET G COOPER, DONALD A MONK, L V COOPER, DONALD A GERMEAU, JOSEPH P GERMEAU, JOSEPH P ROWZER, IRA MABERRY, MERRILL W WHITE, ROBERT L CHRISTENSON, CHARLES L PTPC WHITE, ROBERT L WHITE, ROBERT L AHLERS, PATRICK J L rc70o9 176 ! ` 9 : cZ NCTV 11^7IA 'fS SIHSNHSIH : cG NGQ a tvi I 11 �7ff SISSNHSIH WIII'TIIM r `8zEzC3C L OcZ099tt6 S -L : cZ NGCIV MHIA 7,V9 SIHSNHSIS Od,Ld SOZZ098tt6 *ZL :ZZ NGGV MHIA RV9 SISSNHSIH V C'IVNOC `�IHdoOO t7OZZ092t 6 ZL :ZZ NGCIV MHIA 7,VT l SIHSNHSIS V GUNOQ '8SdO0o cOZZ098tt6 LL -Z :ZZ NGCIV MHIA DVS SIHSNSSIH V GUNOC 2I2jd00o ZOZZ 098 t76 *L :Z2 NQCIT MHIA kVS SIHSNHSIH odici LOZZ099t76 *L :EE NGGV MHIA 09 SISSNSSIH Odid SOLZ098tt6 EL: LZ NG(IV MSIA 7,V9 SIHSNHSIH V C'IVNOC `8Zd000 ttOLZ092tt6 *ZL -L : LZ NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH V C'IVNOQ `uzd00o cOLZ099t 6 9-tt : LZ NCCV MHIA RV9 SIHSNHSIH V CZIINOC `92d00o ZoLZ099tt6 *c -L : LZ NCC'd MHIA �VS SIHSNHSIH Odid LOLZO9246 *L :LZ NGGV MHIA XIIS SIHSNHSIH Q HONZHV'IO `71VHWVE2 SOOZO99tt6 EL-L :OZ Naar MSIA 7,V9 SIHSNHSIH odLd t7OOZO9Stt6 L'9 : OZ NGGV MHIA RVS SIHSNHSIH 'I 19SE10H `NEDVH c00Z098tt6 *9-c :OZ NCIGV MHIA XV2 SIHSNHSIH Z IHEE N `NSOVH ZOOZ098tt6 Z : OZ NCCV MHIA ITS SISSNSSIH 'I LUElou `N210VH LOOZ099tt6 L :OZ NGGV MHIA RVG SIHSNHSIH Q HONH WIO `TIVHWV 19 c06L O98tt6 ZL : 6L NCCIT MHIA 7,89 SIHSNHSIH Q SONHWIO `'I- IVHWVU9 Z06L 099tr6 L L -L :6L NCIGV MHIA 7,V9 SIHSNSSIH Q HONEUTIO `TIVHWVE9 L 06L 099tt6 9 -L :6L NGCIV MSIA 7,V9 SIHSNHSIH oozzar E09L099tr6 L :8L NCCV MHIA 7,iiS SIHSNHSIH oo33Hr. ZW L 099 tt6 9 :9L NQCV MHIA XV9 SISSNHSIH H SIVCI `clHvc[COo LM092tt6 *ZL- 6`tt`c -L :8L NCCV MHIA 7,V9 SIHSNSSIH H SZVC `cavaloo L OLL o99 tt6 z L -L :LL NCIGV MHIA 7,V2 SIHSNHSIH H S'IVG `Cuv(lCoo L M 099tt6 ZL -L :9L NCCIT MHIA ) Vg SISSNHSIH H S'IVG `CSvCCOO L OSL 09246 ttL -L :SL NQQII MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH H H'IITC `cHv(lGoO L OttL 0991 6 ttL -L : ttL NCC'd MHIA 7,VG SIHSNHSIS H SZvC `cHvGC00 L Oc L oWtt6 Z I. -L :EL NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SIHSNHSIH H H'IVCI `QuvQQoo E0z L 092176 Z I, -S :EL N(IGV MSIA ) Vg SIHSNHSIS GaVHOIU `,LEOHS ZOZLO9846 tt :ZL NGCIV MHIA ALTS SIHSNHSIS H HZITC `Cuvaao!) L OZ L o98tt6 c -L : Z L NGGV MHIA 7,V2 SIHSNHSIH H Elva `clHv(l(loo cOL L 099tt6 6 : L L NGGV MHIA 7,FIS SIHSNHSIH Z ZIIHSOU `HZIHM ZOL L 098tt6 L : L L NGGV MSIA 7,V9 SIHSNHSIH H SZVQ `clEv COO L OL L ONtt6 ZL -OL `tt-L : L L NCCIT MSIA 7,V9 SISSNSSIH Q 30NZEV ID `q IVHWVU9 ttOOL 099tt6 *S ` L : OL NGGV MSIA SITS SIHSNHSIS C 3ON3HV'I0 `1gVHWVEG E00L092tt6 *6`8 :OL NGGV MHIA 7,ITS SIHSNHSIS M HOnH `HSt1ooW Z00L 099tt6 9-c : OL NGGV MHIA RV9 SIHSNHSIH C SDNHEV70 `IgVHWV99- L OOL O98tt6 Z L -OL `Z ` L : OL NCQFI MHIA 7,Vl l SIHSNHSIS S S N317V `NO17,V70 S060098tt6 ZL -L :6 NCIGV MSIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH S MHHZVW `7,u3SITW tr060099tt6 9-t7 :6 NGGV MSIA RVE SIHSNHSIH HIWV `IiUVGOH)i c060098tt6 c :6 NCCV MHIA M SISSNSSIS 0 NVA 11HOI8M Z060098tt6 Z :6 NGGV MSIA )I TS SIHSNHSIS NOINI"IO `IHOI8M L 060099t 6 L :6 NGGV MSIA SITS SISSNHSIH VIOIE.LVd `m�jv Io 9080099tt6 c -L :9 NCCV MHIA KV9 SIHSNHSIH odid S080098tt6 EL IL :8 NGGV MSIA RATS SISSNHSIH o HnHIHV `NHOHSO0 tto800Wt76 ZL -OL :8 NGGV MHIA DVS SISSNHSIH O HnHM `NHOHSOJ c08009Stt6 6 -L :8 NGGV MHIA DVS SISSNHSIH O unHIHV `NHOHSOO Z080092t 6 9-tt :8 NGGV MHIA AXIS SISSNHSIH f Q VEDIH `83)IVNIONV -1 L 090099tr6 *E-L :8 NGGV MHIA 7,V2 SIHSNHSIS �13NMO ON7308Vd lo'I: xo0'IS NOISIAICSnS (L8 /ZO /tt0) 233HWnN 722HU XS CHHHUO z @Sed V2Hjv WHZS)�S 821VM SAOO N270 ,-:LEN COVE WATER SYSTEM r'iREA Page 3 ORDERED BY PARCEL NUMBER (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO OWNER EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 8 -12 948602304 DEDERER, J WILLIAM EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 24: 1- 4,9 -12* 948602401 THOMAS, WILLIAM M EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 24: 5 -8 948602402 ALDRICH, FORREST, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 1- 4,9 -12 948602501 HIGDOS, WALLACE W EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 6,7* 948602505 THOMAS, WILLIAM M EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 5 -8* 948602507 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 1 -3 948602601 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 4 -9 948602602 PEYSER, MEYER EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 26:10 -12 948602603 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 1 -3 94860270.1 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 4 -6 948602702 PICCHITTI, ANTONIO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 7,8 948602703 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 9 948602704 BRINER, MARIE L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27:10 -12 948602705 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 28: 1 -14 948602801 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 29: 8-14 948602901 DONOVAN, .J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 29: 1 -7 948602902 NORTON, WALLACE V EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 30: 7 -12 948603001 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 30: 1 -6 948603002 NORTON, WALLACE V EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 31: 7 -12 948603101 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 31: 1 -6 948603102 NORTON, WALLACE V EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 1 -3 948603201 NORTON, WALLACE V EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN .32: 4 948603202 WASHINGTON STATE EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 5 948603203 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 6 -8* 948603204 NW ELECTRIC APPARATUS EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 8* 948603205 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 9* 948603206 WASHINGTON STATE EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32:10 -12 948603207 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 33: 1 -12* 948603301 NW ELECTRIC APPARATUS EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 1 -4 948603401 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 5,6* 948603402 BRASHLER, DOUGLAS, JR, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 6,7* 948603403 PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 7 948603404 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 8 -12 948603405 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1* 948603501 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1* 948603502 CITY OF PT /PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 2 -11 948603503 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35:12* 948603504 CITY OF PT /PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35:12* 948603505 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 36: 1 -6* 948603601 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 1 -5* 948603701 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 6* 948603702 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 6* 948603703 PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 38: 1 -6* 948603801 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 1 -4* 948603901 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 5,6* 948603902 PAPRITZ, GORDON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 5* 948603904 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 40: 1 -6 948604001 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 41: 1 -6 948604101 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL . , � ;•� T's {_4C �� _ T :. L ^! n,�, ! v -- '- L -L : L NCT M I11 ?�t�S SdI Ii1Hd Laid S► NH 171 3)iNI3LS ;i Q' ici ecocc. �t96 LOoo08tr96 �„L: £L: LV Id Sa7,3NUVE)l NOSNOIgH r NHUM Z NHOr `'IIHIiEOO 9000o8t796 *OL ` L L `OL: LV-Id S ZNHVE]i ONI `S'IONI'd0 5000091796 M /a -ZL: IV'Id S 1,HNHVH)l HdId 30 M ,06 Od1d tr00008t796 SL 9 t7 `OL `Z : ITId SiT,HNHVZX Id 30 M,06-00 H32NII 7,dHAOOSIQ £00008tr96 OL ` 5L ` 9L ` 6 : IV'Id S i IHNHV21)1 VNIEIdU Z000081796 8 9L : IV'ld S i XHNEM Id d0 M 06-00 E3SWII X'92AOOSI(I L 00008 tr96 Z ` L : IV'Id S i l3NUVE)l OO EHgNII AIi3AOOSI(i £OSZO££96 OL ` 6 : SZ NQQV )RIVd ONIAHI 'IEVHOIN `Tjoosj G Z05Z0££96 9 :SE NQQiI )IHVd ONIAHI OO 929WIZ R83AOOSI(i L05Z0££96 L -L :SZ NQQV HUVd ONIAHI OVA + 'IflVd `(II0vN L ot7Z0££96 *OL -L : t7Z NQQV X8Vd ONIAHI ,L33ILS OOd3Hr Lo£ZO££96 OL -L :£Z NQQV )IHVd ONIAUI HHZSnHZ `7,2'IIU `HIiFTM L OZZO££96 OL -L : ZZ NQQii )IgVd ONIAHI 33,1SnHI OMx 8c `ONHS.L L OLZO££96 OL -L :2 NQQV )INVd ONIAUI Z Q'IVN0H `HZINS £oozo££96 OL -9 : OZ NQQii )I iffd ONIAHI Z Q'IVNOH `HUNS ZOOZO££96 S-£ :OZ NCIGV )IHVd ONIAdI Z QIVNOH `HZINS LooEo££96 Z` L :OZ NQQS' )IUVd ONIAHI -IV "luvo `,330HSVE L o6L 0££96 OL -L :6L NCIGV )IgVd ONIAHI ,LH M2[HGNV `)ivw tro8 L 0££ 96 £ :9L NQQ'd )IUVJ ONIALII 23.LSnul `OM)l �i(1 `ON3S1 £08 L 0££96 5 :9L NQQV )PIVd 0NIAHI NVx 4 ONn3 Zoe L 0££ 96 t7 :9L NQQV )IUVd ONIAUI M SST IonO(l `NOISNHOr L N L 0££96 E I L :8 L NCIGV )IHVd ONIAHI liflvd `(jIOvN L oLL 0££96 OL -L :LL NQQV MU ONIAHI ZEKS OVA + 7OVd `QIOvN L09LO££96 *OL -L :9L NCIGV )18Vd 0NIAHI . 12381S OVA + lflVd `QIOvN L OSL 0££96 *OL -L :SL NQQV )IUVd 0NIMI 133Ii.LS OVA + 'IflVd `QIOvN L m 0££96 *OL -L : ttL NQQV NUVd ONIAUI .SEWS OVA + 7flVd `QIOFTN L O£ L 0££96 *OL -L :EL NQQV )IHVd 0NIAHI 'Ifiva `QI0vN L OZ L 0££96 OL -L :EL NQQii } HVcl ONIAHI (GE 30 MN)V szwvr `Zn0IIH5 EoLLO££96 9 -£ :LL NQQV XUVd ONIAK v SHNvr `IflMIHS LoL Lo££96 Z` L : L L NCIGV XUVJ ONIAHI v sawvr `100HHS L oOL 0££96 OL -L : OL NQQV NUVd ONIAHI IN3x `NOSNIg09 50600££96 OL :6 NQQV Md 0NIAHI INZX 6 NOSNIE08 tco600££96 6 -5 :6 NQQV XUVJ ONIAHI ZN3)i `NOSNI90H £0600££96 fit :6 NQQV NUVd ONIAHI IN3X 4 NOSKE108 Z060o££96 £ :6 NQQV )IM ONIA�II ZNHx `NOSNIE08 ' L 0600££96 Z ` L :6 NGCIV MHVd ONIMI IN3H `NOSNISOH Z08OO££96 Z` L :8 NQQS' XgVd ONIAK s +� 331SnUs `OM)l HG `ONHSI Lo8o0££96 OL -£ :8 NQQfi NUVd ONIALiI 3HZSMI `OM)l HG 90N3S1 LOLOO££96 OL -L :L :9 NQQV NQQV TIVJ 2aVd ONIAHI ONIAHI 33,Lsnul `OM)l 8G `ONHSI `OMH 90NHS1 L09oo££96 LO500££96 OL -L CL-1 :S NQQii NUVd 0NIA8I 3H.LSnul 2IQ HHSSHI `OMN K `ONHSI L ot7oo££96 OL -L :1t NQQV 'NUVd ONIAIiI 'IflVd `(I IOvN L 0£00££96 OL -L :£ NQQV Md 9NIA8I 'IflVd QIOvN LOZ00££96 OL -L :Z NQQV Md 0NIAHI llflvd `QIOvN L OL 00££96 OL -L :L NCIGV MVd ONIMI qv ,LH `HI'Is3i r `NVAONOQ Lort7098176 L -L :Ztr NQQX MHIA XV9 SI32N3SI3 IIHNMO ON'IZDHVd zoo :)IOoZg NOISIAIQgnS (L8 /ZO /tro) HEEMN MO2itld 19 Q3UEG80 abed VEEV N3.LS,IS 831VM 3AOO N219 SUBDIVISION fE-7-N COVE WATER SYSTE,% AREA Pa-e 5 ORDERED BY PARCEL NUMBER (04/02/87) BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO OWNER PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 2: 1 -6 986700201 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 3: 1 -6 986700301 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 1 986700401 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 276 986700402 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 3,4 986700403 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 5 986700404 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 1 -3* 986700501 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 4 986700502 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 5,6 986700503 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 1 -6 986700601 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1,2* 986700701 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1 -6* 986700702 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1 -12* 986700801 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1,2,11,12* 986700802 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 1 -12 986700901 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 1 -12* 986701001 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 3 -12* 986701002 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 1 -12 986701101 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 1 -12 986701201 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 13: 1 -12 986701301 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 14: 1 -14 986701401 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 15: 1- 3,5 -14 986701501 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 16: 1 -12 986701601 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 17: 1 -12 986701701 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 1 -5 986701801 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 6 -9 986701802 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 18:10 -12 986701803 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 19: 1 986701901 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 19: 2 -11 986701902 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 19: 13 986701903 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 1 -12 986702001 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 1,2,11,12* 986702101 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 1 -12* 986702102 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 22: 1,2,11,12* 986702201 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 22: 1,2,11,12* 986702202 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 1 -12 986702301 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 1 -12* 986702302 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 24: 1 -12* 986702401 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 1 -12* 986702501 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 1 -6 986702601 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 7 -12 986702602 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 1 -6 986702701 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 7 -12 986702702 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO SOUTHARD, ROBERT L BIDLINGMYER /SCHROEPFER SOUTHARD, ROBERT L HAMILTON, HUGH W PACIFIC NOWTHWEST BELL WASHINGTON STATE R/W JEFFCO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO PTPC 90' W OF PIPE DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -90'W OF PI DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -90'W OF PI PTPC 90' W OF PIPE DISCOVERY TIMBER CO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W WASHINGTON STATE R/W SOUTHARD, ROBERT L SOUTHARD, ROBERT L DISCOVERY TIMBER CO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO SOUTHARD, ROBERT L SOUTHARD, ROBERT L SOUTHARD, ROBERT L SOUTHARD, ROBERT L WASHINGTON STATE DISCOVERY TIMBER CO WASHINGTON STATE DISCOVERY TIMBER CO PTPC 90' W OF PIPE DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -901W OF PI PTPC 90' W OF PIPE DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -901W OF PI DISCOVERY TIMBER CO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 6,7 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 1,2 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 6,7 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO JEFFCO DISCOVERY TIMBER CO JEFFCO W SSOH `HHIIIM £oZtrOL986 W ssoH `HHIIIM ZOZttOL986 VIHO70 `HHIIIM LOZt oL986 V a7VNOC€ `HHd000 L oL ttOL986 V G IVNOQ `H3d00O L OM198 6 9'S NO M/H-00 93SKI 7MAOOSIC L 06£ OL92 6 00 HHSWII 7,HHAOOSICI L09EOL926 00 HHSWII �TMAObSIG LOL£OL986 Id 30 . M,06-00 HHSWII 7MAOOSIC[ Z09£OL986 HdId 30 M ,06 Odld L09£OL986 Id 3O M,06-00 HHSWII 7.HHAOOSIQ FOS£OL996 HdId 30 M , 06 Odld L OS£ OL98 6 00 HHSWII DHHAOOSIC LOtt£OL986 00 HHSWII XHHAOOSIQ L O££OL92 6 L'9 NO M /H-03 HHSWII XHHA00SIQ LOZ£OL926 V Q"IVNOQ `HHd00O LOL£OL996 V GUNOQ `HHd000 L oo£OL926 *Q708VH `SHHWWVI L 06Z 0L98 6 7 QIAVC( 37IInI Zo8Z0L986 O Q3H2,Iv `HIIWS L08ZOL986 *L` 9` 5 :Ztr NGGV MHIA ITS SdI77IHd *S` tt`£ : Ztt NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI77IHd Z`L :Zfr NGGV MHIA IV9 SdI77IHd 9 -L :Lt NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI77IHd 9 -L :Ott NCIGV MHIA XV9 SdI'IIIHd 9-L :6£ NGGV MHIA .IVS SdI77IHd 9-L = 8£ NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdI77IHd 9 -L :L£ NGGV MHIA .09 SdI77IHd 9 -L :9£ NGCV MHIA XV9 SdITIIHd *L 9£ NGTV MSIA IVE SdI77IHd *,7L -L :SE NGGV MHIA IVE SdI'I IIHd *ZL -L :S£ NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI77IHd ZL -L : tt£ NQCIV MHIA XV9 SdI'IZIHd ZL -L :££ NGGV MHIA XIS SdI77IHd,, *Z:L -L : Z£ NGGV MHIA XIS SdI77IHd EL-L :L£ NGGV MHIA XV2 9dI77IHd ZL -L =0£ NGGV MHIA XVS SdI77IHd tiL -L = 6Z NGCIV MHIA XV9 SdI77IHd EL-9 = R NGGV MHIA .ISIS SdI77IHd ttl `S -L :8Z NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI77IHd 8ENMO ONZHOHiId I07 :ND079 umS oitro) H22wnN 720HVd hg QHHHQHO 9 GBed VHHV WHISKS HHIVM HAOO N370 NOISIAIGU S GLEN COVE WATER SYS T E1 AREA Page 7 ORDERED BY SUBDIVISION (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO OWNER EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 1: 1,2 948600101 MEISTER, VIRGINIA A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 1: 3 -7 948600102 HILSON, KARMET G EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 2: 1 -6 948600201 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 3: 1,2 948600301 MONK, L V EISENBEIS BAY VIEW,ADDN 3: 3 -6 948600302 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 1 -5* 948600401 GERMEAU, JOSEPH P EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 1 -4 948600501 GERMEAU, JOSEPH P EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 5,6 948600502 ROWZER, IRA EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 1 -3 948600601 MABERRY, MERRILL W EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 4,5 948600602 WHITE, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 6 948600603 CHRISTENSON, CHARLES L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1* 948600701 PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1* 948600702 WHITE, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 2,3 948600703 WHITE, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 4 -6 948600704 AHLERS, PATRICK J EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1,12 948600805 PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1 -3* 948600801 LANGINAKER, RICHARD J EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1 -3* 948600806 CLARK, PATRICIA EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 4 -6 948600802 GOSHORN, ARTHUR C EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 7 -9 948600803 GOSHORN, ARTHUR C EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8:10 -12 948600804 GOSHORN, ARTHUR C EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 1 948600901 WRIGHT, CLINTON EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 2 948600902 WRIGHT, VAN 0 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 3 948600903 KHODAYAR, AMIR EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 4 -6 948600904 MABERRY, MATHEW B EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 7 -12 948600905 CLAYTON, ALLEN E S EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 1,2,10 -12 948601001 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 3 -6 948601002 MCCABE, HUGH W EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 7,8* 948601004 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 8,9* 948601003 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 1- 4,10 -12 948601101 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 7 948601102 WHITE, ROBERT L - -- EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 9 948601103 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 1 -3 948601201 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 4 948601202 SHORT, RICHARD EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 5 -12 948601203 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 13: 1 -12 948601301 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 14: 1 -14 948601401 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 15: 1 -14 948601501 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 16: 1 -12 948601601 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 17: 1 -12 948601701 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 1- 3,4,9 -12* 948601801 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 6 948601802 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 7 948601803 JEFF C0 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 19: 1 -6 19: 7 948601901 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN -11 19:12 948601902 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D 948601903 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 1 948602001 HAGEN, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN {20: 2 948602002 HAGEN, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 3 -6* 948602003 HAGEN, ROBERT L r'T ^r , -; C Cr,CG -� 1 -? ty NC f SIEEN2ST2 NGC ID Lli1 ldid t Gr E09St D' L tt£ NCC7 M---IA -�f9 SI119NZ'S12 Od.Ld EottE092tt6 *L'9 = tt£ NCCV MHIA 7,V9 SIZSNZSIZ ,IV .LH `dr `sv ionoQ `8H7HSVU9 EOK098tt6 *9'S :f7£ NCCIT MHIA RV9 SIHSNHSIH NOCHO0 `ZII8dVd LOtt£098tt6 tt -L =tt£ NG(IV MHIA �RV9 SIHSNHSIH Sn.LVUVddV OI910272 MN L O££098tr6 *ZE L -L :H NCGV MHIA 7�Vg SIHSNHSIH 7V 12 `HI7STI r `NVAONOG LOZ£098tt6 EL -OL =E£ NCCV MZIA �RVE SIHSNHSIH HIVJS NO.LONIHSVM 90EE098tt6 *6 :EE NCCV MHIA KV9 SIHSNHSIZ 0033Hr SOE£098tt6 *8 :E£ NGGV MHIA WRVS SIHSNHSIH SfliV Vdd'i OIHIOTIH MN ttOE£092t6 *8-9 : Z£ NGGV MHIA XV2 SIHSNHSIH oOd.32r £oz£o98tr6 S =E£ NGGV MHIA XV2 SIHSNHSIH H HIS NOIDNIHS'IM EOE£098tt6 tt :EE NG(TV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH A ZOV'I76M `NOJHON LOE£098tt6 £ -L :E£ NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH 'ITT LH `HI'ISH7 r `NVAONOC L OL£098tt6 EL -L :LE NGGV M3IA XV9 SIHSNHSIH A SOV77VM `NOIHON EOL£098tt6 9-L :LE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH 'Iii IH `3I' 37 r `NVAONOC L 0o£098tt6 EL -L :OE NGCIV MHIA ACTS SIHSNHSIH A EOV77VM `NO19ON z00£098tt6 9-L :0£ NGCIV MHIA XV2 SIHSNHSIH iv ,LZ `ZI'ISHZ r `NVAONOC L06z098tt6 t7 -8 - 6Z NCCV MHIA XV9 SIHNSSI3 A SO'd71VM `NOIEON E06E098tt6 L -L :6F, NG(FV MHIA XVE SIHSNHSIH H HIM `GUV(JQOo L 08Z098tr6 K -L :2E NCCV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH H H'IV(i `(iHv(iCoo SOLE o98 tt6 E L -0 L = LE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIZ 'I 2iuvW 9 HENI89 ttoLE098tt6 6 :LE NGGV MZIA XV2 SIHSNHSIH H 21VG `CdvCCOo £oLE098tr6 8`L :LE NGCIV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH OINOINV ` IIIIHOOId Z OLE 098 tt 6 9-t :LE NGGV MHIA XV9 SI39NESIR H Z'IVC `GUVGCOO LOLE098tr6 £ -L :LE NGGV MHIA XV9 SI32NHSIZ H H'IV(I `CHVCCO: £09E098t76 EL -OL = 9E NGGV MZIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH HHxHW `Hzsx3d Eo9Eo98tt6 6 -tt :9E NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH H H'IVC `CIlVal00 L 09E098tt6 £-L :9E NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNZSIZ W WVIZ'IIM `SVWOHS, SOSE098tr6 *L'9 : SE NGGV MSIA XV9 SI39NHSI2 03333r LOSE098tt6 *8 -S :SE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH M ZOV'I'IVM `SOCOIH Lo5zo98tr6 EL- 6't-L :SE NGGV MZIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH ITT ILH `ZSSHOZ HOI I IV EOttE098t76 8-S = ttE NCCIT MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH W WVI77IM `SVWOHI L Ot,7 o98 tt6 *E L -6 ` fit-L = ttE NGGV MHIA XVS SIHSNHSIZ wvil'IIM r `u3uaCHH tr0£Eo98tr6 EL-2 :EE NGGV MHIA Xing SIHSNHSIH Od,Ld £0£Eo98tt6 W9 :£E NGC[V MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH wVil'IIM r `dHdHCHH EO£E098tr6 W9 :EE NGGV MHIA XIIS SIHSNHSIH WVI'I'IIM r `BHuG3G LO£E098tt6 S-L :£E NGGV MZIA XV9 SIHgNSSI3 OdZd SOEE098tt6 *EL =EE NGGV MHIA X15 SIHSNHSIH v Cmocr `HEd00O toEE098tt6 *EL :EE NGGV MZIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH V C'IVNOC 9 I12ld00O £OEE098tt6 L L -E :EE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSI3 V G7VNOC `IIHd000 EOEE098t76 *L =EE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH Od.Ld Lozzo98tt6 *L =EE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIH Odsd SOLEo98tt6 EL :LE NG(IV MZIA XV2 SIHSNHSIH V G7VNOC `HEWOO ttmzo98tr6 *EL -L :2 NGGV MZIA XVS SIHSNHSIH V G7VNOC `II2d00O £OLEo98tt6 9-tt :2 NGGV MHIA X G SIHSNHSIH V G7VNOC 9 HHd00O zOLZo98tt6 *E -L :2 NGCIV MZIA XV2 SIHSNHSIZ Od,Ld LOLE098fit6 *L :2 NGGV MZIA XV9 SIHHNHSIH C 33N2HV'I0 `7'IVHWVH2 SOOZO98tt6 EL-L :OE NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNHSIZ Od,Ld tt00zo98tt6 1,` 9 :OE N(IGV MHIA XVS SIHSNHSIE HHNMO ON'IHOHVd 101:X3019 NOISIAICgns U21ZOIttO) NOISIAIGUS Xg GZUEGEO 2 VEUV W31SXS 2121 iM HAOO N2'I0 GLEN COME WATER SYST7 -m AREA Page 9 ORDERED BY SUBDIVISION (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO ROBINSON, KENT EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1* 948603501 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1* 94860350 2 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 2 -11 94860350 3 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35:12* MAGID, PAUL + VAC 948603504 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35:12* W 948603505 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 36: 1 -6* 948603601 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 1 -5* 948603701 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 6* 94860370 2 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 6* 948603703 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 38: 1 -6* 948603801 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 1 -4* 948603901 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 5* 948603904 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 5,6* 948603902 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 40: 1 -6 948604001 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 41: 1 -6 948604101 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 42: 1 -7 948604201 GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT : 1 001164017 GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT : 2 001164016 GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT : 3 001164018 IRVING PARK ADDN 1: 1 -10 963300101 IRVING PARK ADDN 2: 1 -10 963300201 IRVING PARK ADDN 3: 1 -10 963300301 IRVING PARK ADDN 4: 1 -10 963300401 IRVING PARK ADDN 5: 1 -10 963300501 IRVING PARK ADDN 6: 1 -10 963300601 IRVING PARK ADDN 7: 1 -10 963300701 IRVING PARK ADDN 8: 1,2 963300802 IRVING PARK ADDN 8: 3 -10 963300801 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 1,2 963300901 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 3 963300902 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 4 96330090.3 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 5 -9 963300904 IRVING PARK ADDN 9:10 963300905 IRVING PARK ADDN 10: 1 -10 963301001 IRVING PARK ADDN 11: 1,2 963301101 IRVING PARK ADDN 11: 3 -6 963301102 IRVING PARK ADDN 12: 1 -10 963301201 IRVING PARK ADDN 13: 1 -10* 963301301 IRVING PARK ADDN 14: 1 -10* 963301401 IRVING PARK ADDN 15: 1 -10* 963301501 IRVING PARK ADDN 16: 1 -10* 963301601 IRVING PARK ADDN 17: 1 -10 963301701 IRVING PARK ADDN 18: 1,2 963301801 IRVING PARK ADDN 18: 3 963301804 IRVING PARK ADDN 18: 4 963301802 IRVING PARK ADDN 18: 5 963301803 IRVING PARK ADDN 19: 1 -10 963301901 IRVING PARK ADDN 20: 1,2 963302001 IRVING PARK ADDN 20: 3 -5 963302002 IRVING PARK ADDN 20: 6 -10 963302003 OWNER PAPRITZ, GORDON CITY OF PT /PTPC PAPRITZ, GORDON CITY OF PT /PTPC PAPRITZ, GORDON PAPRITZ, GORDON PAPRITZ, GORDON PAPRITZ, GORDON PTPC PAPRITZ, GORDON DONOVAN, J LESLIE, JEFFCO PAPRITZ, GORDON DONOVAN, J LESLIE, DONOVAN, J LESLIE, DONOVAN, J LESLIE, EPPING, W H HARPER, ROBERT C EPPING, W H MAGID, PAUL MAGID, PAUL MAGID, PAUL TSENG, TSENG, TSENG, TSENG, ROBINS TSENG, DR DR DR DR ON, DR KWO, KWO, KWO, KWO, KENT KWO, ET AL ET AL ET AL ET AL TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE ROBINSON, KENT ROBINSON, KENT ROBINSON, KENT ROBINSON, KENT ROBINSON, KENT SHROUT, JAMES A SHROUT, JAMES A SHROUTy JAMES A(NW OF RD) MAGID, PAUL MAGID, PAUL + VAC STREET MAGID, PAUL + VAC STREET MAGID, PAUL + VAC STREET MAGID, PAUL + VAC STREET MAGID, PAUL JOHNSTON, DOUGLAS W MAK, ANDREW FUNG, KAM TSENG, DR KWO, TRUSTEE RASHOFF, CARL, ET AL SMITH, RONALD T SMITH, RONALD T SMITH, R014ALD T NCG't MHIA I7H SdIi'II ?d .H u %S 'qOZO I =rS' -vii? -"L OG9� 6 E l i 6L NGG MG-LA �qE Sdi 1 IIHcl HLVIS NOLONIHSVM L06LOL926 L :6L NGCV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd Z D1390H 4 GMD109 �08LOL986 ZL-0L :8L NGGV MHIA IVEI SdITIIHd Z 18ES08 `GIinLnOS z08 L OL98 6 6 -9 :2L NGGV - ME IA �RVE SdITIIHd 'I lH2908 `GIIVHLnOS l 08 L OL99 6 S -L :2L NGGV M3IA IVE SdITIIHd 'I LuEgo�t `QI jfioS L OLL OL996 z L -L :LL NGGV MZIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd 00 922NIZ 7,IiHAOOSIG L 09 L OL98 6 Z L -L :9L NGGV MHIA TV9 SdITIIHd 00 U39WIL XHSAOOSIG LoSLOL986 t L -S`C,-L :SL NCKIV MHIA IVS SdITIIHd 00 U212NIL XHEA00SIG LottLOL986 ttL -L :ttL NGGV MHIA KV9 SdI'I'IIHd 00 HESWIL T,HEAODSIG L o� L OL986 Z L -L :EL NGCfV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd 'I IH390H `(JUVHLnOS L oz L oL98 6 Z L -L :FL N(IGV MHIA 7,V9 SdITIIHd 7 193908 `GHVHLnOS L OL L OL986 Z L -L : L L NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd M /Ii ajVIS NOLONIHSVM FOOLOL906 *FL-8 :oL NGGV MHIA XVG SdI'I'IIHd M /u-oo HESWIL XUSAOOSI(I L OOL OL986 *Z L -L : oL NGGV MHIA XVG SdI'I"IIHd 00 HESWIL 7MA00SIG L 060OL99 6 Z L -L :6 NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd I.d 3o M, 06-00 HH9WIJ, TMA03SIG L 08 0OL986 :2 NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI'I'IIHd 3dId 20 M , 06 Od.Ld F090OL926 *Zl ` L L `Z` L :8 NGQV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd Id 30 M,06-00 aSEWIL 7,83AOOSIG FOLOOL996 *9 -L :L NQGV MHIA RV9 SdITIIHd HdId 30 M , 06 OdLd L OLOOL996 *Z` L :L NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd oo UZSWIZ hKESAOOSIG L09oOL986 9 -L :9 NGGV MHIA XV9 SdITIIHd oo H39WIL )MAOOSIG EOSOOL996 9's :s NGGV MHIA IVE SdI'I'IIHd oo3321' FOSOOL996 tt =5 NQGV MHIA XV9 SdI'IIIHd M/8 HZVZS NOLONIHSVM L OSOOL996 *S-L :S NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI'IIIHd 7139 LS3MHLMON OIZIOVd ttott00L98 6 S = 17 NGGV MHIA ) Vg SdI'I'IIHd M HOfIH `NOLrIIWVH EottooL986 tt`8 : #t NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd I 1EE909 `GUVHLnoS zottooL986 9`Z :17 NGGV MHIA RV9 SdI'I'IIHd 83Sd308HOS /UH.KW5NI'IQI9 Lotro0L986 L = tt NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdII'IIHd Z IEHEOH `GNVHLnOS Lo�OOL986 9-L :8 NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd oo U22WIL XUA00SIG LOZOOL986 9-L :Z NG(IV MHIA XV9 SdI'TIIHd oo H39WIL 7MAOOSIG L OL OOL986 L -L :L NGQV MHIA 7,Vq SdI'I'IIHd 3XNIKS W dI'IIHd 800008tt96 *ttL : IV Id S, .13NUVEX N0SNOI'd3 P N3UHVM L00008 t79 EL: LV Id S, X3N V2)l ONI `S'IONIT) S00008t796 M /H-FL: LV'ld S, ,RHNUVEN L NHor "i-imoo 900002#96 *OL ` L L `OL : JV'Id 9-�3NMX Id SO M +06-00 U29WIL IESAOOSIG �00008tt96 oL `SL `9L `6 : IV'Id S R3911V3X VNIHLdV)l 200009 t96 8`L : IV'Id S,).HNHVR)l 3dld 30 M , 06 OdZd tt00008tt96 SL `ttl `OL `Z : LVZd S,7.3NHV3X M,06-00 Id 3o HESWIL XUA00SIG L00008tt96 Z` L JV7d S,l3NUVa)l 00 932WIL IHHAOOSIG EOSFO8896 oL ` 6 SZ NGGV )IgVd ONIAH 'I3VH0IW `- I'IoosiuQ zoSZo8E96 8 SZ NGQV )IUVd ONIAHI 00 Ii3gWIZ 7.IIHAOOSIG L OSZ08E96 L -L :SF NGGV 31UVd ONIAHI IZZHIS OVA + 'InVd `GIovW L OttZOEE96 *OL -L : itZ NGGV XUd SNIA8I Oori33l' L08ZOE�96 OL -L :8Z NGQV NUVd ONIAK 33ZSnul 9 73 -IIH `3m L OZZ08E96 OL -L : ZZ NG(IV )IUVd ONIAHI H3LSnuZ `OMH plc `ON3SL LOLZ08E96 CL -L : LZ NGQV XHVd ONIAdI HENMO ONUOUd ZO'I= X00'Ig NOISIAIGUS (L8 /Zo /ttO) NOISIAICUS )Ig G382GEO OL a2ed tl3i3ii W3LS7.,S 8HLHM 3A00 N370 GLE`r C^�lE WATER SYSTEM 4.REA ORDERED BY SUBDIVISION (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO 20: 1 -12 21: 112,11,12* 21: 1 -12* - 22: 1,2,11,12* 22: 1,2,11,12* 23: 1 -12 23: 1 -12* 24: 1 -12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 1 -12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 7 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 7 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 28: 1 -5,14 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 28: 6 -13 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 29: 1 -14 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 30: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 31: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 1 -12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 33: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1 -12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1 -12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 36: 1* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 36: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN' 38: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 40: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 41: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 42: 1,2 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 42: 3,4,5* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 42: 5,6,7* SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :N1 /2NWNW SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :S1 /2 NWNW SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :SW NW -* SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :SW NW* SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 2 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 15 Pa-7 = 11 OWNER 986702001 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986702101 PTPC 901 W OF PIPE 986702102 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -901W OF PI 986702201 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986702202 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -901W OF PI 986702301 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986702302 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 6,7 986702401 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 1,2 986702501 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 6,7 986702601 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986702602 JEFFCO 986702701 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986702702 JEFFCO 986702801 SMITH, ALFRED C 986702802 TUTTLE, DAVID L 986702901 LAMMERS, HAROLD* 986703001 COOPER, DONALD A- 986703101 COOPER, DONALD A 986703201 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 6,7 986703301 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986703401 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986703501 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986703502 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -901W OF PI 986703601 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986703602 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO -901W OF PI 986703701 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986703801 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO 986703901 DISCOVERY TIMBER CO-R /W ON 5,6 986704001 COOPER, DONALD A 986704101 COOPER, DONALD A 986704201 WITTER, GLORIA 986704202 WITTER, ROSS M 986704203 WITTER, ROSS M 001212008 ZAMPERIN, ANGELO 001212001 THOMPSON, FRANCIS - 17,18,19 001212002 BRADY, DALE 001212005 ANDERSON, VICTORS 200 OFW700) 001212007 KIMBALL, FLOYD 001212010 RUBY, CHARLES E H NOLHng `ZZSg 9L0ZLZL00 LVZd IHOHS NIdSdWVZ H NOLdng `ZZSg SLOZLZL00 LVZd 180HS NIdHdWVZ z/L ZISN `dSLVZS /NOldng `ZZSg wLO LZL00 L: IVId IdOHS NIdSdWVZ Z/L ZISN `821VU /NOLdng `lus SzOZLZl00 t: IVZd IHOHS dSL�ZS /�ddSdS Z/L ZISN `U21VIS /NOLHng `ZgSg LzOZlZL00 £= ITZd IHOHS BSLVZS /XaHHdS Z/L ZISN `dSLVaS /NOSdns `HZSg 9Z0ZLzL00 Z: IVU IdOHS HZLV7S /Ddd3d9 Z/L ZISN `8EIVIS /NOLHng `ZZSg SzOZLZLco L IVZd IdOHS HSIVZS /MUS 0033Sr L00£9LL00 O£ XI: MLH`NO£I`LZ NOILOSS SSONVHd 19IMan7 Looft9LLOO 87, XI= MLH`NO£L`LZ NOIIOSS SONSdVZO 4 Sd3WWv7 £ooZ2L00 Zz XL: MLH`N 0£L`LZ NOILOSS 0 dIaIHd `aNTZSNIA)l 6LOZ2LOO L XL: MLd`NO£L`LZ NOIIOSS 0 dIIIHd `aNVZSNIAX 2LOZLZL00 Oz XL: MLd`NO£I`LZ NOILOSS SHOISSANI NSdONnZ £LOZ2L00 6L XL= MLd`NO£L`LE NOILOSS (ad NOISS SO ON)H NOLdng `Z�Sg OZOZLZL00 8L XI: MLd`NO£I`LZ NOILOSS (ad NOISS 30 OS)SVWOHL `ddSx ZLOZLZL00 8L XL: Mld`NO£I`LZ NOILOSS NOILVaNnOS SIdvW- 3I7ZIZ 600zLZL00 LL XI: MLd`NO£L`LZ NOILOSS NOIIOHS S SSIMO `7,gnd LLOZLZLOO 9L XL: MLd`NO£L`LZ dSNMO ONZSOdVd NOISIAIagnS (L8 /z0 /W NOISIAIGHS Xg CHECK ZL aSed vEHV WSISXS HSLVM SAO3 NSIO CT » \a C�� %� IN `T'LR CYCT' »V A ."r_. P� 13 ORDERED BY OWNER (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO OWNER EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 4 -6 948600704 AHLERS, PATRICK J EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 24: 5 -8 948602402 ALDRICH, FORREST, ET AL SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :SW NW* 001212005 ANDERSON, VICTORS 200 OFW700) ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT :2 001212015 BELL, BURTON H ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT :3 001212016 BELL, BURTON H SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 18 001212020 BELL, BURTON H(NO OF SETON RD) SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :1 001212025 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :2 001212026 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :3 001212027 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 SPERRY /SLATER SHORT PLAT :4 001212028 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 ZAMPERIN SHORT PLAT :1 001212014 BELL, BURTON /SLATER, NEIL 1/2 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 1 986700401 BIDLINGMYER /SCHROEPFER SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :SW NW - 001212002 BRADY, DALE EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 1,2,10 -12 948601001 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 7,8* 948601004 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 10: 8,9* 948601003 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 19: 1 -6 948601901 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 19: 7 -11 948601902 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 19:12 948601903 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 7 -12 948602005 BRAMHALL, CLARENCE D EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 5,6* 948603402 BRASHLER, DOUGLAS, JR, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 9 948602704 BRINER, MARIE L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 6: 6 948600603 CHRISTENSON, CHARLES L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1* 948603502 CITY OF PT /PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 35:12* 948603504 CITY OF PT /PTPC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1 -3* 948600806 :.,....... CLARK, PATRICIA EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 9: 7 -12 948600905 CLAYTON, ALLEN E - - -_ EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 2: 1 -6 948600201 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 3: 3 -6 948600302 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 1 -3* 948602102 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 4 -6 948602103 "COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 7 -12* 948602104 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 22: 1* 948602202 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 22: 2 -11 948602203 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 22:12* 948602204 COOPER, DONALD A PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 30: 1 -12 986703001 COOPER, DONALD A PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 31: 1 -12 986703101 COOPER, DONALD A PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 40: 1 -6 986704001 COOPER, DONALD A PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 41: 1 -6 986704101 COOPER, DONALD A EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 1 -5 948602301 DEDERER, J WILLIAM EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 6,7* 948602302 DEDERER, J WILLIAM EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 8 -12 948602304 DEDERER, J WILLIAM FB s u S,H I f `NaAGNOG LGOE09STi6 'IB ZH HI' 31 P `NBAONOG Lo6ZO98tt6 L ` 9 NO M/H -00 HHSWII )MA00SIG L oZ OL98 6 L`9 No M /H-00 HHSWIZ 1,-HHAOOSIG LOSEOL926 L`9 NO M /H-00 HHSWIZ AHHAOOSIG EGEEOL92 6 9's NO M /E-00 HHSWII XUA00SIG L06EOL926 Z' L NO M /H-00 HHSWIl KHEA03SIG L 0ttz0L.996 M /H-00 2I39WII 7MAOOSIG L OOL OL99 6 Id 30 Ma06-00 HHSWIZ XHHAOOSIG Zo9�OL986 I d .30 M106 -00 HHSWIZ MAOOSIG ZoSEOL986 Id d0 M106-00 HHSWIZ XHHAOOSIG zozzoL986 id zo M106 -00 HHSWIZ XHHAOOSIG Z0LZOL92 6 Id zo M► 06-00 HHSWII XHHAOOSIG L 020OL926 Id 30 M106 -00 HHSWIZ XHHAOOSIC ZOLOOL99 6 Id ZO M106-00 HHSWIl XHHAOOSIG 800008tt96 id 30 M106-00 HHSWIZ XU3AOoSIG L00008tt96 00 HHSWIl XUAOOSIG L02EOL926 00 HHSWIZ XHHAOOSIG LOIE0192 6 00 HHSWII )MAOOSIG L OKOL986 00 HHSWII KHZAOOSIG LOEEOL926 00 HHSWII XHHAOOSIG LOLZOL926 00 HHSWII XgEA00SIG L 09Z OL98 6 00 HHSWIl XHHAOOSIG L oEzOL926 00 HHSWIl XUA00SIG LOOZoL98 6 00 HHSWIZ 7,IISAOOSIG Z06L OL986 00 HHSWIl XHHAOOSIG L09LOL92 6 00 HHSWII XHHAOOSIG L OSL OL986 00 HHSWIl X83AOOSIG L ottL oL98 6 00 HHSWIl XHHAOOSIG L OE L OL98 6 00 HHSWIZ X83AODSIC L 060OL99 6 00 HHSWII XUA00SIG L090OL996 00 HHSWIZ XHHA00SIG EOSOOL99 6 00 HHSWIl XUA00SIG L OZOOL986 00 HHSWIl XUA00SIG LOLOOL98 6 00 HHSWII XHHAOOSIG EOSz08896 00 HHSWIZ XHHAOOSIG LOSZ08E96 _A Z-oS SIHSNHS12 Z; H=IH . O� N ,:A tL -8 :6Z NGGB MHIA XBS SIHSNHSIH : ZE NGGB MHIA SIBS SdI7'IIHd : Sz NGGB MHIA 7,B9 SdI'I'IIHd *Z L -L :8Z NGGB MHIA SIBS SdITIIHd 9 -L :6E NGGB MHIA XBS SdIIIIHd *Z L -L : ttz NGGB MHIA XBS SdI7'IIHd *Z L -L : 0L NGGB MSIA SIBS SdITlIHd 9 -L :9� NGG'V MHIA XBS SdI'I'IIHd *,7L-L :S8 NGGB MHIA 7,B9 SdITlIHd *ZL`LL`Z`L :ZZ NGGB MHIA CBS SdI77IHd NGGB :2 NGGB MHIA .IBS SdI77IHd *ZL -L :8 NGGB MHIA 7,BS SdI77IHd *9 -L :L NGGB MHIA 7.B9 SdITIIHd oL`SL`9L`6 : IV7d SilENHBHN Z CL : lV'Id S 41SNHBH)I 9 -L :8� NGGB MHIA XBS SdIl7IHd 9 -L :LE N(JGB MHIA .CBS SdI'MHd ZL -L : t7E NGGB MHIA .IBS SdI'I'IIHd EL-L :EE NGQB MHIA XBS SdI71IHd 9-L :LE NGGB MHIA XBS SdI'I'IIHd 9-L :9Z NGGB MHIA XBS 08I71IHd Z L -L : 8Z NGGB MSIA XV9. Shc'I'IIHd EL-L :OZ NGGB MHIA XBS SdI7gIHd LL -Z :6L NGGB MHIA XBS SdI'IZIHd ZL -L :9L NGGB MHIA ALBS SdII7IHd trL -S`E-L :SL NGGB MHIA XBS SdIZ'IIHd K -L :K NGGB MHIA CBS SdI'I'IIHd EL-L :EL NGG8 MHIA XBS SdI'MHd EL-L :6 NGGB MHIA XBS SdI'IHIHd 9 -L :9 NGGB MHIA .IBS SdI7gIHd 9`S :S NGGB MHIA XBS SdI'MHd 9 -L :Z NGGB MHIA XBS SdI'IZIHd L -L : L NGGB MHIA .IBS SdI'I'IIHd OL ` 6 :SE NGGB NEU SNIAHI L -L :SE NGGB xHBd SNIAHI HHNMO ONZHOHBd 107 :)Io0'IS (L8 /ZO/tt0) HHNMO 7,g GHHHGHO ttl aced BHHB W=JL S H21BM HAOO NH'IO NOISIAIG90S GLEN COVE WATER SYSTEM AREA Pane 15 ORDERED BY OWNER (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK :LOT PARCELNO OWNER EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32:10 -12 948603207 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 1 -4* 948603901 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 40: 1 -6 948604001 DONOVAN, J LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 41: 1 -6 948604101 DONOVAN, LESLIE, ET AL EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 42: 1 -7 948604201 DONOVAN, ,J J LESLIE, ET AL IRVING PARK ADDN 25: 8 963302502 DRISCOLL, MICHAEL GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT : 1 001164017 EPPING, W H GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT : 3 001164018 EPPING, W.H IRVING PARK ADDN 18: 4 963301802 FUNG, KAM EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 1 -5* 948600401 GERMEAU, JOSEPH P EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 1 -4 948600501 GERMEAU, JOSEPH P EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 1- 4,10 -12 948601101 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 9 948601103 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 1 -3 948601201 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 5 -12 948601203 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 13: 1 -12 948601301 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 14: 1 -14 948601401 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 15: 1 -14 948601501 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN -16: 1 -12 948601601 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 17: 1 -12 948601701 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 1- 3,4,9 -12* 948601801 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 1 -3 948602601 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 26:10 -12 948602603 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 1 -3 948602701 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 7,8 948602703 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27:10 -12 948602705 GODDARD, DALE H EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 28: 1 -14 948602801 GODDARD, DALE H KEARNEY'S PLAT :10,11,10* 964800006 GORRELL, JOHN T EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 4 -6 948600802 GOSHORN, ARTHUR C EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 7 -9 948600803 GOSHORN, ARTHUR C EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8:10 -12 948600804 GOSHORN, ARTHUR C KEARNEY'S PLAT :12 —R /W 964800005 GRINOLS, INC EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 1 948602001 HAGEN, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 2 948602002 HAGEN, ROBERT L EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 3 -6* 948602003 HAGEN, ROBERT L PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 3,4 986700403 HAMILTON, HUGH W GASTFIELD SHORT PLAT : 2 001164016 HARPER, ROBERT C EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 1- 4,9 -12 948602501 HIGDOS, WALLACE W EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 1: 3 -7 948600102 HILSON, KARMET G EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 6 948601802 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 7 948601803 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 5 -8* 948602507 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 5 948603203 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 32: 8* 948603205 JEFFCO EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 39: 5* 948603904 JEFFCO IRVING PARK ADDN 23: 1 -10 963302301 JEFFCO PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 4 986700502 JEFFCO PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 26: 7 -12 986702602 JEFFCO PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 7 -12 986702702 JEFFCO SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 30 001163001 JEFFCO ( PEWttO) HHNM0 Ag CZE3MI'D 9 T abed y3Ii5' W31SXS I EIVM 3AOO NE79 ,7 id S►AHNII -J3)I 33XH i tiHSn H d Z 09Z G98 tt6 6-it 9Z X v MHIA h7S SIHgNHSI,H NOG900 `ZIIIIdVd Z06£098t76 *9'S = 6£ NCIGV MHIA X19 SIHMSIH NOOK -9 `ZIIIIdVd Lo8£098tt6 *9-L :8£ NG(IV MHIA XVS SI39N3SI3 NOCIE09 `ZZIItdVd ZoL£098tt6 *9 :LE NCTCV MSIA XV9 SIZUSSIH N0000 `Z.LIIIavi L OL£098tt6 *S-L :LE NQQX MHIA XV9 SI39NZSIZ Noadoo `zliUdVd L o9£o98tt6 *9-L :9E NCIGV MHIA XV9 SI3gNSSI3 NOGE00 `z.Lllidvd SOS£098tt6 *ZL : S£ NGCIV M3IA .XV9 SIEMSI3 NOQIi00 `ZLIuVd £OS£098tt6 L L -Z :SE NCIGV M3IA XV9 SIEMSI3 NOGHOO `ZLIEdVd L OS£098tc6 *L :SE N(IGV MHIA XVE SIEUESIH NOCHOD `ZLIUdVd SOK098tt6 ZL --8 = tt£ NCIGV MHIA XV9 SI29NESIE NOCIEM `ZLIIIdVd tott£098tt6 L tt£ NGGV MHIA Xing SIM3SI3 NOG800 `ZZIIidVd L Ott£098tt6 tt -L = tt£ NCIGV MHIA XVE SI3EN3SI3 'I'IH2 IS3MHIMON OIZIOVd trotooL996 5 : tt NGGV MHIA XV9 SdI'I'IIHd Sn.LVHVddV OId10373 MN L 0££098tt6 *Z L -L :£E NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHSNSSI3 SfilV VddV OINIOZ I3 MN ttoZ£098tt6 *8-9 :Z£ NGGV MHIA XV9 SIMS= A 3Oi77VM `NO190N LoZ£098tt6 £-L =Z£ NQQV MZIA XV9 SI3gN3SIH A 3OV7gVM `NO.LIiON ZoL£098tt6 9 -L :LE NCIGV MHIA XV9 SIEMSIH A 3ov7gvm `NOIUON Z00£098tt6 9-L :OE NGGV MSIA XV2 SI39NESIH A EOt17VM `NOJUON Z06zo92tt6 L -L :6Z NG(IV M3IA XV9 SI3EN3SI3 A 'I `KNOW L 0£0098tt6 Z ` L :E NGGV MSIA XV9 SIHgN3SI3 V VINIDEIA `HEISI3W L O L 0098 tt6 Z, L :L NGGV MHIA XV9 SIHMSIH M HOnH `39VOOW ZOOL098tt6 9-£ :OL NGGV MHA XVG SI MSI3 MHIIQNV `)IVW tco8 L 0££96 £ :9L NG(IV )IUVd ONIAHI 13HIS OVA + 'InVd `QIDVW LOttZO££96 *Ot. -L : trZ NGGV MVd ONIA8I 123UIS OVA + lflVd `QIOVW L 09L 0££96 *OL -L :9L NC[GV )IUVd ONIAHI 1=1S OVA + lflVd `GIoVW LOSLO££96 *OL -L :SL NGGV XUVd ONIAHI 13HIS OVA + 7f1Xd `(IIDVW L ottL o££96 *OL -L : ttL NGGV Md ONIAIII 1338.LS OVA + 'InVd `QIOVW L 0£ L 0££96 *OL -L :EL NGCIV )IHVd ONIAHI 'Iniid `GIDVW LOLL 0££96 OL -L :LL NGGV )RIVd ONIAIII 'IflVd `(ImVW L OZ L 0££96 0l. -L : Z NGGV xlltid ONIAUI 'InVd `QIOVW L 0£00££96 OL -L :£ NGGV XUVJ ONIAHI 'IflVd `(IIDVW LOZ00££96 OL-L :Z NGGV HgVd ONIAHI 'IflVd `QIOVW L OL 00££96 o(. -L :L N(JGV )IUVd ONIAIII M 'IZIMW `XHUZEVW L090098tt6 £ -L :9 NGGV MKA XV9 SIZMSIH 9 M3HIVW `7,II 9VW K60098tt6 9-it :6 NGGV MZIA XVS SI MSI3 SHOIS3ANI N3IIONnl £LOZLZL00 6L XL: MLVNO£.L` LZ NOI.LO3S S3ONVUE 1OIMQn7 LOOt79LL00 8Z X1: MtH'N0£.L`LZ NOI103S NOIIVGR 03 3IM-3I'III'I 600ZLZLOO LL XI: MLII`NO£.L` 2 NOI1329 r GUVHOIU `I13XVNIONV"I L020099176 *E-L :8 NGGV MHIA XV9 SI MSI3 *a'IOU'VH `SHEWWV'I L 06ZoL986 ttL -L :6e NQQH MZIA XV9 SdI'I7IHd 3ON3'8V70 `SIi3WWv i £oOZLZLOO ZZ X1,: ML9'N0£.L` LZ NOI102S 0 dI7IHd `QNVISNIA)i 6LOZ2LOO L XL: MWNO£.L` LZ NOI,LO3S 0 dI'IIHd `QNV7SNIAX SLOZLZL00 OZ X.L: MLII`NO£Z` LZ NOI103S Q101I3 `,I7vgwI)l LOOZLZL00 Z XI: MLII`NOEL' LZ NOII,O3S IiIWV `UV7, GOHN £060098tt6 £ :6 NGGV MHIA ).Vg SIEMSI3 t (18 NOIIS 20 OS)SVWOHI `H2N ZLOZ2L00 8L XI= MLII`NO£L` LZ NOIIOSS VNI3.LdTi Z 00008 tt96 8` L IV Id S i 7HNIi N M SVIIOnO(i `NOISNHOf L 08 L 0££96 Z ` L :2L NGGV )i Vd ONIAHI ESNMO ON133M 107:ND079 NOISIAIGSAS ( PEWttO) HHNM0 Ag CZE3MI'D 9 T abed y3Ii5' W31SXS I EIVM 3AOO NE79 GLEE COVE WATER SYSTEM AREA Paj7e 17 ORDERED BY OWNER (04/02/87) SUBDIVISION BLOCK:LOT PARCELNO OWNER k EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 27: 4 -6 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1,12 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 20: 6,7 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 1* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 21:12 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 22: 1* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 22:12* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 23: 6,7* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 34: 6,7* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 37: 6* KEARNEY'S PLAT : 2,10,14,15 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 7: 1,2* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 8: 1,2,11,12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 21: 1,2,11,12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 22: 1,2,11,12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 35: 1 -12* PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 36: 1* IRVING PARK ADDN 19: 1 -10 IRVING PARK ADDN 8: 1,2 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 1,2 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 3 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 4 IRVING PARK ADDN 9: 5 -9 IRVING PARK ADDN 9:10 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 5: 5,6 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 15 SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :TX 16 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 4 IRVING PARK ADDN 10: 1 -10 IRVING PARK ADDN 11: 1,2 IRVING PARK ADDN 11: 3 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 28: 1 -5,14 IRVING PARK ADDN 20: 1,2 IRVING PARK ADDN 20: 3 -5 IRVING PARK ADDN 20:. 6 -10 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 3: 1 -6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 4: 2,6 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 11: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 12: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 17: 1 -12 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 1 -5 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 18: 6 -9 PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDN 18:10 -12 EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 24: 1- 4,9 -12* EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDN 25: 6,7* SECTION 21,T30N,R1W :S112 NWNW IRVING PARK ADDN 4: 1 -10 IRVING PARK ADDN 5: 1 -10 948602702 PICCHITTI, ANTONIO 948600701 PTPC 948600805 PTPC 948602004 PTPC 948602101 PTPC 948602105 PTPC 948602201 PTPC 948602205 PTPC 948602303 PTPC 948603403 PTPC 948603703 PTPC 964800004 PTPC 901 W OF PIPE 986700701 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986700802 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986702101 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986702201 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986703501 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 986703601 PTPC 90' W OF PIPE 963301901 RASHOFF, CARL, ET AL 963300802 ROBINSON, KENT 963300901 ROBINSON, KENT 963300902 ROBINSON, KENT 963300903 ROBINSON, KENT 963300904 ROBINSON, KENT 963300905 ROBINSON, KENT 948600502 ROWEER, IRA 001212010 RUBY, CHARLES E 001212011 RUBY, CHARLES E 948601202 SHORT, RICHARD 963301001 SHROUT, JAMES A 963301101 SHROUT, JAMES A 963301102 SHROUT, JAMES A(NW OF RD) 986702801 SMITH, ALFRED C 963302001 SMITH, RONALD T 963302002 SMITH, RONALD T 963302003 SMITH, RONALD T 986700301 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986700402 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986701101 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986701201 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986701701 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986701801 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986701802 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 986701803 SOUTHARD, ROBERT L 948602401 THOMAS, WILLIAM M 948602505 THOMAS, WILLIAM M 001212001 THOMPSON, FRANCIS - 17,18,19 963300401 TSENG, DR KWO, TRUSTEE 963300501 TSENG, DR KWO, TRUSTEE OIESNV `NIHHdWvz 200ZLZLOO MNMNZ /LN: MLH`NO£.L`Lz NOIZOES 0 NVA `IHOI2iM Z060099iT6 z :6 NGGV MHIA IVS SI29NZSIS NOINIZO `iHOIHM L 060098tt6 L :6 NGGV MHIA -KV9 SIHgNESIg W SSOH `HgS.LIM £OZt OL996 *L` 9` 5 :ztt NGGV MHIA M SdI'I'IIHd W SSOH `Hg,L.LIM zOZttOL986 *S' t7, :ztt NGGV MHIA 7,V9 SdITIIHd VIHO'IO `HgZZIM LorttOL986 Z` L :ztt NQQV MHIA RVE SdI'I'IIHd 7 IHHgOH `HS,IHM zOL L 099tt6 L : L L NGGV MHIA XV9 SIEMSIH Z ZHHgOH `EIIHM £OL0098tt6 £`z :L NGGV MHIA )IVg SIHSNHSIH 7 lusaoH `HZIHM zOL0098tt6 :L NGGV MHIA XVS SIEMSIH 7 IH220H `SIIHM Z090099tt6 S` tt :9 NCGV MHIA Xing MENHSIH M/H 31VIS NOZONIHSVM z00L OL986 *Z L -£ : OL NGGV MSIA 7,V9 SdI'I7IHd M/H 21VIS NOIDNIHSvm L OSOOL926 £ -L :s NGCIV MHIA 7,V9 SdI'I'IIHd SIVIS NOZONIHSVM £06L OL926 £L :6L NGGV MHIA XV2 SdITIIHd SIVIS NOIDNIHSVM L 06L OL92 6 L :6L NGGV MHIA ) IV2 SdI'I'IIHd 31VIS NOIDNIHSvM 90z£098tt6 *6 :Z£ NQQV MHIA XV9 SIEMSIH gIVIS NOIDNIHSvm zOZ£09gtt6 tt :Z£ NQQV MHIA )IVg SIESNESIS NOSNOIH3 r NE8Hvm LOOOOS tt96 £ L : IV7d S ► IH VZ� l 2SISAK `�3'IIH `HHvM LOZZO££96 OL -L :Zz NGGV NM ONIAHI 'I QIAVCI `2111nz Z08ZOL996 £L -9 :8z NQQV MEIA 7,VG SdI'I''IIHd SHS.Sn i `OMH HQ `JNHS.L L OLZO££96 OL -L S :LE :9L NGGV NHVJ ONIAHI NGGV )IUVd ONIAHI SHZSnHI `OMN HQ `ONHSI 'OM `ONgS,L £08L0££96 L0800££96 OL -£ :8 NGGV NHVd ONIAHI SHZSnHI K 331snul `OMN Ha `ONZSI L OLoo££96 OL -L :L NGGV NHVd ONIAHI 'MM HHZsoul `OMH Ha `ONHSI L0900££96 OL -L :9 NGGV ONIAHI HHNMO ON720M 107 :N3019 NOISIAIGUS (L8 /ZO /40) HHNMO �Rg QHHEGHO 2L aged V2uv WEIS7,S H131VM HAOO NHZO mo kUIIt6nUIt`Oo1,i?rttf JA) �'�M I M PORT TOWNSEND CITY LIMITS MOM ------ Discovery Timber Sold prior to 7/1990 by Discovery Timber Sold Post 7/1990 by Discovery Timber Roads in 7/1990 Water Lines in 7/1990 C� 10 1200' 1P,00 POI C,l 1 5 A ------------ PORT TOWNSEND CITY LIMITS MOM ------ Discovery Timber Sold prior to 7/1990 by Discovery Timber Sold Post 7/1990 by Discovery Timber Roads in 7/1990 Water Lines in 7/1990 C� 1200' 1P,00 ------------ ---- ------ Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 964800006 �s'� Parcel Number: 964800006 Owner Mailing Address: SIDNEY MORRELL STEPHANIE I MORRELL PO BOX 1938 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680065 Site Address: 151 SETON RD PORT TOWNSEND 98368 Section: 21 Qtr Section: NW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 C'L�11�7 sci� +h r j c School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: KEARNEY'S PLAT Assessor's Land Use Code: 3443 SHIP /BOAT BUILDING Property Description: KEARNEY'S PLAT I LOT 10(W OF PIPELINE), 11(LS R /W) I I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. �jx]No ®i' 2nd Photo Photo Avaiiab! Availabl No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available History Parcel surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellparceldetail.asp ?Parcel NO= 964800006 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 973500115 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $28385 Affidavit Number: 77308 Improved Land: $15000 Legal Document Description: SWD 7/12/95 77309 Unimproved Land: $0 Sales Amount: $56000 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 465.68 465.68 504.08 504.08 517.92 517.92 536.02 536.02 535.4 535.4 528.02 528.02 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson o 1 Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 973500115 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 964800009 Owner Mailing Address: FERRIS & MOORE LLC 211 SETON RD PORT TOWNSEND WA983689300 Site Address: 211 SETON RD PORT TOWNSEND 98368 Section: 21 Qtr Section: NE1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 1.91 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: KEARNEY'S PLAT Assessor's Land Use Code_ 2450 - WOOD PRODUCTS (other) Property Description: KEARNEY'S PLAT I LOTS 9 & 10 (TAX 31) 1 BND TGTH THRU BLA #90677 I LS R/W I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. Permit tailable Assessor Data Tax I Map Plats & Data History_ Parcel Surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1parceldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 964800009 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 964800009 Assessed Fair Market Value Improvements: $301870 Improved Land: $25100 Unimproved Land: $0 Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Property Sales Information Affidavit Number: 54081 Legal Document Description: SWD 2/19/87 92536 93641 Sales Amount: $32000 Sales Code: WOP Tax Amount Taxes Paid 4081.92 4081.92 3876.02 3876.02 4148.3 4148.3 4040.52 4040.52 4052.64 4052.64 3918.32 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 k Jefferson County Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later iryindovrs - €lac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 964800009 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 9648999T, Parcel Number: 964800010 Owner Mailing Address: FERRIS & MOORE LLC 211 SETON RD PORT TOWNSEND WA983689300 Site Address: Section: 21 Qtr Section: NE1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 1.92 Home Counly Info x`11 1 $l School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Printer Friendly Sub Division: KEARNEY'S PLAT Assessor's Land Use Code_ 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: KEARNEY'S PLAT I LOTS 9 & 10 (TAX 32) 1 BND TGTH THRU BLA #90677 i SUBJ /EASE LS R/W I Notes: R/W #81373 Click on photo for larger image No No 2nd No Assessor Data Ph= I Fhoto Plats & Availabi I Availabl Available History Parcel Surveys Vo Permit Data No Assessor Data Tax Map I Plats & available Available History Parcel Surveys Pagel of 2 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1pareeldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 964800010 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Home Countv Info Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 96480001.0 Assessed Fair Market ValueProperty Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 54081 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SED 2/19/87 92536 93641 Unimproved Land: $19200 Sales Amount: $32000 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 2001 252.88 252.88 2002 245 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County r Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later windovrrs - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel /valuatio:ndetail.asp ?Parcel _ no = 964800010 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 964800001 Owner Mailing Address: GLENN MEET JACQUELINE NEET 180 JULIAN ST PORT TOWNSEND WA983689711 Site Address: Section: 21 Qtr Section: NE1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 3.66 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: KEARNEY'S PLAT Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: KEARNEY'S PLAT l LOT 1& 2 (E OF PIPELINE) 1 1 1 Notes: Click on photo for larger image. [ --1 No I No 2nd Photo Photo Availabl I I Availabi Printer Friendly Pe�No or Data Tax Map P lats & D History Parcel Surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www. co. j efferson. wa.us /assessors /parcellparceldetail. asp ?Parcel_NO =9648 00001 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Home 4 Goodly Info Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 964800001 Assessed lair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 54945 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: REC 7/21/87 $17,500 Unimproved Land: $36600 Sales Amount: $0 Sales Code: Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 463.18 463.18 440.6 440.6 470.46 0 458.64 0 468.54 0 453.5 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County Pest viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www. co. j efferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 964800001 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 964800008 Parcel Number: 964800008 Owner Mailing Address: CHARLES LANDAU JUDITH LANDAU 85 MARTIN RD PORT TOWNSEND WA983689768 Site Address: 130 SETON RD PORT TOWNSEND 98368 got, /Ji. yi o. Section: 21 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NW1 /4 Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Township: 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 161 Mapped Acreage: 0 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: KEARNEY'S PLAT Assessor's Land L1se Code: 3443 - SHIP /BOAT BUILDING Property Description: KEARNEY'S PLAT I LOT 14 LS 90' STP W OF PIEPLINE I LESS R/W Notes: Click on photo for larger image. D No Photo Availabl I No 2nd Photo Availabl Permit INo Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Data vailable History Parcel Surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1parceldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 964800008 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 964800003 Parcel Number: 964800003 Owner Mailing Address: R SEBASTIAN EGGERT PO BOX 336 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680336 Site Address: Section: 21 Qtr Section: NE1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 3.99 County info School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: KEARNEY'S PLAT Assessor's Land Use Code-. 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: KEARNEY'S PLAT I LOTS 15(LS W OF PIPELINE) 16(ALL) I SUB] /EASE I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. No No grad Photo Photo Availabi I Avaiiabl Permit Milable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Data Histo� Parcel Surveys t l,, t Page 1 of 2 http : / /`ww.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1parceldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 964800003 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 964800003 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 56980 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 8/1/88 $37,500 Unimproved Land: $39900 Sales Amount: $0 Sales Code: Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 544.48 544.48 517.78 517.78 553.08 553.08 539.12 539.12 509.44 509.44 493.06 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 AOME I COUNTY s I DEPARTMENTS Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later 1Nindowms - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail.asp ?Parcel _ no = 964800003 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington • , Fl Est.,. Parcel Number: 986703701 Owner Mailing Address: JOHN SCEELES MARCIA SCEELES 2316 NE 120TH ST SEATTLE WA981255233 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION I BILK 37 LOTS 1 THRU 6 1 1 1 Notes: Click on photo for larger image. No No 2nd Map Photo Photo Availabi Availabi Surveys No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & vailable History Parcel Surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors /parcel /parceldetail.asp 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Home County 1do Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 986703701 rim Search Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 61981 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 4/16/90 85420 Unimproved Land: $16200 Sales Amount: $32400 Sales Code: WOP zgmmm - Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 1997 433.5 433.5 1998 412.42 412.42 1999 440.3 440.3 2000 429.26 429.26 2001 416.5 416.5 2002 209.04 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 • Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel lvaluationdetail.asp ?Pareel _ no = 986703701 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 986703402' Parcel Number: 986703402 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: JOHN SCEELES MARCIA SCEELES 2316 NE 120TH ST SEATTLE WA981255233 Site Address: Section: 16 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Township: 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 161 Mapped Acreage: 0 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION I BLK 34 LOTS 10 THRU 12 I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. No No 2nc# Photo Photo Availabl Availabl No Permit Data No Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available Available History Parce! Surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors / parcel /pareeldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO= 986703402 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Home � County n � Departments b Search Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 986703402 Assessed l=air Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 61981 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 4/16/90 85420 Unimproved Land: $8100 Sales Amount: $32400 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 209.04 209.04 198.5 198.5 212.44 212.44 206.92 206.92 200.8 200.8 97.08 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 IFF74., Jefferson County • . mzm 421 Reg Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows ---- - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail.asp ?Parcel _ no = 986703402 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 986703901 Owner Mailing Address: HENRY SUKERT TAMMY L SUKERT 2152 W SIMS WAY PORT TOWNSEND WA983682217 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.46 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) is E Sub Division: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION Assessor's Land Use Code: 5192 - PETROLEUM BULK Property Description: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION I BLK 39, LOTS 1 THRU 6 W /ALL VAC I PHILLIPS AVE AD] (LS R/W ON 5 &6) I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. No Photo Availabl No 2nd Photo Avai €abl No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available History Parcel I Surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1pareeldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 986703901 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Home County Info Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 986703901 �4 Sevrch. Assessed Fair Market Property Sales Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 63670 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: REC 9/13/90 77382 83063 87373 Unimproved Land: $19920 Sales Amount: $58000 Sales Code: LND Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 1997 303.12 303.12 1998 288.6 288.6 1999 307.8 307.8 2000 422.5 422.5 2001 508.7 508.7 2002 253.62 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 HOME i Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later lNfndows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 986703901 3/14/02 4 Contact Information * Events & Activities. * * —St i f . - Directory Links +Feedback �g Home ry e Se ic s I Search Parcel L et ail Parcel Number: 947100805 Owner Mailing Address, GREY T POHL 170 FAIRBREEZE DR Property Type. RES PORT TWA END WA 983689582 Site Address, 321 OTT) ST PORT TOWN SEND 98368 Sectiorr 16 Qtr Section: NW1 /4 1-ownship: 30N Range: 1W Total Acres: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist Cape George (6) Tax StatUs. Taxable Tax Code- 161 Planning aifaa: Quimper (2) Sub Division- DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION and Use Got-,le, 3300 - 3300 - METAL PRODUCTS Property Description: DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION I BLK8 LOTS 19 TFIRU 21 &TAX 471 1 1 NCA'035: AFF#6,9418 &68424 LOT" 22 & 19(TRADE) D/C V653P373 (;lick on photo for larger image, = -- _ - �c�� ►elf �=�'�� No Permit No Assessor Data Available Valuations a Plats & Data Available Parcel Surves 1) Updated 0112912001 Site maintained by Information Services Detail Vahiation Information for Parcel Nurnbt,,w� 9z]71 00805 Assessed 'Fviir Markvt'Vakle IniproveMents'. $62130 1"t-p-oved 1 I,'Ind: $25980 0 tit nprc.wedl Land,- $0 Prior Taxe Property Inforniatiimi Affidavit Niumf.)er: 64092 Legal Documemt Description: SWD 10/26/90 TX 47 #68418 Sales Arnount $12000 Cocka, LND 1f floqtj ,7 Taxes 848.88 kj 796,86 1101,74 '1046.18 1119,66 1000.66 0 Ar 1995 848,88 1996 796,86 1997 1101,74 1998 1046.1 8 1999 1119,66 2000 1090.56 2001 1092,08 Property Inforniatiimi Affidavit Niumf.)er: 64092 Legal Documemt Description: SWD 10/26/90 TX 47 #68418 Sales Arnount $12000 Cocka, LND 1f floqtj ,7 Taxes 848.88 kj 796,86 1101,74 '1046.18 1119,66 1000.66 0 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 1958700001 j �� Parcel Number: 958700001 Owner Mailing Address: SANDRA SETON TRUSTEE SANDRA SETON LIVING TRUST 21411 32ND PL W BRIER WA980368094 Site Address: P/Aofie Cot, lie. -gc,T,&fi�n�terFrjendl 0/,c c o� er .16' het- 41 tl-uc- e San dra Sc foel 21'6 Section: 16 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: SW1/4 Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Township: 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 161 Mapped Acreage: 15 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: ONE HAWKEYE PARK Assessor's Land Use Code - MOBILE HOME PARKS —i: 1500 Property Description: ONE HAWKEYE PARK I ALL LOTS (1 - 43) 1 1 1 Notes: LONG PLAT BEING USED AS MOBILE HOME PARK QCD 3/24/00 89184 Click on photo for larger image. No Lx No 2ricl Photo Photo Availabl I Availabl qo Permit Data o Assessor Data tailable Tax Map Plats available Parcel surveys Page I of 2 http://www.co.jefferson-wa-uslassessorslparcellparceldetail.asp?Parcel—NO=95870O001 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington H"we CounlY WD Depallments Seurch . . . ....... . .... Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 958700001 Assessed Fair Market Value Improvements: $497725 Improved Land: $78750 Unimproved Land: $0 Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Property Sales Information Affidavit Number: 70611 Legal Document Description: QCD 3/11/93 QCD 6/4/99 87045 Sales Amount: $0 Sales Code: OTH Tax Amount 4183 3972.02 4251.04 4140.58 7145.14 6908.32 Taxes Paid 4183 3972.02 4251.04 4140.58 3572.57 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385-9150 or (800)831-2678 x150 Jefferson County . ... . ....... 01 h- Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later g§ Mindows - Mac Page I of 1 http://www.cojefferson.wa.uslassessorslparcellvaluationdetail.asp?Parcel—no=958700001 3/14/02 + Contact Information * Events _& Activities * Staff Directory * Links * Feedback Home =- t -pii! yients I Services I Search - ---------- - - Rarcel D(, tall F-�arcel Ntjtyjber, 947100807 Owner Mailing Address: RUSSELL C JAQUA JR '1119 BLAINE ST Property Type: RES PORT TOWNSEND INN 983686503 Site Address. 353 GLEN COVE RD PORT TOWNSEND 98368 Section: 16 SuhGol List t.: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NW11 4 Fire Dist Cape George (6) i I ownshiir)- 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W 'Tax Code: 161 Total 0 Planning ama: Quimper (2) Sub Division- DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION 1 anid Codt.s: 3300 - 3300 - META.L PRODUCTS - Property Desm�ripuon, DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION I BLK81-0-TS71FIRLI 131 (LS 90' STRIP W OF I PIPELINE)&(LSPTN LYING I EASTERLY OF PT WATERLINE) Notes: Glick on Photo for larger image Pertnit ta No Assessor Data Available D'a Updated 01/29/2001 Site maintained by Information Services 0, M Plats 84 Valuations Ap Parcel Surveys Valuaticin InIft.,molriation for Parcel Nuruher 947*1 0()11107 i"�,mr 11, ark'A Value F F o v� rty S a I I �,� i f o r r n $49965 All"I'lidavO Nonober, 72814 $36000 Leg,--,if [)OCURIerlt De"SDiptiCirl: SkNID 12110/93 Undnnrm, v,,d Leul(t $0 /vnc3unt: S41000 Sales L C',tUl-wit" awnll Prior Te,!x Amoipit Taxes Radd 1995 2-83,9 283,9 1996 2 6,63, 5 2 266,52 1997 747,86 74T86 1998 '' 10.16 71 O 16 1999 760,04 7600,� 2000 99572 9 9 5. 72, v,0t,! is SJtl it. 0 I + Contact Information * Events &Activities * Staff Directory * Links +Feedback VIM 4 Home I ElacAA' t ',irto oantm, I Services : Search Parcel Ejetail Parcei Nurnber., 9147100814 Property Type., COM Owner Mailing Address: OLYMPIC STEEL PROPERTIES PO BOX 1142 PORT TOWNSEND WA 983680942 Site Address: 305 GLEN COVE RD PORT TOWNSEND 98368 e" oection, 16 School District Port Townsend (50) ()tr ��5%ecfiory NW1/4 Fire Dist Cape George (6) Town iship: 30N Tax Statu Taxable Fllafig' 1W Tax Code: 161 Toial Aco s- 0 Planining are .' Quimper (2) S, ,ub Division: DENNYS 2ND ADDITION Land Use Code: 2450 - WOOD PRODUCTS (other) F'roperty Descdptjon DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION .1 BLIP LOTS 14 THRU 181 1 1 190 'v Cli,'* oll pKato for 1,?,,rqer pertnit No Assessor Data Available F,.)ata Updated 01129/2001 Site maintained by Information Services 60 0 C, d M f —'s co-".' cc I I ; Utz �.,. ��^ Valuations M wo Parcel Printer Plats & S u 1, V e y s" Va.luatic-in. toft.-m-nation for Parcel Numkm�wl 947100814 Assossp.,,A F"air Miarket Value lmproverf,; -,�nt $44000 H41,D10vec" Land: $36000 ,,.,In ini provi-d I an(tj: $0 Prop,-nxty Sade, hiffiorru, I Affkdavit Ntv`nN,,-,,r: 76973 be,gal Desuiption: SVVD 5/23195 Soles ,' A nnount: $32000 &11k�s LND 'Taxes P,@'id 266,52 643.46 615.74 659 823,94 0 nt anf.! Prioor'Taxes Fiv, ye""'If '1`ax Amount 1996 4.66: 52 199 7 648,46 1998 e;1 ?:5. 74 1999 659 2000 8213,94 2001 991.58 Prop,-nxty Sade, hiffiorru, I Affkdavit Ntv`nN,,-,,r: 76973 be,gal Desuiption: SVVD 5/23195 Soles ,' A nnount: $32000 &11k�s LND 'Taxes P,@'id 266,52 643.46 615.74 659 823,94 0 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 947100505; Parcel Number: 947100505 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: NICHOLAS D'ANDREA TRUSTE REVOCABLE. LIVING TRUST PO BOX 756 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680756 Site Address: Section: 16 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: NW1 /4 Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Township: 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 161 Mapped Acreage: 0 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION I BLK 5 LOTS 22,23 & 24 I I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. No [xj No 2nd Photo Photo Avaiiabl Availabl Permit No Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Data vailable History Parcel Survevs Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1parceldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 947100505 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 947100505 Assessed Fair Market Value Improvements: $0 Improved Land: $24000 Unimproved Land: $0 Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Property Sales Information Affidavit Number: 77760 Legal Document Description: SWD 9/15/95 QCD 2/21/96 78904 Sales Amount: $25500 Sales Code: LND Tax Amount Taxes Paid 309.68 309.68 294.06 294.06 314.72 314.72 306.54 306.54 297.48 297.48 287.62 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson Cou t ' Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mae Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail.asp ?Parcel _ no = 947100505 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 947100507 Parcel Number: 947100507 Owner Mailing Address: JOHN STEPHEN LOPES TRUSTEE CATHERINE ANN LOPES TRUTE I & C LOPES TRUST 181 CRAIG RD SEQUIM WA983828719 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: NW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.45 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: DENNY'S 2ND ADDITION I BLK 5 LOTS 25 THRU 28 I I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. I E No 2nd Photo Photo Avaiiabl Availabl i No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available I History Parcel I Surveys Page l of 2 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1parceldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 947100507 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 947100507 Assessed l=air Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 93614 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 12/4/01 Unimproved Land: $24000 Sales Amount: $27500 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 2002 287.62 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 .lol(orson County Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Window__s - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 947100507 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington mil County 1 16 flfl i0i I tel Parcel Number; 9816703201E Parcel Number: 986703201 Owner Mailing Address: FERRELLGAS LP ATTN: TAX DEPARTMENT 1 LIBERTY PLZ LIBERTY M0640682971 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1/4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.76 MEM11 Printer Friendly 'Sof,rl �49telKl 8011 In q1jq ly 14enrr & ktrf School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION Assessor's LiP-n—d--Us–(Z--Code: 5192 - PETROLEUM BULK Property Description: PHILLIPS BAY VIEW ADDITION I BLK 32, LOTS I THRU 12 (LS R/W I ON 5-8) Notes: Click on photo for larger image. - -- -- -- --- - ---1 F -- No No 2ri(.1 Photo Photo Availabl I Availabl Pagel of httP://www.co-jefferson.wa.uslassessorslpareellparceldetaii.asp?Parcel—NO=9867O3201 3/13/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 986703201 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 86745 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 4/22/99 Unimproved Land: $54000 Sales Amount: $60000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 614.68 614.68 584.44 584.44 624.4 624.4 567.2 567.2 684.2 684.2 662.02 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson Counly Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Wmclavvvs - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.j efferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail.asp ?Parcel _ no = 986703201 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 001212010; Parcel Number: 001212010 Owner Mailing Address: HELEN RUBY 1986 TR PO BOX 805 CARDIFF CA920070805 Site Address: Section: 21 Qtr Section: N W i/4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 6.6 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: S21 T30 R1W I TAX 15 I I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. ENho No 2nd Photo Photo Availabl Availabi i No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available History Parcel surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors / parcel 1parceldetail.asp ?Parcel_NO = 001212010 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 1212010 Assessed Fair Market Property Sales Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 57477 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: TRTD 10/11/88 TRUST AGRMT Unimproved Land: $52800 Sales Amount: $0 Sales Code: Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 1508.02 1508.02 1432.72 1432.72 1532.28 1532.28 1492.88 1492.88 1446.48 1446.48 647.64 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Mridows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 1212010 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Parcel Number: 2120111 Parcel Number: 001212011 Owner Mailing Address: HELEN RUBY 1986 TR PO BOX 805 CARDIFF CA920070805 Site Address: Section: 21 Qtr Section: NW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: -5.02 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: S21 T30 R1W I TAX 16 I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. i No No 2nd Photo Photo Availabl Availabl I i [a - No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax I Map Plats & Available History Parcel surveys Page 1 of 2 http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors /parcel /parceldetail.asp 3/14/02 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 1212011 Assessed Fair Market Property Sates Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 57477 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: TRTD 10/11/88 TRUST AGRMT Unimproved Land: $50200 Sales Amount: $0 Sales Code: Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 731.56 731.56 695.44 695.44 743.22 743.22 724.3 724.3 637.1 637.1 616.48 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Or%., Jefferson County Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co jefferson.wa.usl assessors /parcellvaluationdetail .asp ?Parcel _ no = 1212011 3/14/02 $_10,000.00 ::SSE i r ? ?I - Ut1S1icUClZO,d is T SMCRL''I'ICN AGREE= Date July 15, 1963 nicrnvPrY TimhPr rn hereinafter Owner, hereby executes this agreement with note and mortgage provisions as a replace =t to that agreement dated the 15th day of April 1983, formerly sub- mitted to Jefferson County PUD No. 1, hereinafter PUD. In consideration of the PUD constructing the Glen Cove water main line I promise to pay to the PUD or order the sum of �TenThousand Dollars ($70,000.0 upon the following terms of payment: 1. Tito Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) on or before the 15th day of April , 1984 for the first tap subscribed for herein. 2. in the event that more than one tap is subscribed for herein, one tap shall be paid for in each succeeding year so that the owner's payment schedule shall be $2,000.00 payable on the 15th day of April , of each year following the 15th day of Aril 3. The foregoing notwithstanding all sums promised to be paid herein shall be due and payable not later than the 15th day of April__. 1988. In the event that the balance is not paid by that date, the right to purchase at the pre - construction price shall be forfeited and any taps subscribed to herein, not already paid for, shall be paid for at the then prevailing tap price as set by rules and regulations of Jefferson Cotnty PUD, 4. In no event shall any tap be installed before the same shall be paid for. In the event owner does not pay in accordance with the schedule above or fails to meet any term or condition in this agreement, the entire a:rc=: shall at once become due and payable. PaT,mnt shall be made to the PUD at Jefferson County Courthouse, Port Tcc.;nsend, Washington 98363. Owner agrees and acknowledges that the cost of each water tap is Two incvrand Dollar.- ($2,000.00) which is a decreased price offered as an. inducement to solicit subscribers to the water line, and that each cap purchased under this agreement shall bear the cost of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00); that there may be additional charges in the future for additional taps not subscribed to herein, and a separate tap may be required for each billing or facility served by water from the Water main, line; that the tap shall be metered and that the owners -14-11 have to pay water useage fees based upon the water used as determined b7�, the eters. Said fee is in .lieu of any future assessments or taxation cw:,er for construction of this specific water main line. However, assessment or taxes may be levied generally in the future for improvcsnents -1- VOL 187 x,1.85 g - �r s•. -�- • -• - "e = - - -• `=» -ors _�,- ,-es�t that they awn the following described real property within what is connonly knaln as the Glen Cove area, which is to be served by the water main line, to -cait : Lot 14 of Kearney's Plat - Plat recorded in Volume 1, page 6, records of Jefferson County. Owners acknowledge that the cost per tap may increase to Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) if a comnittment to purchase the tap is not trade prior to construction of the water line, and that this aareanent is a conmittment to purchase taps prior to the construction of water lines so as to avoid the increased charges. This agreement shall be subject to the Glen Cove Water Service Regulations promulgated by the PUD, now or in the future, and subject to terms and conditions of any contract for the delivery of water entered into by the PUD and the City of Port Townsend or any other entity. Owners hereby mortgage to PUD, its successors and assigns, the real property described above to be serviced by the water main, as security for payment of the sun set forth herein. In the event of default in payT,ent, this mortgage may be foreclosed as provided by laa and the whole indebtednesa shall at once become fully due and payable. In case suit or action is instituted to collect this note or any portion thereof, I prcmise to pay such additional sang as the court may adjudge reasonable or attorney fees in the suit or action. owners agree to execute and deliver any other doctrrents necessary to perfect this security interest. —Z -2- VOL 187 •A., 186 �r8r. tea. D. ag.: .. ...... _ .. -_.. .: ..- ,.._. -.. ..... .. j 1 s S GO= 0 .,JE F SON) V On this day personally appeared before me !y �' jLt2,,2 to known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed e within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she /they . „„ signed the game as :heir /his /her free and voluntary act and de, gp,1th�e- uses and purposes therein mentioned. �.+,,.•••••.,, a Giver. under my hand and official eat th' O y of 19 � ,'19 ry Public in and for c -\ W shington, residing t RE,.1R9E5 t VaLG 1,111 1�� Q,' 4 IClal P W. - I; rf. 84 -1A9 30 Ask 10: 3 =' •:;Its �, Kt; Pr �r! IOUNrr — ^IV, RvrnarrO.. XEtE0_PA00 . 0_ -3- 00 m m 0 ro H z w V) V) H� CO >-I L� CO O �z H H I W H O co V � W W 7 ■ I mm H U H H3 H a ME z O O U fZ CQ LT. co� m 00000 1 00 COC �\ ao 1 1-1 \�� I � \\ \ M>-4 1 ° o\-oO 1 Ln ��= a. 0 1 CZ) S. N 0 rl O 44 s~ 000 1 UH 0 p d)q a c� 1 ti a) � r-I •� Q) - -:4 ✓ - ° 1 H r O. UO N 1 m 00 m m m co co 00 N a) 1 W W O O 3 �— 1 1 rl cc cC13a -N C7 coo V) F, m 0. O 4 \ O O z i a 1L1S9 -. � w 1 z s~ (3) cc a)= 57: � s- !L. . ca a)C z. w �'�'Wa�i I fao c U) to = to �3: S~ \ m 1 r+ a) •r1 �--: tt0 r--I i3 U) O 0 •ri r-I s~ r� 0 c F- I I U) L, rq co r- a) 1~ CV1 S.. 4-)-) 4-3 3 CU I 1 m Cl) m s~ c6 Sr CJ s~ . c r I 0 rl •� m 0 u 1 c�za z�z �� 3 co co co co 1 N m� C)-, 00 Lf) LCl LC) I'D O O O O aE- I I� 1 CO 1 I X0000 co co I 1 \ 1 \ I I \ \ \ \ \ i"o i i °°° a• I \ 1 \ I 1 \\\ \ \ 0 0 000 0 co� m 00000 1 00 COC �\ co 1 1-1 \�� I � \\ \ M>-4 1 ° o\-oO 1 Ln ��= a. 0 1 CZ) S. N 0 000 O 44 0 000 0 1 � � 1 Q W r-3 1 H U) -4-3 Z a) V � W I w •rl >� (1) 0. Z: a) 1 .7 -I-) s- CU h0 S., - S z 1 Ls-iQ' U Uxx'0� cu m m M 00 00 00 \ \ \ O O r O O O Lr) r' LCl _:I' m M m m m co co 00 M mH 1 co Ln 00 r- q O CD O O a. 0 1 CZ) S. N O 44 0 UH z. p d)q a c� 1 ti a) � r-I •� Q) - Hai ✓ - H r O. UO 1 m 00 m m m co co 00 1 W W O O �— 1 \ \ \ \ Ca OOO O 1 � � 1 Q W r-3 1 H U) -4-3 Z a) V � W I w •rl >� (1) 0. Z: a) 1 .7 -I-) s- CU h0 S., - S z 1 Ls-iQ' U Uxx'0� cu m m M 00 00 00 \ \ \ O O r O O O Lr) r' LCl _:I' m M m m M co co 00 CC) d) LCl M LCl Ln W r- •— � r- q O CD O O a. 0 CZ) S. 44 0 UH z. [�i ti a) � r-I •� Q) - N - S.. ✓ - H r O. UO a. a� V q a. V) m M 11 W Q 0 O O O ^,Ap O O Coco O 00 M O O CC) \ O O O LCl N Lc1 r-I H C13 q O N N co cu S~ era O M a) z q U) 0 W ca cri a. C7 co C() W H H cis 1~ aJ cII ca a z� w a� a s-_: z� � U � a) U) to r-I bjOa r- 0 a. z N v] H CW3 O �W r0-1 Oaa V a. 11 n ca W H C7 Hai � W � q a. 44 W a H W W � H H C7 O � W O O O O _ N -s? 4+-, f O O 4 O Ca F 11 >K 1" June 19, 1984 COI.4I4ISS ION ERS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT - JEFFERSON COU14TY Court House Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Gentlemen: Please be advised that I have sold property in the Glencove Public Utility District area to Mr. Gorrell and Mr. Greenway as indicated in the attached preliminary title report prepared by Jefferson Title Company. This sale includes a water tap, already paid for by Discovery Timber but does not include hook -up charges. Sin.cerel -y, W E. Se'.. ton Discovery 'Timber Co. JEFFERSONTITLE COMPANY R -27866 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO Name ......................... John T. Gorrell, et al Address. -------------- -- P. O. Box537 . ...................... ...... - -, ....I ............ ...... . ................. - ....................... . City, State, Zip ...........PortTownsend, WA 98368 29035`7 ............................ • -.:.......................... .........- ..................... Statutory Warranty Deed I 1 J V ---------- ---- -- -- -- ----- ---- ---- -- -- -- THE GRANTOR W. E. SETON, BRUCE B. SETON and GARY L. VAN TROJEN, d /b /a DISCOVERY TIMBER COMPANY, a joint venture for and inconsideration of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS ' in hand paid, conveys and warrants to JOHN T. GORRELL, a single man and FRED )4. GREENWAY and IRENE GREET AY, husband and wife, as joint tenants the following described real estate, situated in the County of Jefferson State of Washington: PARCEL A: Lot 11 of the Kearney's Plat, as per plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats, page 6, records of Jefferson County, Washington, EXCEPT County road right of way as conveyed by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 277425; . - I � I r. ,..... ALSO EXCEPT proposed road right of way over the Southerly-30 eet' '`- thereof; 92!.. PARCEL B: //.? cf.� "•' �y That portion of Lot 10 of the Kearney's Plat, as per plat"r) &e /— in Volume 1 of Plats, page 6, records of Jefferson County, Washingt6r lying Westerly of a line 90 feet Westerly from and parallel to the Port Townsend Gravity Water Supply line, EXCEPT proposed road right of way over the Southerly 30 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO: Easement under Auditor's File No. 2§9901, and Right to make necessary slpes for cuts or fills upon property herein described as granted to Jefferson County by deed recorded under Recording No. 277425. "The grantees by signing the acceptan below, evidence their intention to ac July , 19 84 said premises as joint tenants with t Dated...................... ....... 11 -- - - --- - -- - - - -... - -- - - -- right of survivorship, and not as coin DISCOVERY TIMBER COMPANY property o as tenants in common. ........................ - ------------------------------ -- - - - - -- - ... ... - ......... ... _ .......................... . _... - - - - -- -- -- - --- --- ---- - -- -.. -------------------- ----------- By: j, L - .. -_... ° ... . _ ....................._....: i c�tl ..C�.2..:, : fF W-. E. E N i lii /rli /.r X as. peared before me Lm--%, ----------------------------- I. ' ral described in and wso uwsu 635 tregoing instrument, 1 2- t ! signed the same rntary act and deed, Y i I i M x -ein mentioned. Lnd official sea] this o. ..111 0Ia15 o!eouKSOFW5 _ .... -.__ if „i I I X the State of Wash- r..........e .. .......... ......... .... Form No. W460 Res. 4.76 ✓ �]. piWLLY t1 11Y.L:41Y 1L lJ1W liLY YIAI STATE OF WASHINGTON Jefferson COUNTY OF- - -- - --------------------------------- On this ... - .... day of .... - July- ................ - -•-......... ° .., 19..8.4 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Wa! ington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ............. ............... .......... . ... .. ..... ..... ............ ... ......... and.....- ° -- ...... ----- -- ..........:...... °•- °- •---- °- -- ----" -.....-- ....................... -- ......------ to me known to be the _...-°.• ................. Presi dentyh UX..- ..................S�e eu respectively, of. ----- D i s covert'- .,Timber.- _Company. - - --------------- - - --- the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledg the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corpe scion, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated U he 1S authorized to execute the said instrument and that the s6 affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year 5 above written. i Notary Yubli in and for the State of Washington, residing at....._PortTownse. . . . ... nd ......... . . .. .. .. .- F ! Utifi-t-v D i s t r i c t'i't" I vublic Inc! 2 May 6, 1987 Discovery Timber, Inc. 4640 Discovery Rd Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Glen Cove Annual Tap Fee Dear Sirs, This letter is to remind you that, according to the Pre- construc- tion Water Subscription Agreement, your fourth Pre - pledged Tap fee is due. The amount of this tap fee is $ 2,000 and is due not later than May 31, 1987. You may pay for more than one of the taps you pledged for if you wish. If you have any questions please call. Sinc ly 1 Robert enjamin District Auditor ' r P C"Cj on 98368 (206) 385 -5800 Public Utility District #1 Of Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: Richard M. Shipman, District 1 September 21, 1989 Kenneth McMillen, District 2 John L. Reep, Jr., District 3 Robert A. Leach, Manager ATT: Bruce Seton Seton Construction, Inc. 4640 S. Discovery Road Port Townsend, Wa 98368 RE: Main lowering in Otto Street; Glen.Cove Water System Dear Bruce, This brief letter is to confirm our verbal agreement in which the PUD agreed to trade you three (3) additional taps unto the Glen Cove Water System as full payment in trade for the work needed to resolve the water system main location conflict along Otto Street between Fredericks Avenue and Glen Cove Road. If this statement is incorrect in any manner, please let me know in order to correct the appropriate District files. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, a-e�dll�w Robert A. Leach, Manager 24 Colwell Street / P.O. Box 929, Hadlock, Washington 98339 (206) 385 -5800 Public Utli _District #1 Board of Commissioners: Richard M. Shipman, District 1 Kenneth McMillen, District 2 Wally Pedersen, District 3 John Floyd, Manager March 29, 1988 Discovery Timber, Inc. c/o Gene Seton 4640 Discovery Road RE: Glen Cove Annual Tap Fee Dear Mr. According to the Pre - Construction Water Subscription Agreement signed by you and recorded in Vol 187, page 185 of records of Jefferson County, Washington, the final tap is due this year. Total Balance Due $2,000.00 Payment is due not later than April 15, 1988. Sincerely, JPag oyd, M P.O. Box 1331, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 (206) 385 -5800 State Auditor's Report on Jefferson County PUD #1 Public Utility District No. 1 of Jefferson County Jefferson County, Washington January 1, 1990 Through December 31, 1992 Schedule Of Findings: (1.) The District Should Recover The Cost Of Services Provided To Eagle Eye, Inc. Since March of 1992, the district has been providing water without charge to Woodland Hills, a residential housing development of Eagle Eye, Inc., a company affiliated with Seton Construction. The district has also performed routine maintenance on the Woodland Hills water system without charge. The Constitution of the State of Washington, Article VIII, Section 7 states in part: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm .... The district manager, Bob Leach, was aware of these improprieties and allowed them to continue. RCW 42.20.010 (3) states: Every public officer who shall ... employ or use any person, money, or property under his official control or direction, or in his official custody, for the private benefit or gain of himself or another; shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor .... By allowing these improprieties to continue, taxpayers within the district and the district's regular paying customers have subsidized the cost of providing these free services. We recommend the district: (a.) Bill and collect from Eagle Eye, Inc., for water and services provided to Woodland Hills. (b.) Discontinue providing free services. We further recommend the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney review these matters and take whatever action is deemed necessary under the circumstances. (2.) The District Should Recover The Cost Of Meters And Services Provided To Bruce Seton One Hawkeye Park is a mobile home park owned by Bruce Seton and is connected to the district's Glen Cove water system. In May of 1991, the mobile home park had 11 mobile home units connected to the district's system. By November of 1991, the mobile home park had a total of 13 units connected to the district's system. All 13 units were billed at a flat rate of $9 a month. In May of 1992, the district discovered that in addition to the 13 units being billed, another 24 mobile homes were illy connected to the PUD's waterline. The district did not know when these units were connected, but began charging them in April of 1992. The district made no attempt to establish when these additional units were connected and recover lost revenues. In January of 1992, the district began metering the units at One Hawkeye Park the district installed 20 water meters free of charge. In February and March of 1993, the PUD installed another 18 meters and charged Bruce Seton $52 per meter instead of the established $150 per meter charge. However, Bruce Seton never paid for these 18 meters. The last 5 meters were being installed at the time of our audit and charges for setting these meters were not billed In October of 1992, a district wide water rate increase went into effect. However, the district continued to bill One Hawkeye Park at the old rate of $9 a month until January 1993. Additionally, all the metered units were billed at the monthly flat rate until March of 1993. The district made no attempt to correct the billings and recover any amounts due. The Constitution of the State of Washington, Article VIII, Section 7 states in part: No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm .... The district manager, Bob Leach, was aware of these improprieties and allowed them to continue. RCW 42.20.010 (3) states: Every public officer who shall ... Employ or use any person money, or property under his official control or direction or in his off icial_ custody, for the private benefit or gain of himself or another' shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor .... By allowing these improprieties to continue, taxpayers within the district and the district's regular paying customers have subsidized the cost of providing these meters and services to Bruce Seton. We recommend the district: (a.) Recover the $6,450 from Bruce Seton for the meters installed but not paid for. The district should also recover any additional costs it incurred installing these meters. (b.) Bill and collect from Bruce 5eton for all water and services provided to One Hawkeye Park. (c.) Discontinue providing free services. We further recommend the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney review these matters and take whatever action is deemed necessary under the circumstances. (3.) The District Should Comply With Its Revenue Bond Covenants. The district improperly transferred pledged bond fund proceeds to their General Fund The district transferred $212,478 from the Revenue Bond Fund of 1981, which included pledged Local Utility District (LUD) No. 1 assessments. These transfers were made from February 1991 to February 1993, and were used to finance district operations, construction projects, and water studies. In 1981, the district formed LUD No. 1 and financed the project with Water Revenue Bonds of 1981. The assessments of LUD No. 1 were pledged for securing payment of the 1981 bonds. The bonds were purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and in March of 1989, the district paid the 1981 bonds off early and received a discount offered by the FmHA. LUD No. 1 assessments were still outstanding when the bonds were paid off. In 1989, the district formed LUD No. 3 and financed the project with Water Revenue Bonds of 1989. The assessments of LUD No. 3 and the remaining outstanding assessments of LUD No. 1 were pledged for securing payment of the 1989 bonds. The bonds were purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FmHA. These bonds are still outstanding. Since the 1989 bonds were purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture FmHA, under the FmHA Water Systems Loan Program to rural communities, we have included the $212,478 in the Schedule of Questioned Costs in this report. District Bond Resolution 89 -291 states in part that: So long as the [1989] Bonds are outstanding against the Bond Fund, the District shall set aside and pay into the Bond Fund all LUD Assessments .... District Bond Resolution 89 -291 also states: "LUD assessments" means all assessments levied (including principal installments thereof and interest and any penalties thereon) in LUD No. 1. (except to the extent that the 1989 Refunding Bond Fund contains LUD assessments from LUD No. 1), LUD No 3. and any LUD which may be created pursuant to State law .... The improper transfers of $212,478 appear to have resulted from district management's lack of understanding of the bond covenant requirements established with the sale of the 1989 bonds. As a result, the district is not in compliance with its bond covenants, and the bondholder (FmHA) is not protected to the extent promised when the bonds were sold. Also, the failure to comply with the bond covenants may impair the district's ability to sell future bond issues. We recommend that the $212,478 be returned to the 1989 Bond Fund. We further recommend that the district resolve the questioned costs with the Farmers Home Administration. (4.) The District Should Collect On Past Due Accounts For Water Service. The district is not enforcing its policies on past due utility accounts. During our audit, we noted 17 accounts that had not paid for at least six months that were still receiving water service. The balance of these accounts at May 31, 1993, was $3,785.71. District Resolution 172 states: All charges and penalties shall be due and payable with ten (10) days after the respective due dates fixed by the District, and if the same are not paid within ten (10) days the service may be shut off without notice. Additionally, six of the above accounts, with a balance of $1,251.52 were covered by District Bond Resolution 89 -291. District Bond Resolution 89 -291, Section 10, Bond Covenant (F) states: It [the district] will not furnish water or other utility service of the system to any customers whatsoever free of charge, and it shall, not later than sixty days after the charges for that service are delinquent, take such legal action as may be feasible to enforce collection of all those delinquent charges .... [Emphasis ours.] Failure to enforce district collection policies resulted in loss of income. Furthermore, the district's paying customers bear the burden of these customers that continue to receive service without paying. District employees believed it was illegal to shut off water services. However, district management could not offer any explanations why legal actions were not taken to enforce collection. We recommend that the district enforce collection of delinquent accounts according to its resolutions. Public Utility District #1 Of Jefferson County May 24, 1989 Board of Commissioners: Richard M. Shipman, District 1 Kenneth McMillen, District 2 John L. Reep, Jr., District 3 Ted Stricklin City of Port Townsend Robert A. Leach, Manager Department of Public Works City Hall 540 Water Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Glen Cove Water System - Water Contract Dear Ted, Per our telephone conversation of a couple of weeks ago, I am now requesting that the City of Port Townsend review its commitment to provide water to the Glen Cove Water System. In the original contract (see attached), the City agreed to provide up to 50,000 gallons of water per day to the PUD for its use in the Glen Cove Water System Service Area; that sum was somewhat arbitrarily chosen at the time because it made sense as a place to begin. Over the last few years, the Glen Cove Water System has experienced considerable growth as new connections have been placed on -line and this growth is continuing. The original 50,000 gallons of water have been "committed" to those property owners who have pledged and paid for the taps that financed the system's construction and the new subscribers are in danger of not having water available to them. The PUD must be able to serve those property owners within the Glen Cove Water System Service Area, therefore, we are requesting that the City of Port Townsend consider an increase in the maximum water quantity per contract (subject to future negotiation for increase) to 150,000 gallons per day. This increase will allow the PUD to adequately and legally serve those parties that have requested consideration for either planning or construction purposes. Please keep me advised of whatever additional information you may need in this issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter Sincerely, 24� a 4.-,4 Robert A. Leach, Manager attachment: copy of City /PUD Water Service Agreement -Glen Cove 24 Colwell Street 1 r.0. Box 929, Hadlock. Washington 98339 (1206'! 386 -5800 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jefferson County PUD #1 [mailto:jeffpud @olypen.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:43 AM To: fennwood @pygmyboats.com Subject: Pre - pledged water connections MEMO FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Pre - pledged water connections I. The purpose of this memo is to state that to the best of my recollection Mr. Gene Seton had used the last of his pre -paid or otherwise accredited connections to the Glen Cove Water System by the end of 1994 or early 1995. 2. At the time 1 was hired as the manager of the PUD, March 94, there was a moratorium on new water connections to the Glen Cove Water System. Several individuals had either pre -paid for connections or had been credited connections for work performed, and other had been given letters of water availability but had not paid yet. At that time there was talk of suing the PUD for not being able to connect them to the system. 3. Mr. Seton was on the list. When we were able to start connecting new hook -ups, the last connection for Mr. Seton was used on a parcel of land he sold to Mr. Russel Jaqua. 4. After the PUD obtain DOH approval for further more connections to the Glen Cove Water System, over 200 connections, we encouraged new connections to wait until they were going to physically connect to the system before paying us. We discouraged pre - paying. POC this memo is Jim Parker James G. Parker, PE Manager lyl __________ 5TREET � \ � o Lo LD 5TREET � \ �J--I ----�_ i �"�� "V �1 ���� �,`\ /! �/ ._ � Y --- --�_ �� - --- --�_ -- �--- -� ��__��� `�V �� ��� - --�..� } � Y --.___ A ^O _'_ //�\ l /�� �_� \. �,� t,� �� i N � � m d c: �1I Y i ti m NO WALTI a U-N"mmftm-mm-mlmaw . PE P_.Mwad SPQ A p / C4, 0:71, aJ) �ll,�fu �0 U� W 0-0 M 0 4a I ,I I ~� s I � 111' 1- 1 1 ! Y I` V r W • i� .r • .. L.i S t� �L V 1 (P i� OT TO 6-T X1 0 r Il, J 1 � �y 41 n -lej Parcel Number: 1948601103 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601103 Owner Mailing Address: PARK PLACE TRUST JOHN C NESSET TRUSTEE PO BOX 214 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680214 Site Address: Section: 16 School District: Port Townsend (50) Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Township: 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 161 Mapped Acreage: 0.4 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 11, 1 LOT 9 W OF HWY, 10, 11 & 12 1 1 Notes: SEG #81272 Click on photo for larger image. No phol" No 2nd i'h�,t�� i Printer Friendly No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax I Map Plats & Available History Parcel I Surveys http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us /assessors /parcel /parceidetaii. asp ?Parcel_NO = 948... 3/15/2002 V VUI%rV11IV lV %JCllrrl JVI1 VVUI ILYI V Vaal III lutVl1 rage i or -1 Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601103 Assessed Fair Market Property Sates In €ormation Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 62261. Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 5/15/90 81272 1/24/97 Unimproved Land: $10500 Sales Amount: $68000 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 54.16 54.16 302.14 302.14 322.3 322.3 314.32 314.32 304.94 304.94 140.74 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Winnows - Mac http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors /parcel /Valuationdetaia. .� R °cei no =9... 3/15/2002 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington I V Parcel Number: 1948601504 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601504 Owner Mailing Addres JAMES PRINCE MARDEE K STADSHAU 220 LINCOLN S PORT TOWNSEND WA98368453 Site Addres County Info Departments Search Section: 16 School District: Port Townsend (` Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Township: 30N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 161 Mapped Acreage: 0 Planning area: Quimper Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAN Property Description: Printer Frienc EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 15 LOTS 4 THRU 6, 9 THRU 11 1 W /PTN VAC ALLEY Notes: Click on photo for larger imac FX do I'hu[u � ^ n nti nc:1 lable Photo \caila! No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & vailable History Parcel sum eys- Page 1 of http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors/ parcel /parceldetai1.asp ?Parcel_N0= 948... 3/15/200 Y YVIVVIIIV lV VVIIVIJVII VWUIJlrl YYGIJ1J111UIVII Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601504 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 92106 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 5/4/01 Unimproved Land: $13230 Sales Amount: $12000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 2002 158.54 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 HOME 1 COUNTY INFO i DEPARTMENTS i SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or, later Windows - Mac r ayC 1 UI I http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors /parcel /vaIuationdetai 1. asp? Parcel_no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 1 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages • • PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT REAL. ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT ThI. r— it ywa nmct PI7ASli SEL'REVERISE CRAFT ,If RC'M- C'HAPfER1fLdIWM w9.n.wmPd by Willer. ra Ike ATCaX,Tr IELARwEI•.OFf1cL Il!r FrwNe. WAVRfrt LNOrT,m.Rr.rCe UNL U dkedry l.7 Kr L Dawwraof9bwue) TN19 AFFIDAVIT WILL NDTRL ACCLPRY UNW AIL ARG9 t �f MI. NLLY COMTLLTLO �•1e.- .JOHN -.14. TF.IFPCCR, .Tla Y N— JAMRC N. PRT1tYlrSb Y _ A— qCqcj 9n.tl �Pi.Ala N. 1ST O 9na 11, • T.TMr•DT.M.A9P I L.X T U�T(CTii,- WA 98102 _ ■ ■ ■i CIW4..Mp nnum TONNaRRn MAOgvRR AOOa0 111 Nam. All. MWMRYTA. XXLA 111DCOla.9rUN00RE ALL TAX PANIN. AYNX.NII YALU8IP TAR LXk'MPi Nw SAKE AS ROVE STAY n E1YRn 949 601 501 Stmt Cty/9ttlw•rp OLLUALDESCUrt1ONOPPR :7TYSITUATE04N ❑UNINCORPORATED (VIVRY ❑Olt DICITYor Star AYnr U(P7Ny N lwgwKy LOTS 4 TO 6, INCLUSIVE, AND LOTS 9 TO 11, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 15 IN EISENSEI9 �- SAYVIEW ADDITION TO PORT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 1/ OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECOADY OF JEPFERSI8 COUNTY, WASHINGTON. _ TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED ALLRY 1i:=111! VACATID•UypP•R.ORDINANCE NO. 94 20 -99 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASt?it14dT0N, THAT WOULD ATTACH BY (�IRATION or LAW. ® IL Ihl. Waprry.Xmrly: YES NO CIwIR.A w 4atprMCd M fONR 140d7 ❑ QI Ch.prr N.77 RCW ClwiOd N aurora Aw lad (ap.n Ipu, rra (3 QI lod WkwKwal. w Rooter)? (TWpwr 64.71 RCW E-0 Dom p"—y w mR 0aWMk ❑ orywi,rionl Ctrplr W.IA RCW Sdkr'r Exa" Rep. NV.___._ __ Recei " w.pccddal wvmloA whgmrk ❑ pnlwny?Chgte 4. .26 RCW Prao"Tyl•1 JM dvrdy ❑ Trod with ..» OWWIv4 Mod with pr.YloW)y wd buiMinE ❑ IrW with nobll. ham lhebwoaly OWiWivfoly Prhalpal U.a ❑ Apr. lA. "0 ❑ mH.wal ❑ career ❑ wkahwal ❑ w.am9w4" -WW ❑ ouw _ (U NOTICE UP CONTINUANCE (RC'W $4.13 OR RCW 91.34) ww —ca.) Oflwdthr a cWlfld or dwSmld ow tram m. la fwUA --w t.) Atowe N. ekmNadoe wdW(r.dwof.wh Wd. U. wwawwrltl w W alp. below. ITdw Sew, owtalq do wa dwln b twt6w mcb drwifxwiut a dwpwdlNL W .OaP•wrIXY a addhloW trl odnuWd panWx w RCW 91.77.120./14 140 Or RCW N. 34.108" M du. W Vily.bl, by doo on.w slow! NrM Wee M WX 7M.-W m error mm dwwmi.c Ut4l.w Iaala W gwllOm to caWtat c1.ml alum w daiptao, wd MW w Nowt below. Sypwaa do wt rco r0y awn the to i •01 rwmla in elydfiaDot a dwa,wiiln [fit W lancer gutlllk., 11 WW be rerwv.d wd Wn.omPaw.tlq t..va WE M •OWi" AO paw aware aW alN Thu I.d ❑ does 0 doa wr qualify fw carinawct, IMa —_ vEP1f1Y MXR910R •_ (2) NUN(:FOFCOMPLIANCE(Ch Wr S4.24RCW) IfrM ne=L of WOFWy with wwial vruWm.. hl..k P.gaRy with m pw W vtivdWr Neww w A%,1. mW Y9n O." Kda ww—W.) d. raw Jain l0 male. NrA.pee�tl vtlurbry d ddiiwW wu Waod Wwwm m Char N.M RCW.alWlbdr .wd My" by dM wMr w aa,uf —r d,a tb.e tf mk. (3) OWNER(9)RICNATURL Hu Plop cWw4 R.1 WAC. —Ita, and a.plw.tiOt. WAC NO.(Scc/9ub) Eaplm.noo_ _. T,.(Docwn.m STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED rl.l. of D.—., APRIL 19, 2001 ✓ (l_ASdf 9Pd.. S, 12.000.00 Pon'" Pmp.ay ldduc0 $ ;2;000.00 Twbl. selllq Pd.. S EX.im TtX: Stet. f 153.60 _ IArd f�b'�^ INllagwr w..al: SL1. S -a- Local S -0- D.Ilnqwm Fatally S -0- Taal D. S A MWDIUM OF 52.0019 DUE A9 A PROCEMINO PEE AND TAX, AFFH)AVIT qiIiL_ Wwbl why ofPlpwY Uaoloau Iawaaf'1t Q.lSaf_ ...._ f aL fur.9WnT Ad CuN.tt ISm l- k.rhi. 9ilarw Crww/ r Nre.l - �1_ TRIITCCR iR_ Dtl. mad Pl—.f Si.r. Dal.A P1r1arT: ponry l...6" C fNO,ly wNd k F."k by lapdmNltwt M M RXn 0 —od-al 02011 LT)' W• fw. mWmm kt .� m p roXW nw t aW wlb. 11w yerX, r by. Da law Real OY N. cats ofw awe dwn 11"thowaod dodm(9S0t0t0nA0L w b, baN M(RCW 9AI0. REV N 0001. 17.1499) WD IMF 1140) FOR TNEA9UJtE�R'S - COUNTYTAEASURER S -'�t �T rL 92 061( EX 05U401 Paid AN � O Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services http: // isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =9210 3/15/02 VVC.IlrV11161V OVIIGIJVII VVU11Ly, VVQJIIIIIIJLVII fire.am.e.rwr+.. Parcel Number: 1948601301 SEARCHy Parcel Number: 948601301 Owner Mailing Address: CHRISTOPHER GRACE 946 W PALM LN PHOENIX AZ850071535 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SWIM Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendly EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 13, 1 LOTS 1 THRU 12 W /PTN VAC ALLEY, I SOPHIA ST, & S /VAC ELWOOD ST AD] I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. li 7t 1 \o Photo 21 '1 LJ , \.:nlahle 1 `1 Photo 1 ihi I Permit No Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Data vailable History Parcel Surveys —t — . — http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us /assessors /parcel /parceidetaii. asp ?Parcel_NO = 948... 3/15/2002 V VVItiVIIIV tV UVIIVI JVI I tivul Ity, V VC100 III IVLVl1 Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601301 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 91979 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 4/16/01 Unimproved Land: $32345 Sales Amount: $30000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 958.54 958.54 910.98 910.98 973.86 973.86 948.98 948.98 920.82 920.82 402.52 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County .. . Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac r- cayC 1 U1 1 http: //www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors /parcel /Valuationdetai1 .asp ?Parcel_no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 3 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages • - 4 PLEASE ITFE OR PRINT REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT 11. Poemky —M w FUI'A91+9EE!EVERSE CHAPTERSUSRL'W- CHAPTER45661 WAC whmtlmtp.d byea.hlw. Fm11..ATCO TI A A'.DRIC. IUw Fam Na N -00010 fw Rq_l%Tr..kn"Cm 111%1 MFaq Owo_*." D.P_ mmwwv1 THIS AFTIDAVIT WILL NOT RE A=FT= UNLESS ALL AREA! 1.1 ARE FULLY CUMrldTFD JOHN H. TEUTSCH, JR. H... CHRIS GRACE _ DELORES E. fNE!!®S1 lvvr3" y.,. 08 VIRGINIA pp,tl 946 W. PALM WEST SEATTLE, WA 98101 CIDAIW� zip PHOENIX, AZ 85007 Apwa.nlSEHp ALt MpHFRTY TAR XN .ATL'DCLRREYNRIDYNCY ALL TARPAMy1MmmM I "um uwD vAL1A Ir TA R vaFy4rt N_ SANE AS ABOVE STATED GRANTEE 948.601.301 St" CAY/Sl 01, - -_. -. 0 LEGAL DESCRIPI 'N)N OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN 19 UMNLORPGRATE$EFFERSON COUNTY ❑LxINCrrYw Suety AM—Ilfpr• "U 1.p ­!): LOTS 1 TO 12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 13 IN EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDITION TO PORT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLONE 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, AS FOLLY DESCRIBED ON PAGE 2 ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. b thl, gapwty eunmdy: - YES NO Dswrlpt' f pu.•mI Pmrmy I",Acd I. Srou w11bS plce, bmh mnSlbl. (eS�lhmiwre, re.l Intuyibls 0-4.4 W ddp..d N folax ImdT ❑ ® eywgnca, w ly: Eondw114 .SMnwm ..t w cempw•, tic4 Chww 84.3] RCW CI-WDN w-- tvw[ -A 0P t.Paw. f— ❑ IQ wW wkWlwd. M U Wiwy) C.6;,Lr 64.34 RCW umof popmy m w a nmvmrjt ❑ Ircxmpticociwmw, 119 WAC nvmbr and •.ple.wlon. WS.nl.rlm %CT•pw 40,36 RCW No. f MIp Rry, _ WAL'Na. (Se03u6) RcWVloa!p.�Id vLl, mm hutdc ❑ po 177LWplw 1.26. f plmtlim I.P.y Tn.1 99 Wd mly O Id wkb..w bWIM., Type or Dmumcm STATUTORY - WARRANTY DEED Q Imd wkb pmhwdy pd blddmg ❑ Imd wIN NMbl• bow "bandy bWliMtmy Dne of Dmulnmt MARCH JI1111 2001 Pr/.dp.1 UNI Q Ap.14, unit) ❑ rmwww .. ❑dmtw O.FkuNwd 0w Bw.IdA d..W 0—S•11L grdu f 30,000.00 0 dw_,._. P.C.0"I ptopedy(ddvct) S —0- (IIH(YTICT: OF CONTINUANCC(RCW IM OR RCW N.34) T ... bl. S.M." Fri. 3D, ODU.OD w I UnTI.W dw i.ei•alw W dMIS." mewl•m.. E..lu T.: Su.ef 384.00 fmwtlmdwi.A -ceo' lbcWmkWmwdm "I=,f.uch L—If 150.00 k.4 dH w.. 1-- -.(I)m Ip bdow- IfdM n... ­K.) d. nm dW. Delingwet l•u,eH: Slaw I —0- w m.:nw .wb ckdn.rk. W d.dp.NmV w eOmptlR.dn3 W wWiliaWU kW.w Mw W% w RCW 9433.120.W 140 o. RCW _ — LO.elf M.N. ION @W N dw W P.Y.N. by w M". BSA( .d.d. _ U.IingmnlPwhyf rideTh.asu.ty.tl.tl.,w.w 4­ If" luduwremw Total Dm 534.00 qudl0mmc0•d.lw Iw4irwmm w desiputim mdamol m iWWm h•kw,$*— a. . W.WW.wlly Poem W IBM will repel. M AMINI MUM OF $7.00 IS WE AS A MIOCPSSING FEE AND TAX <Itldbut:m a dedprdmL If k m WW gmW)1., R w01 b --W AFFIDAVIT -4w EmP d.Sw 'All M.Pplid All m w.ir, Thkwnd C]dow pdownotgWByfateomlw 0. WI WI�Uadr Pw1Thy of31ptRy U.dW Tb. Law e<The 91.r or type n. Tb. F—$- -E k Tm• Ad Collwl. (SW bpb.rwk o.k Poem). SISW G fASme DEPUTY A93FSSOR 121 NOTICE OF CIMIYLIANCE(CbpWS4.26 RCW) 0) Irtb n..o=)04(z .ny.1h vWmhm M miw kFWMY Iplir),71iF1 rckl iJ w camkw lS1. glw w valutllm d. mw owl(el mw.ipp bob.. 1! YW new do.m dedrc D- JilplinE: owver(•l M OOMiaue.ueY.p•eW vdvtlblL W .Ydilie.d ta. e4kWr.d pw.w11 w Clrpw N.21i IU.w, dgll be dw 91SUmvu or SIN W py b. by U. Mller Wtmd tltae U.e ufMk. I fmt (3) OWNfR(S)SIGNATURE 34.w WW) CHRIS GRACE Due A plw..( Slpd.r I•.1 P JvY k. dr C rdmy which k plwkbebM by impti.amry k M1e Mw ecmHloW ImdaWm /m 0 NOwinwo Mm nrnm mwe Ibm Dw Y^ .by.r InmtlomlYR>Adbyth. moAma dMfivedWAMWddkn(f3.000.00)Wby beW kl Kl ,nW lin.IRL'W 9ASO.ON1(IC)4 REV NOmI. (YIY-t9)Ib 10.1140) FOR TREASURERS USED Y COUNTY 11EASURER Paid Obimt J I'I I PI oAeF 1 VI-WOB PRI.F REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT Th. wren kymlr recwp :AIL SH. REVERSE- CHAPTER 33.43 RCW- CINFTER 43841 WAC wN.—rd Aynhm Fm Uu ATCWMTY T• _-..O_' n., wl M-mnlR lw RgxMi.3 Trwfen al CvnnellkR SlwrtR OfEMiII D+nwdllpwdR D.pwIInw fRwmvel IrN ­­A­ -ILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL AREAS 1.1 ARE FULLY COMPLETED http: // isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =9197 3/15/02 Jefferson County Washington O JOHN M. TEUTSCH, JR. CHRIS GRACE DELORES E. TUETSCH 80 VIRGINIA 946 W. PALM WEST , t „yip SRATTLF„ WA 98101 Cllyy .p PHOENIX, AZ 85007 IAMM.I '.0l'IHeI:Mr. %M 1 4LL TAN,A %'YJ N,Wpy. T uv ;ir I iN SAME AS ABOVE STATED GRANTEE 948.601.301 11rcN Cily�VpVZ;p aIh( [ nFT('RIPTION OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN 19 UNINCORFORATEiTE££ERSON COUNTY ❑OR IN CITY OF S4110 IAdd —lifwv"dy iv im oxil: LOTS 1 TO 12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 13 IN EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDITION TO POAT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, AS £LILLY DESCRIBED ON PAGE 2 ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. I. Ihla propcny ccurrcotly, Y29 NO t N—Acd 1, daiyn.od et font, 1110! Cl vlu%er M4..17 RCW I ... R,d . eunenl a% Ie,W lnpWl tpece. (%m ,nJ 4p;L.bwel..v timbe,l'/ Ch.ple, 14.31 kCW t..x ;,t fran.openyv Al. --.111 O nrp+ni 4,1 C•he xd, 94.36 RCW tell.. i Fi ,x Rey. Nu__v__ ___ R.L,i ^nr ppeev'iot h;porie O Q9 pr„pe y'. (T.pw, 9.26 RCW Prgwny Typo; ®11nd,mly 0410 wish Mw Noildi., I,Jl.nd with prsvluudy wed buildkt Ind with -1,11, home 011mb.v�nly 8bulldi.,only P.InNwl U.: 0 AIR. (4v Wit) 0loold -Ool OI;mMr 0.picuRnel O.-do alAlld.Rlel 0.Ww, I I1 Nit FICL OF L'thNTfNUANC'E I RCW 9.33 OR RCW 9.34) I I :Iw new „wneNtl,X Ilnd,h. it ekNlfied. devlplY<d. coon, w e+ I:nxIxlM Ine.w J with w ttlic IM due11eulo. d.IR.tW a(uh nwMNe) n.I opt below. If the Mw ow totO do - d.l. • t.h OxWfi,d lm a deYpudan ell —p—diq to WJnwmel lox eucWUed P—WW . RCW 9.33.120.d 140 w RCW 9.14.1(IN food he low add peyeAle by dt<oWtt m lnrofeor R lh<Ifr1e Ibc cwlMy Y.pOrm.11N,ermlM if thelndlnnef%,ed I yueblivw In c.,in. Chnoxh'wph.l m d.irli itm end mop w indi'm 1,I.` tiipxi.. M, nix .uneenly me.tM hod win —m In .Itw,6celinn m deripin—, U it W I.S. q.1111m, It will a removed nml •M ..vnPvIwImY 1— will be eMlkd, All .w oww%e mop Op. pennMl properly IMluded in ym .elliny goys, Mdh r <guipmenl, cu.l or iMenyible 1<y: yntwlwill. I. L compure ete. cle.l If e•emp,iM c aimed, not W AC numb% end sapleneli„n. WAC N.. (S.VS.b) Type of Uin—oni STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Dueof Du .. MARCH 12, 2001 ..._ -- a SWIMS Price S 30,000.00 ____,___•_ P.,."I Progeny (ded.l3 f —0- T ... bill Soiling Pr;,<f 30,000.00 EX<I. 7u: SMIe S 384.00.—.- ,.,.. •, ___ Iqm S 150.00 Dellnyuem Inler.t: Sutr f � ---•• - L.el f�— .__.........._ LkllRq.nt Pe..hy 5 V -- Told Due f 534.00 A MINIMIIM OF S2 (ii UIIE AS A PXOCl:VSINIi lI.I ANII'I AN Page 2 of Statutory Warranty Deed dated March 12, 2001 Toutsch /Grace 56396 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 to 12, inclusive, Block 13 in Eisenbsie Bay View Addition to Port Townsend, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plata, page 54, records of Jefferson County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated Sophia Street and alley vacated under Ordinance No. 20 -88 of Jefferson County, Washington that would attach by operation of law. ALSO TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated Elwood Street as vacated under Ordinance No. 61 -94 of Jefferson County, Washington, that would attach by operation of law. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. End of Legal Description Page 2 of 3 http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti „asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =9197 3/15/02 1 Cenlfy Und<r IYMRy of Poijury Under 7hc Lewe of the 1, a of I hi. I+nJ 0 dlN.x O J,X. m. yndi(y f comlmlencc. Washing. Thu n4 Fmepin, b True And ComNI.1'wu heck of IM, f 3 w, DCNITY A99E960R Slpplln of C,rt. /Arol 19 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE (Chopp 9.26 RCwl HIS URTSCH, JR.� IflM newnwneryeln( yropptywith epNUvpl- progeny N. �e(�°"t) _ 4)MtuN1 wl.h wclmin. thie.p%iel v1-=1 the Mwuwwegt)m,atN below. " eMwd) .ir<fo tZo.. W.e- eddm.eluM.Iedidid pureuem m CTpp. 9.lWlh(3) OWNERIS) SIGNATURE CCE _.._ D%esPle«aslYNnr'FASgM.01 PNxNlxt Ar--. P„I.rvl P,,ju.y i ... I— C fd.y wIx h 11 pWiehhblc by hnpr —ol, In the uue —.1onel 1".,IW for to todw.— term of Ad. m.e Ih.n Ike ?x— li, bye E. in on %mwM 0.,d by the e— of Ita Inns ibrl %. tlwwnd doll<n ISS,000.00h m by both imld —..d lin,l RCW tl .10, 0200C11. Mtv a +lxxnel,.1< -wl ten ldu.Wf FOR TREASURER'S USE ONLY COUNTY TREASURER Page 2 of Statutory Warranty Deed dated March 12, 2001 Toutsch /Grace 56396 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 to 12, inclusive, Block 13 in Eisenbsie Bay View Addition to Port Townsend, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plata, page 54, records of Jefferson County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated Sophia Street and alley vacated under Ordinance No. 20 -88 of Jefferson County, Washington that would attach by operation of law. ALSO TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated Elwood Street as vacated under Ordinance No. 61 -94 of Jefferson County, Washington, that would attach by operation of law. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. End of Legal Description Page 2 of 3 http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti „asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =9197 3/15/02 vveicome to jetrerson uounry, vvasnington Y, rage 1 of 2 Parcel Number: 948601202 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601202 Owner Mailing Address: VENTNOR AVE TRUST JOHN C NESSET TRUSTEE PO BOX 214 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680214 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.52 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fine Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendly EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 12 LOT 3,4,9 & 10 1 & PTN S /VAC ELWOOD ST ADJ I I Notes: SEG 81275 Click on photo for larger image. \o Photo i x No 2,r;d i A +iliht,le Photo, >cailablc No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & I Available History Parcel Surveys http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors /parcel /parceldetai 1. asp? Parcel_N0 = 948... 3/15/2002 welcome to jerrerson L ounty, vvasnington Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601202 Assessed Fair Market Property Sales Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 63590 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 9/5/90 81275 1/24/97 Unimproved Land: $12420 Sales Amount: $6000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 101 101 319.8 319.8 341.18 341.18 332.72 332.72 322.78 322.78 163.74 0 (NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County • „ Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer- 4.0 or later Windows - Mac rage 1 of 1 http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors /parcel /vaIuationdeta ii. asp? Parcel_no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 1 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages e.wroe...lrrrww.am. • REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX • ••an . N•.n a••.nY • I.,Nw. OlV1iR tl.N RL1Y RLGK TYK OR PRPR aunm war w.0 OI 1 RICHARD SHORT 905 JACKMAN InN rw• w vw r.•.ql wa•.,wwe JOHN C. NESSET SHAN L. NESSET r.« P.O. BOX 219 swM PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 NEw ow1Em• SAME AS ABOVE STATED BUYER ­T" PARCEL NUM6FA6 IYa•uNRrt AmR•tl N... 948 601 202 ron Au )wCMArr .n•N ' TAX IIM1W mR•al«PwPrrs c.Yra.w a• LEGAL OE6pMRON OF PI)OPFATY &TUATFO W UNWCORPORAIEO JEFFERSON t>OlN1TY ❑ O)t W C LOT 4 IN BLOCK 12 OF EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDITION TO PORT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS ON PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 1•ae.a.P.y —'w Y: YEfi C).. M.31R .. f..0 MwT ❑ C)uNMdwanw vw 4Mlopm •p•... rTi I.rw uq •pxaWwN. allmb•r)TCh•pl«6x.31 PCW ❑ �I E.rnpl ]ow a•p•ay l••uM«n•na•IH ❑ orPw..lro•. cn.lx«aa.]6 RCW'! .pwh Ch•a «H.ia RGWi ❑ f.L TYp•Prop«ly:tl'4n0 n•h ❑ MiW wRM1 wwbvlM•p. ❑ 4IwNY ❑ MMwgM1 wpWM now. 8'aE TAX ORL)OAYIOIV] dY )M(YERw 6AE n) NOTIC[OP CONTINUANCE wcwl66.]aaRCw qs.]q .m wY(.il: Nwwxro"ew IcIN••�M•«�W ar aq..lw...wrew w «I«•N o.wr(N wW •Ip• btl•w. Y M ••• •wrpl ep(•�rwA e••4. 1• •r,6w• •ua� Wwl•••au. «N•I.n•Nw, •. w•IPMw•x1q a •NIroYI 1u uM.�l•Iw ptw•M N NCW Y.]alYO •w IN «RCW Ki•.IIM •IWI M d•• Y. P•Y•16• M IM •NNr a Mwl•nw w YN IYM N ••I•. Tw sNWy •ww•r wv1 wl«ml•, X Yn Yw kYwl«rM puRro• b mnKw• nM••MMI•N «a.gnxrn Ye nwN Y .WUI• Mrw. tgnNrw M M www«w w••• W NM w rxn.N M •4•Nnw•w a ww wwpn.e� ii.«�w..row�I�wN•. q„w a rw..a we a. aoiw••wew u.w TM•rone ❑— ❑ ew•M9WMh b awNww•. p6•IPrn••.••.• (]) NOTICE OF COMPLNNCF ICMPI «6•.Y RCW) p aw •w aA*«(N d m.P•rlY wIN N•c41 vWIbn .. hWaq pr•pMy wW4N 10 mrMw W •p•.1•I •Nwlbn xw iuw •wwr(•1 muN •qn bN•w. a IM nNV avwr(.141XY7 Aa eNw. b.an.w •ueh •p•dN vN•Ygn, Y .tle4 iro••I lu wlul•Me ar.wN b CNa« 6•.Z6 RCW, Nub b ew •ne P•Y•bM by lw wwr a aa•ror« •1 IM IPM a wq. rn ovnlEmfi) aaNATUAE owagllw a psrpnN abum x gape.exl ••M pwalw., •p µuu.,•ro.l n••«•Plq•a.x•.e, •Aa.M TYP•nlO mmt STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED b.l•abww•.a AUGUST 28, 1990 or•u s.HPee.I, a 6,000.00 pw• PMWY(e•eu.NY/ a -0- TAx Aa•6.1•Prq• 4 6,000.00 EACw ru: 61.1• a 76.80 Lpul ]/ s 15,,gD a -D- ONhgwnl Wr•N: xIY•t• Lep•I i -D- O•xnVn•ntPwxy:. /6Mro a -D- rano. a 97 -RO (BEE 46 ON PEVFR6E 61OE) AWMAYR la Y NNOER PENALTY W pER]IMY UNOER TIE LAWB M THE STATE CF WAYNNOTON ANT TIE FCREOOINO W TRUE ANC CORRECT (.x a6�F •v�••O� NAME tpNm) RICHARD SHORT OATS A PLACE OF 8MNM:!!- aRECSV (ara.): auxa/a•N «IaYI «• p•nua•m «•• •o.a Md— 11 n•le•n.• a Ph.• a buNnp• a P«wn Wa,hV (w•aM: CAME AC NUMRER ) AADVE � T131•IaWq eaq•N aWapn. wrwwrY tr/RCW eP.Afi.uo IAW"P•xYNln•IW.a.N•: MO rIQ 6Walo NJ•rIY.MwEMRY.a PM'•IeNk^Prpvm•nt raa 1I0 Ya❑ •. TIO••e••Y•rwe. wr•N•. b•a., wnl•) MN•r•N aapnr•t•NNWlx. nl•IM P«II••. .11 ]❑ .Ob.wOwN Pp al bnllnep x q • hwt a wHr • n,Y, 1. C N1.--ww a• X) 21:1 lMl • .hN lG PYV NhN•w •Y ❑ p. iM'rolp•IVN: d'yaw.w4.•rwq.no.4hq••Pwf•N w- a Wet 1❑ 2❑ 1 ❑.q.. -I 213 .wea I— ] ❑ 1• a.m e. pw• N InpIW avrw a.p a mxcMm•trM 10 . ❑ W (- wx•) 6 ❑ MuNrW 6 ❑ r• 141 20 T ❑ p••vn«.MI 6 ❑ nl.aw)Ipm. .0— IdN •d:'.Mamr a PuR .1rw FOfI TA6A6tElER WY�/ A COUyJY TREASURER L 9 —, 5 .90 sss9oWb-i�"l >qb Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX_NUMBER =6359 3/15/02 V rcla,vl I is w ucI IcI ovI I vvul Iay I r rcw%JI m 1yw Parcel Number: 948601507 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601507 Owner Mailing Address: DAVID VOHS CANDICE COSLER 2607 HAINES ST PORT TOWNSEND WA983686223 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendly EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 15, 1 LOTS 7 & 8 W /VAC SOPHIA ST ADJ I & PTN VAC ALLEY I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. \�ai!adllc Photo �, .il.tEife i No Permit Data Zailable Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available His Parcel Surve-ys v CI VC; I UI e- hftp://www.co.jefferson.wa. us/ assessors / parcel /parceldetai 1. asp? Parcel_N0 = 948... 3/15/2002 VVVIL.VIIIIV LV VVIICI.7VI1 I+VUIIty, Vvcml III IVLV11 rdye i vt i Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601507 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 82341 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 7/16/97 Unimproved Land: $6995 Sales Amount: $14000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 1998 171.42 171.42 1999 183.46 183.46 2000 178.7 178.7 2001 173.4 173.4 2002 83.82 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County •' • ' Bess: viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us/assessors/parcel/valuationdetail. asp? Parce1_no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 1 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages HAAR nJAM � � REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFDIAI CHAP= 647 PCav - CHAFM 1 WAC M U"* Cww7 Tm..v1 OM4 (Uw M N. µ00D1■ M Aq.N 1, d C=% b...d d Rrh1 O -.4 TRd AmIWyII wuL NOT Y ACCXF=1RA.W ALL ARW 1-7 ARR M1LLY CDt@LX= a N,� ALAIN L. deCHANTAL a N.® DAVID A. VOHS JUDITH A. deCHANTAL CANDICE S. COSLER r j { P.O. BOX 3137 7u.d 2607 RAINES STREET ChYlkrdav PORT ANGELES, WA 95362 �, PORT TONNSEND, WA 98368 xu AOD.arW>DAlAW 7'.0.017 TA%amAlre ODaSYOtaWNa A1J. TAX MWW SANE AS ABOVE STATED GRANTEE 948.601.501 SN.d ■ LROAL DBSyCrROlprnom OP�PBOaP M S)7WTRD IN (3UNDICORPoRATBD JEFFERSON OUNTY ❑ OR N C" OP LOTS WAND Br ELOC1( 15, ZISENREIS BAY VIEW ADDITION TO PORT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, "'I"" TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SOPRIA STREET AND ALLEY VACATED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 20 -86 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON THAT WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW. Y (h4 Fop.* —.wy; YES NO .s.P°�0a°i. way° r beo n..(orpaayrq 31 ❑ «am rNi'7aQupmr 11. RCW ❑ Efir..�ePxt rru p�pny m r ..oap.o(A ❑ apdrdad CYpbr M.36 RCM Sdkn 9rrp R.I. No.____.- - -- yy "Al. r 111001k C] 6436 RCM r -P-a 7YPe a W -ly O led wgh — bdWq O W wgh W.ab.11y wed bulld g Cl led wNh mobile how O Q'A.' a* O 1-wi -9 d4 Fe.dpW Us O Aq. (4 a w1U 0[.r16rW ❑..dar O •064 bud ❑ mrmrdddd.deW O abler (U NGnC1 OF CONTWUANCS (RCW 94.33 . RCW 84.34) FY — .wrd) d W w 11 eW(led a ddprd r w0 a I— W wl.h b «.e.w de. alydSCelon a d..IR.dle. d rah )rd. 6w aew orro,(.)m.ed b.bw. Udc.ewowm7(OYn4) bdn b uoml,a.. rd daW hdiw m dmi4..lion. all W.P..Wy ar addl- daad m ok d.bd p— b RCM $4.33.120 rd 140 w RCW 64.34.106'" b.d...d P4.b1• by Poll wbroro,or dN.d.e drY. TYa.rga..ror w.. d—b. rY W u-L-.d giWM. r orU.ro d..dnarle. m d••14Wl. - mud w Wdl r bW- S*db.. d. ad reawrily 1.... d» Ind w11 -,b b drdad da r d..iPww I( g m low gndld.., h w0 b.-wal.d db a.o- pearly .rr wig be TP46. AN ..w .w..m lend d4). IW Odor 06ae. m aPnaiq br.^dlwra.• x DSTUTY ASS94PDR Q (2) N0nCE OF COMMAANCE (CAT. 94.26 WW) 002PIZEE" dy $4.P. MIOdbC tllw�int r Da.ie.ar d ehs dr. d.da 0) OWN100) $4ONA7URi s .rftm%. Pwo" Poorly r bAndd r rb OWTJOP . .bl U ewpk+d.lowd. UA WAC —bw W vOwnd e. PAC N. (5.4W TIP. d Do..." STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED D.bdDr �JULY 1. 1997 G- 8.6 Prlr R 14 000 00 ft"" ft-d7 (dd-Q S - - TywJMB.b— P 106.000.00 ..d. Rm. BMW 7 179.2Q L.d S 35.00 DdbyrM lmo w BMW S -O- wed S -O- DdW4WW1 lWq, Bmm P -0- 7WdDw 4 214.20 I=t 0 A OAR ■Q YOR MCO/INO T=POOI Y NO TAX 9 DUN . AFFIDAVIT [ ra•+(h sdc P...lry d y�e.rrAn Wa dw Mn ar t1W dW d VE.ddRRwe IRRt 1Ya PolydRB CA W 60TIed a" buk -f age at 4RIe0. Gn�AIt+I N. (Wiq ALAIN L. de NANT 1 DOW k Mao. of SIXnb 1 i GI'eehrrApd Nero (Prld) DA ID A. VORS DAb A Plre d Slp.iy pW*y. R•Ihw7 b ..ler C Fla" whbh JI pqW bh �• by i nw 1. a Nauued ddbn <brUS.7b0 - Ibr « ml r Wt Xlha.. Rw y MI . br.11ro i... avnuut .yl A.. ObCW 9A.20.DY0 UC7)- ,� POR TREASURE/W3 USE ONLY `. C(KR4 YTIIXARURZR 082391 Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX_NUMBER =8234 3/15/02 Welcome to Jetterson County, Washington Page 1 of 2 Parcel Number: 1948601401 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601401 Owner Mailing Address: JILLANA NELSON PAUL NELSON PO BOX 745 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680745 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendly EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 14, 1 LOTS 1 THRU 14 W /PTN VAC ALLEY & I SOPHIA ST AD] I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. \o Photo � No 2114 Ayv it lhic Photo I Permit_ Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Data Zailable Histo Parcel Surveys http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors / parcel /parceidetai1.asp ?Parcel_NO= 948... 3/15/2002 Welcome to Jefferson County, Washington " " "' Weather Station '..� ;Database Teols Maps � Webcam Home County Info Dep1ments Sewc,11 Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601401. Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 90249 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 8/2/00 Unimproved Land: $33515 Sales Amount: $35000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 880.34 880.34 836.72 836.72 894.4 894.4 871.58 871.58 845.72 845.72 416.54 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later +:' Windows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors /parcel /vaIuationdetai1 .asp ?Parcel _ no =9... 3115/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 1 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT TN. k,m b) —Mwlp PLEASE SEE REVERSE LRAffE1114d ACM- CNAFTER47F.IWAC o1,o�db1','•miw' Fd UMAT=To —o l.0- Nw F— No. 84L00I R A. R,."g T—or w of co -0hoz Irae dErky oewhll b M D wo—oo of M—) TRIM AIIIRAVIT WILL NOT RR ACOMW UNU= ALL AM" 1.7 ARRM YfXNIQ1J[iRE �y JOHN M. TEUTSCH, JR. N PAUL NELSON DOLORES E. TEUTSCH SXXX XCLMM JILLANA NELSON 9.er 88 VIRGINIA %_207 PATISON gyytyy SEATTLE, WA 98101 CRyMftU2OAT H_ADLOCK. WA 48339 _ AN11M.10.bu1All NODl1IIlYTA1111MTRDCOFR1LtlIWNO: SAME AS ABOVE STATED GRANTEE. N.m ALL TARFAt R.NA/1G1 948.601.401 AyyMF0 vA1.IlY 1TAx1M1bYf Sena Cltylftwd2lP ML" LDE1CRIff10NOFFROPEIUYSITUATEDIN 3LwDwoRPoRATEDJEFFERSON COVNfY ❑ORINCITYOF fRF,t A4dNw Ilf ppFdy IF IsP,F,M): LOTS L TO 14 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 14 IN EISENBI%S BAY VIEW ADDITION TO PORT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SOPHIA STREET AND ALLEY VACATED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 20 -08 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON THAT WOULD ATTACHED BY OPERATION OF LAW. 4 this PMPMy o —sQuy: YTS NO Clwifwd w deiww" M lwM lose ❑ (Slaw 84.77 RCw CI.wuw. —ow W I.". q• Mm ❑ 19 edwkdeol, a tmbwi Ohorw 94.71 RCW ft E-W oo POPMY lwt oo .mwpolt ❑ 19 aleldmT Cb,pw 94.74 RCW 3.1w. R,-Pt E•L NO._____ ___. R.e. C=wodwMho ak O GI pw�Yt 94.24 KC'M r -M , Typ: ® Imd ody Q❑ W wkk RPW bWWWR Ombo, a�pnvbMlY wdbrMrs LJ IbdWPR ady Fewipl UM ❑ APL (4�dt) O tMdtrrl Olbobw ❑wkw" oamwaWwtotw o dta WI) NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (RCW 94.77 (M AM 84.34) ow.w(Oa for1.dwo&Lf.d o, ddP..[d M,I.Mrm a k,Fw I..d wi1Y to mwtlww dr Fb.iEMde a 4edP.rkw d.ud 1e4. db RSwowllw(O wm 4p IFbw. HtW .Fw ewedq b.adsdw towrl..r Fno oW"pimsoddRCWm4.R 120 and 140 0 Er ..1.1.11.W bdd.d plRwr wRCW N37.II0 o RCW 9431.1a,hdl b. de N p.yFNF ky M Ww a..MR.o<r dr tlm, of Wa 799 aaeD' 14Mwo, mart .lulls Utlw fwd uemfaM 4o.R11w m w xi—d.wl@rwo a dripYtlo. and mM m IoEwl. bdea, StOwwddowdm MItwmew [199Iwd o1D M1M V . do— 000wodag —oo wig . ppk& uNFi.R k wW bMoll. e4M <mpreWRru will M mdied. All..r —Moll. d1. Thb led ❑ 4oM ❑ 4om lot "wUy ro, —oo. OrF PPNTY A{7ESWR (2) NOTICEOFC0RMLIANCE(Ck.pw843.RCW) =ea loos. dN^DeY w1d19�d VA." a = PePeOy wi.R M oorMr AY.pFCW Z.W. lh. aew ewm.1.bd)) Ymil dpi bebw. HM RFM om No) b.r dw61 W oowkm.l,R RCW whole.. dl sod yy"by d. H.al=Mldriarr Aim orRClW ,Wlb,de (3) OWNERI(E) NGNATVRR w.0 pMpary F4dpwe4 u z F, wwpw, aaJ U enmPlb. ol" 4 UM W AC oowba and e,plwll- WAC No. (SeWSObI Types) —M STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED UwolDMme, JULY 19, 2000 G,�yPUjo,prim S 35,000.00 P—ool hop,My(ddM) f -0- T_bj. S.HjoE pd. S 35,000.00 E.Fi.4T..: ft..F f L-a f DFH.4.w l.w-,: Sta. S Loed f DFll.4wnt PFeky f T—J Duo 1­ 623-00 A MINIMUM Of SIM 11 DUE AS A FAOCE94NO FEE AND TAR. I Cw1Uy Ud, hooky of Palmy Uadw Mw L—o eMw SwM of Wdde4bo TIM Tk, FM"ft I. Tt Ad Col (SIN bmk of fool). 9f 1 C A/et T� N.m HE M. TEU Sc ill JR. Dwt4d PYM d91 91Porv. of G,etWApe N.mF(pH) UL NELSON DMA Moor d- C fdm Midi 1. FUIM" M bWi- rM Iw rob, --dlmd IFd- d-41f.RMdmm— of.aww1 the EvFyr,, w by o Dm M e—fil,d by Uw low dad woothm R,.Ikoued ddwF(57.000.00N W by bath hplmomeY 4d Ds IRCM 4A20 020 (IC)F RNV64OmN(YIFK)(1010 -1.99) URER$U$E Y 6+.MM TRRAWAM 090249 8 49v F.Y ONU - PNi I 46?O.00 Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =9024 3/15/02 V VCIL.VII IC LV JCIICI OVI I lJVul ny l V VCA011111yLV11 L(14 1 ayc 1 v1 r- Parcel Number: 948601501 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601501 Owner Mailing Address: WILLIAM PERKA PO BOX 1411 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680031 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendly EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 15 LOTS 1 THRU 3 & 12 THRU 14 1 W /PTN VAC ALLEY I I Notes: Click on photo for larger image. y0 211a I s \eaulahlc Photo i No Permit Data Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available Zailable Hist Parcel I surveys http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us /assessors /parcel /parceidetai1. asp ?Parcel_N0 = 948... 3/15/2002 VVUlUU111C LU JCIICIbUI1 L+Uu1Ily, VVC1J1111IytU11 rayv 1 UI 1 Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601501 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 92145 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 5/10/01 Unimproved Land: $13230 Sales Amount: $16000 Sales Code: LND Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 864.9 864.9 649.92 649.92 695.58 695.58 677.52 677.52 657.48 328.74 158.54 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County , Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4,0 or later Windows - Mac http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.us/ assessors / parcel /valuationdetai1 .asp ?Parcel _ no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 2 Home I Elected Officials i Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages re PLEAS E'IYPE lM PRINT . ESTATE EXCISE TAX A70IDAVI Tw. foe^ k yownc.IPI FI.FASP SIT RF.VrRSF CHAFFER.IO RCW- CHAFIER /fI-q WAC wk.. ss.Pad byaMk,. Ynn UN 'C' ­ 1% (Uee Fo:m No."-0 is Re RFpwly T, *`Cae.ollly 6.Inee.fYMry DAwn.L4b Ne Ihpenw.m of R.ryw) THIS AFFIDAVIT WILL NOT AS ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL ANI AS 1.7 ARE NLLV CUMPIIRD Ne «__JOHN M. TEUTSCB. JR. FIR.. W.F. PERKA TEIPPSCH se.._ Cbitl UNIT 15 6EATTLE. WA 981D2 So- P. O. BOX 1 411 CkrnbwTb PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 ADMFASTU SLTIDM.I.IwtxTl(IY ,A %YlATEDLVRRlaMNDDJCE None SAME AS ABOVE STATED BUYER ALL TAR.A%D:I. MVMIy:e. 948 601 501 - L AiW N..D YALw If TAE lIUiMR Sew L IV\ CNy91tl✓71P mikUAI. DESCRIPT(ONOFFROPCkTYSffUATFDIN ❑UNDICORIORATED CUWfY ❑ORDICITYOF_ 91,.e Add,w 11[pwpeny 41mPnrN): LOTS 1 TO 3, INCLUSIVE, AND LOTS 13 TO 14, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 15 IN EISENBEIS BAYVIEW ADDITION TO PORT TOWNSEND, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASSINGTON. �,. I.,. PmP- Y. —,.Y: Tee w„ Clyallf.d «d,tl6nged So («al lend? ❑ X1 ,.AM- 94.33 RCW Cl..Ukd So cw.nl. w. wb (.P.."- Amt ❑ 11 e apkeewtl.«,hobs)? Ch.pl., µ.3e RCW Eyypl Docimprlyo%y.nvlp,.nl E3 )0 ngylNwioo7 Clew. 1116 Fin Seller'. E." Rg. N.._____ __ Resew' I1.pceW awWonrhw d, ❑ 311 Inp" Cp�NT 9416 RCW ?"p"' T"", J "erdoly ❑Wdwill.e.wbWwbq ❑ lmd whh pnvloyly..ed buiwmY ❑ lend wkh mobile home ❑li.Mn aly [] btlwng only Fn.dpel Une Q Apl. N+otl0 ❑ nnweeiiel ❑ limber ❑ wk"-.I ❑ mmmrcw4w w.1 Dome 11) NOT)L'E OF CONONUANCE (M1CW 9433 OR RCW µ.NI ine newowes(.)o(Lmdth bc6y,rwd«dWpuwy,r - «f knd ow..(.) Ind- if ow.K.unofusb hold, el wen Clmvw) meR tlpl Wow. Vuy yen ow«Rq do es exk. wc.mkw R,c._Imif Mien «d my Be Merminod IQ « addbkntl oaI bw dwdP Femy0e by µ33.11D mf IAO«,de IM.N.1ae .M den n ,oem. u vdin nwfw«gUw tlm. quW.en. sexy'fi mus d.lmmin IFmslendkenlirt.d Eel—lwwain «ckwiDcerbl« mlgbtwnd'll enIMIeaI. bebw.9ignquN•a do on ara..wly man IM land e111 ewWn in ok..ill vio. «dWp.lon. if i, nu hmp, qu.11lke u wiR bo ImmrM µd IM —P.-"g yew Mg b. eppMd AR,wowws,." WOW Thmiend ❑dos ❑dua nW qugly r «t,w�MWipc. IiF'JVTY A85ES1(M (3) NOI10E OF COMPLIANCE (LI14 rµl6 RCW) IfUb new ownnlalaf pnpsly wiN npaew v.lorbn. Mwk )eapmy wi.h w cwlow mk W«bi W ugicn dy yw ow,.s(al mow tl Mlow. Ifxwywowlls(U do a«dyin wceaiw..«E rpcltl vqur W W4, .w uu aticuwsd ponwy q Ch,gw 94.16 RCW. tlW I b. d p•ybi• 171h, Win or Irsufenn w e, bang ofeek. (3) OWNER(S) SIGNATURE If,neonplon 4.1 ..d. II.1 WAC nomb., end.%pl —lo.. WAC No. (Se;/Sub) E.Pkn.UO. Type.f D.cu STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED D.le.f Doeum..n APRIL 19, 2p01 Urw. selling Pn" $s l6 000.00 Penua p.N l Proy(ddwU S - Tenable Selling P,I.. f �U F%pIR Te %: sous 206.80 I—I S 80.00 D.eoyenel Dons: S(s, S -- L.el S _U_ D.H.qw. Penally S —� Toni Den $ 204.80 A MINIMUM OF $3.N IS DUE AS A MOC2331WI TEE AND TAR. AFFIDAVIT I h ky.rPOdury URdwMw Lanv ofTbe Shen of wmbi The rm.p:ing 1 nea cae L (S« berh prmr Noe. (Pdnl,. Dye and Plan Slpr-of GrrenMA&mH Nr.(Phx)Td_ W_ PNRKR Den& Pl.a.f Sigelnp Pe.Jonyl Pn*y k, Day C fdooy whkh k PwA%6k by ImPlawosR k do Nqa wentioed kw&W- for. onneb— enn. ofooe m.. nw: yen., Ike w.%slbey R..d by der con. onw ...e men nw ehoe.md do)kn IRI,ODD.aq. «bY bom kepxno.mem ead n«(RCw9A.2P.aZ0(IC)J. REvM m1.11LLIF-ev)/PO 10-..1111.g.0-001y FOR TR /E �Fo R•S U_S('E//ryl1LY COIMrY 7MOASDRBR Y C) '�j�N. E %051001 Paid Qui 4S / I °c PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT REAL WATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT Tbk kee k yo« PLEASE SEE REVERSE LTwfPAIL49 DCW- CKAFIER,SS6I WAC who Rasped by anhlor. It MtRUUFYATLT%NIYTmE emY0me,t (Vw TRm"n&AVRWLLLrMf KACGLIRI UNNLIN A R�RAR 1.7e rULLY C�PLRED http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =9214 3/15/02 Y YVIVVI I 1 LV VV 11\II .7V11 V IIIrI W V"A I1111ZJ \VII N Y Parcel Number: 948602801: SEARCH Parcel Number: 948602801 Owner Mailing Address: DALE GODDARD 209 OLD OAK BAY RD PORT HADLOCK WA983399734 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 28 LOTS 1 THRU 14 1 1 1 Notes: Click on photo for larger image. No Photo No 2nd A.a;Iablz ''i Photo A \ailatilc Printer Friendly No Permit Data Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Available tilable Hi story Parcel surveys http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us /assessors /parcel /parceldetail. asp ?Parcel_NO = 948... 3/15/2002 vrcwv��Mr w W%,iwI.wjI vvuIray; rrca.al III IyavII Horne Count Info Departments Search Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948602801 Assessed Fair Market Value Property Sales Information Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 0 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: 153/158 Unimproved Land: $14000 Sales Amount: $0 Sales Code: Current and Prior Faxes Tax Year Tax Amount Taxes Paid 1997 376.74 376.74 1998 358.52 358.52 1999 382.62 382.62 2000 373.06 373.06 2001 361.96 361.96 2002 182.68 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac I ayc i vi I http: / /www. co. jlefferson.wa. us /assessors/ parcel /VaIuationdetai1 .asp ?Parcel_no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington WaJefferson Cuuotg Washington Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages Page 1 of 2 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search CHAPTER 28.45 RCW PLEASE FILL OUT COMPLETELY Parcel Nurnbar 1'I REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX le Required t1Of1 MAKE REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO JEFFERSON COUNTY TREASURER Raqutrad YM CJ No NAMIf I .............. %Q U.s...01 -- NAM Or 6r Ri: 2...Bo .. ACDREff art...TQ41nAe . -.. WX .... 9&3&2.......... ADDRESS ........ ..................................................................... .................................................. t............................ ............................... RAMS Dale H. & JoAnne „50.43M.4 ............. -..........U......140.........AD............. ................... .......................................... RAMe DS edreR AnD CO. coPLETe woDRaaa AcoRaaa .................. Sand Stmai we i to ar L"d &m*—,d na P+SId 11RE0 Comm As attached hereto and made a part hereof. GROSS SALES PRICE (equity Diw obligated balance) .............55.5.. 000. n 0 PERSONAL PROPERTY wodwo .......... S TAXABLE SALES PRICE ................ S66,000,00 DATE OF INSTRUMENT AAril 25, 1978 ton data of dd—v OI trntr —i if that it IM liwirto dale Provided in ceatra ; oth —fie upon fag so. of connecd TYPE OF INSTRUMENT An>,1 Fatal }e Contract It ele caws Property traded M under R.C.W. 784,45.105 give duta and affidavit otrrttber of prior wI.. DATE AFFIDAVIT NO. TYPE OF PROPERTY? ❑ Cattmereial ❑ Residential ❑ A9,wwtlrai ❑ Ind.111.1 ❑ RKranional ❑ IAobll. Hotta She ❑ Multiple 0-11109 ❑ Bare Loll! Gees aM lrrhrda aWreM eropT ❑ YES ❑ NO Ser ed by a psblk savaer? ❑ YES ❑ NO Does Ma prk.!.1.68,41 east. co— into.? ❑ YES ❑ NO It ttorf thm o cw ty peal numb,. -ill 11'operlV be saw a.. single morel? ❑ YES ❑ NO fiWMI. property ter wed with any adi inln9 ei 1 tJad ❑ YES ❑ NO property pa "v inwrrd by the purchaser? Doha MU owh” nee Iswive 7 ❑ PKIIaI IAW"t ❑ C. ©99l.tlp M -- KFI� RNIId O ,&# I AL•8- ,l ❑ Trutt 9reenrrtt Eswe Prowty , 0_- Traps ❑ Life I.— A.V. tux uaTtltiun rs Clainrtl, eaptaat lolly the stet'. 1% EXCISE TAX Movable Within 30 dew of dal. of sigh) ...... S 660.00 PENALTY 41% per rho.th) ............ S.-,..., TOTAL ........................... S 660.00 AFFIDAVIT The undarslgned Wing first IaWrn, an uAh says that the foregoing k a 1rw and cor—A stutantant of the facts wtaining to IM transfer of the alto �.a�//i— faYl HJ!!!. G ATURF Any person willfully gloi.9 the Information in this Ofidall "I be sub*i to the PERJURY LAWS of the Stare of Weshbtglon. SuWCrib*d and I-orn to Mora " this Of 7A S Notary PybI1c in d for the State o!�fyadtln9ton resitlieg ttr�/ `;,�RIZ!ir� By I AFFIDAVIT NUTABER ` . O9PVTY J -1el717 I.r1t Intranet http: // isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =3579 3/15/02 Jefferson County Washington - That portion of Block 11 lying Westerly of the Westerly boundary of State Highway No. 20; ALSO, • Lots 1 to 3 inclusive and Lots 5 to 12 inclusive in Block 12; ALSO,. Lots 1 to 12 inclusive in Block 13; ALSO, Lots 1 to 14 inclusive in Block 14; ALSO, Lots 1 to 14 inclusive in Block 15; ALSO, Lots 1 to 12 inclusive in Block 16; ALSO, Lots 1 to 12 inclusive in,Block 17; ALSO, That portion of Block 18 lying Westerly of the Westerly boundary of State Highway No. 20; ALSO, Lots 1 to 3 inclusive and Lots 10 to 12 inclusive in Block 26; ALSO, Lots 1 to 3 inclusive, Lots ,7 and 8 and Lots 10 to 12 inclusive in Block 27; ALSO, Lots l to 14 inclusive in Block 28; All in Eisenbeis Bay View Addition to Port Townsend, as per plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on page 54, records of Jefferson County, All situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Wahhington. Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services e Page 2 of 2 http:// isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE_TAX NUMBER =3579 3/15/02 Parcel Number: 1948601201 SEARCH Parcel Number: 948601201 Owner Mailing Address: MARVIN GARDEN TRUST JOHN C NESSET TRUSTEE PO BOX 214 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680214 Site Address: 74 FREDERICKS ST PORT TOWNSEND 98368 Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.52 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendly EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 12 LOTS 1,2,11 & 12 1 & PTN S /VAC ELWOOD ST AD] I I Notes: SEG #81269 Click on photo for larger image. j ,o Photo EXI ti i 'ird ;1e<i�lai?le !'hut.a i l��:iil;tble I Permit No Assessor Data Tax_ Map Plats & Data vailable History Parcel Surveys http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors / parcel /parceidetail.asp ?Parcel_N0= 948... 3/15/2002 vveicome io jerrerson uounry, vvasningion rage i of i Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601201 Assessed Fair Market Property Sales Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 62261 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 5/15/90 81269 1/24/97 Unimproved Land: $12420 Sales Amount: $68000 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 287.18 287.18 319.8 319.8 341.18 341.18 332.72 332.72 322.78 322.78 163.74 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 e HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH if Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa. us/ assessors / parcel /valuationd eta il . asp? Parcel _ no =9... 3/15/2002 vveicome to jerrerson uoumy, vvasnington rage i of 1 L Parcel Number: 1948601101 SEARCH x` Parcel Number: 948601101 Owner Mailing Address: PACIFIC AVENUE TRUST JOHN C NESSET TRUSTEE PO BOX 214 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680214 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.42 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 11 LOTS 1 THRU 4 1 1 1 Notes: SEG #81271 Click on photo for larger image. i J N o I hot() �o - A? li abic Phi +t ? 1�uiblc t I Printer Friendly No Permit Data Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & vailable tilable Hi story Parcel surveys http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa. us/ assessors / parcel /parceldetai1.asp ?Parcel_N0= 948... 3/15/2002 vveicome to jerrerson uounry, vvasnmgion Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601101 Assessed Fair Market Property Sales Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 62261 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 5/15/90 81271 1/24/97 Unimproved Land: $11100 Sales Amount: $68000 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount 603.82 316.84 338.02 329.64 319.8 147.92 Taxes Paid 603.82 316.84 338.02 329.64 319.8 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 ;9. HOME i COUNTY INFO i DEPARTMENTS i SEARCH Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or later Windows - Mac Page 1 of 1 http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors /parcel /valuationdetai1 .asp ?Parcel_no =9... 3/15/2002 vveiwrne w ieuei sun k UU1lLy, vvabl ui iywi l rage i or t Parcel Number: 948601203 SEARCH ' Parcel Number: 948601203 Owner Mailing Address: SAINT JAMES PLACE TRUST JOHN C NESSET TRUSTEE PO BOX 214 PORT TOWNSEND WA983680214 Site Address: Section: 16 Qtr Section: SW1 /4 Township: 30N Range: 1W Mapped Acreage: 0.52 School District: Port Townsend (50) Fire Dist: Cape George (6) Tax Status: Taxable Tax Code: 161 Planning area: Quimper (2) Sub Division: EISENBEIS BAY VIEW Assessor's Land Use Code: 9100 - VACANT LAND Property Description: Printer Friendily! EISENBEIS BAY VIEW I BLK 12 LOTS 5 THRU 8 1 & PTN S /VAC ELWOOD ST AD] I I Notes: SEG #81275 Click on photo for larger image. \u I'lu,to =1 No 2nd :1, Idahle ! — Photo ,A1 mj,111L j I Permit Assessor Data Tax Map Plats & Data Zailable History Parcel Surveys http: / /www.co. jefferson.wa. us /assessors /parcel /parceldetail. asp ?Parcel_N0 = 948... 3/15/2002 vveicorne to Jelierson t aunty, vvasnrngion Valuation Information for Parcel Number: 948601203 Assessed Fair Market Property Sales Information Value Improvements: $0 Affidavit Number: 62261 Improved Land: $0 Legal Document Description: SWD 5/15/90 81274 1/24/97 Unimproved Land: $12420 Sales Amount: $68000 Sales Code: WOP Current and Prior Taxes Tax Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Tax Amount Taxes Paid 581.38 581.38 319.8 319.8 341.18 341.18 332.72 332.72 322.78 322.78 163.74 0 NOTE: Do not pay taxes based off this information. Please refer to your current tax statement or contact the Treasurer's office at (360)385 -9150 or (800)831 -2678 x150 Jefferson County HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEARCH Lest viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or Inter Windows - Mac rage 1 of http: / /www. co. jefferson.wa. us/ assessors / parcel /Valuationdetail. asp ?Parcel _ no =9... 3/15/2002 Jefferson County Washington Jefferson County Washington Page 1 of 1 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages e+r Ym..A•/Tr..w. """ REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX •raYrwepwYrYY«I «. a c.w:r °� •w . MMNYe al.rrEn .a.« Rcw PLeAEE TYP[ OA PRNrt tANFrm w +, WAC ALL TAE PARCEL NUMBERS Nlw awor• MM SAME. nA NO. 1 ABOVE 94R 601 "" PLYIAIExt APdIEM ' TALI{ PAM N•M 945 601 201 Q 1m caRErduNU CNwEYY zr 94'8"t03"'ZTi3 O LEGAL OESCRNRION OF PROPERTY SRUATO MT GSSNC P = .TPFFLIClIprYVrrY ❑ 0R w [3TY OF V 1•MY poprry ewron3y: YES NO 1•n• «a eNrYwwn, nHmpw)T CINp•r«.3. RCw ❑ ❑ c,MMI N•Mp•o.m w www •dwrax da.d :.xPM cn.Plww.ae ncwf ❑ ❑ R «MrM1q WwYl ...R C r•Y• M pr•pwtrrtlw CMdw M.x RW'/ ❑ ❑ Typ•PrPpMy; ❑ Y/ 4 ❑ YM WM Mw YAIWq. ❑ NM wNY PrwIPUMy ❑ YM WM m•aY Nqn• •..e lwuaeE SEE TAR OC4.OAT)" ON REVERSE SOE Q) (11 NOTIMOFCONTN(VANCE O1CW)SA.M.Mw4•.3,) N IM •wr «MwIU d YM M•I Y WWYe a ewgn•I« •• art•I• «• a hr «I Yne W.MW b ow•Yw H+ d•..NYrY• a e••Ipn•IIPe a •uN YM, tlw «w a.�«M .HO• e�..w..�uo. �m.«•r•«�.ual waloui uo.gwi«�w. m Y Rctnw«ww'u•i m.YU.. a w. � � : wmM.� wMa r.�.�x: N Hsi. Y�.e nwlw..a ewEY. m m«w• q•.Y•rll« w s.ME+MY• •« mIM «Yaw. w«.,M« •• .........Mr M.« •. I«a Wu rMMY Y a.wnwr, w fib• •pOMW. MI •w�w�wr•�r�a W � W IM•nN •M ur cwgwMY• Y..« TNY YnO ❑eo« ❑ Oe••nPl gl•Yry NV MMY«M•. PVIrn MK«Oe (3) NOTNYOFCOIi —E(CH«I•r N.x RCYR N NN n•w o•Y•r(a PI pr•pMy w11N •pwYl «pNMn « hw— P•P•nY (Mw) owlw(•) eoW) •M A•MI• eOMYw «PN p•olY vYUMbn, .N WtlFR How w P.rowY• Pw•+.et ro eH•p« Sax Rcw..N.N M er..ee «r•N• M Nr• vN•r dN.MYrd M N,• uM•a e•Y. 13) OM N U40) SNWATME O••dlo. a pw—P.W, N Y,[I•HW Y «Y (Lwow'.. •a P.—., MO.) n •,.MPnon eYY�ee..,pl•M Typed OPPPM•M STATIITORY WARRANTY DFFD O—fo -c MAY IA IggD 6 «•s•Y P-11 4 Ao nnn nn Pw«MIPrep•ey(e 02/ E -n_ T•a•d•B•YPH<• N An nnn nn E.al••T «: NI.1• N Tn nn LPPM31 E i7n nn oMYM•M Miwe•1: •/61M. E,p- L-1 i -�Q- oNYRwnIP•NNy:• /BIM• N -Q- Ta•IW E 3, 040.x0 (NEE. CN REVERES SOS) AFFN)AYR 1 CERTIFY UWER PENALTY - KE V UNOER THE LAWN OF THE STAN OF AEH TIN� F W IS TRUE W CORRECT HIgHATIME xAA� (pw) DALE H. GODDARD DATE E PLACE pp\J91..kT /V'� - A7' 3RECIPY (MroYpp.nld•((teM «Ipn,lor'• •P•M /gnIM'• •p«I A.— •I r «Y«c•• w pM« d S••In••• d P•non •gMnP (w••Hr): SAME AS NO "HOVE Q DALE H. GODDARD JOHN C. NESSET JOANN GODDARD «.M 209 OAR BAY ROAD SHAN L. NESSET «..t P. 0. BOX 214 PORT SAM= Al 0 PORT TOWNSEND M- WA - 98368 ALL TAE PARCEL NUMBERS Nlw awor• MM SAME. nA NO. 1 ABOVE 94R 601 "" PLYIAIExt APdIEM ' TALI{ PAM N•M 945 601 201 Q 1m caRErduNU CNwEYY zr 94'8"t03"'ZTi3 O LEGAL OESCRNRION OF PROPERTY SRUATO MT GSSNC P = .TPFFLIClIprYVrrY ❑ 0R w [3TY OF V 1•MY poprry ewron3y: YES NO 1•n• «a eNrYwwn, nHmpw)T CINp•r«.3. RCw ❑ ❑ c,MMI N•Mp•o.m w www •dwrax da.d :.xPM cn.Plww.ae ncwf ❑ ❑ R «MrM1q WwYl ...R C r•Y• M pr•pwtrrtlw CMdw M.x RW'/ ❑ ❑ Typ•PrPpMy; ❑ Y/ 4 ❑ YM WM Mw YAIWq. ❑ NM wNY PrwIPUMy ❑ YM WM m•aY Nqn• •..e lwuaeE SEE TAR OC4.OAT)" ON REVERSE SOE Q) (11 NOTIMOFCONTN(VANCE O1CW)SA.M.Mw4•.3,) N IM •wr «MwIU d YM M•I Y WWYe a ewgn•I« •• art•I• «• a hr «I Yne W.MW b ow•Yw H+ d•..NYrY• a e••Ipn•IIPe a •uN YM, tlw «w a.�«M .HO• e�..w..�uo. �m.«•r•«�.ual waloui uo.gwi«�w. m Y Rctnw«ww'u•i m.YU.. a w. � � : wmM.� wMa r.�.�x: N Hsi. Y�.e nwlw..a ewEY. m m«w• q•.Y•rll« w s.ME+MY• •« mIM «Yaw. w«.,M« •• .........Mr M.« •. I«a Wu rMMY Y a.wnwr, w fib• •pOMW. MI •w�w�wr•�r�a W � W IM•nN •M ur cwgwMY• Y..« TNY YnO ❑eo« ❑ Oe••nPl gl•Yry NV MMY«M•. PVIrn MK«Oe (3) NOTNYOFCOIi —E(CH«I•r N.x RCYR N NN n•w o•Y•r(a PI pr•pMy w11N •pwYl «pNMn « hw— P•P•nY (Mw) owlw(•) eoW) •M A•MI• eOMYw «PN p•olY vYUMbn, .N WtlFR How w P.rowY• Pw•+.et ro eH•p« Sax Rcw..N.N M er..ee «r•N• M Nr• vN•r dN.MYrd M N,• uM•a e•Y. 13) OM N U40) SNWATME O••dlo. a pw—P.W, N Y,[I•HW Y «Y (Lwow'.. •a P.—., MO.) n •,.MPnon eYY�ee..,pl•M Typed OPPPM•M STATIITORY WARRANTY DFFD O—fo -c MAY IA IggD 6 «•s•Y P-11 4 Ao nnn nn Pw«MIPrep•ey(e 02/ E -n_ T•a•d•B•YPH<• N An nnn nn E.al••T «: NI.1• N Tn nn LPPM31 E i7n nn oMYM•M Miwe•1: •/61M. E,p- L-1 i -�Q- oNYRwnIP•NNy:• /BIM• N -Q- Ta•IW E 3, 040.x0 (NEE. CN REVERES SOS) AFFN)AYR 1 CERTIFY UWER PENALTY - KE V UNOER THE LAWN OF THE STAN OF AEH TIN� F W IS TRUE W CORRECT HIgHATIME xAA� (pw) DALE H. GODDARD DATE E PLACE pp\J91..kT /V'� - A7' 3RECIPY (MroYpp.nld•((teM «Ipn,lor'• •P•M /gnIM'• •p«I A.— •I r «Y«c•• w pM« d S••In••• d P•non •gMnP (w••Hr): SAME AS NO "HOVE Q �hIPEPwVIEgNb+W pR•YPM U•r•WM•e NY RGW N2.AS.tx IEwYP«Ir •I NYIw a.M.: w No .. oo.•cow•r•.w Y.ar••H•a.P•MIM ns No • , N•yaUbi i'.M••YNNV- WOrV•PMVevt YIwIM n 1•epwM•, 10 20 .0 cq ` LPN �.H r' • H«t PwM rc «I•r 1. 1. Y IM d•M«•gYp«•MMr..Id•MNe 1❑ 2❑ P•rM I❑ 2❑ . Do••M4 axv«•M•eNw••ourr•M WrPMa MART V 10 g E' 3PIP•1 •ve: I ❑ •pbWw•I 2 ❑ aoMlp"Iniwn 3 ❑ r•dMH «•I G. •I• YPYM PwrwN ar•p a mwPN•M•W 1❑ 2❑ s ❑ P1 (41 ww•) N ❑ YWMA•I s ❑ nY«n1Yl 1 P e•mm•rPYI • ❑ M•bM 11•�n• e ❑ . rgrr .••sam, r Prw .r« FOR YREASUREW3 USE ONLY COUNTY TREASURER S, ,hflse3nn 7111E On. `,li, ..,., �i {,T22 &T Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services http: // isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE TAX NUMBER =6226 3/15/02 Jefferson County Washington WJefferson County Washington Page 1 of 1 Home I Elected Officials I Departments I Services Search Intranet Excise Tax Affidavit All Pages ....NC..wYTrwwwa.w • • m.lnM1wrNa.ay war N.wprwwn NNwlw. REAL ESTATE EXCISE TA %. aa—. :av m ww w.weNe c+'an.R w.w PGW I;wwyTm.u.. PEAIR npE oR PIMT oPVIFR Iua1 wAc DALE H. GODDARD N.w. JOHN C. NESSET JOANN GODDARD SHAN L. NESSET sv.N �R9 OAK BAY ROAD � sY..l P• 0. $O% 214 llEw ,�.e Naar CAME As NO. 1 AROW, ALL TAX PARCEL NUW 8 FOAYIiNTwww 9dA A0 101 FDR Au PvaNwrr 0— 948 601 201 rAZ RaunA col.weraaNDS unrsw. DP 9 Q8- 't03'707 ,( r LEOAL 0E80RIFIMIN OF PROPERTY MATO M 0000110 = .TZEMAlyN 0p(8(y ❑ OR W CITY W U NtM.pw.rlY ewraBy: YES ND DN.NINdw «.I «N «.a Waal I.wT El 11 81.w M. cN..xNd as wr «' aa.Iwd (ap.n "at .. f.w.ed.wbupwal, wllmb.)T GM1.pW a. «Rcw ❑ ❑ 4.+y1 h..pw.lYla.Ildw eor9rolE ❑ ❑ Prpale.bM Chap. M.38 RCWT R«alrhq apwYlrNwibn a. hblwb ❑ ❑ pw«Y wtlw CMNN 51.28 RCW T Typ.PNP.rry: ❑ I.nd PMY ❑ N «wm— taowft. ❑ NM NM pwI«wY ❑ NIW •11M1 wpMl. hw« 8EE TAX CBL/OAMM ON REVERSE 910E O (0 NOTICEOPCO MANGE IRCw)51.33w RCWf1.34) waMwj Malmw... ubi. td. a�ub.i w wa�4 — w a- WE.iM wwrl wa a,a aa) alw Nl.r.. Y Nw rw awwlN ..Iwl wi tlawa b wwMa .aril s..ssi2ow+w wRLw M.3..fa.naPaaay..n. wva d «+. bw..r. N Ew Ywl «w aa 1. N aaW. WM — a awww .M NwwNa w Y Mw larla MluN 4W V INnIM«a b aw rrww.W rr IM YM wW r.MF N WsNlka,ka w .iNa appa.ly. M eaw�..11an�nl.a1 Nw. M ram« a« tlla cwry.ewAq N.a. ThN l.rld ❑dp.. ❑tl...a. RtlaMy IcrowMww.. wvry Aw.eaon (3) NOTICE OP COMPLIANCE (Chw'. N.M RCW) —.4.) . V.P.rb — w— nw W a M1MPrIp popwly wMhfU lo.pnlhlu.'Ma pat 'M —`*aa M. —awe K.) — aMe b.bw. N tlN e.w —w(.) 09..) - a..a N oaNl.w wah.P"w vNaN1.r, a adJF IIPnN Na aataaa w pa—a N CMp.r M. «RCW..IRa a a M am aY"w bYNNaalwa —w .SI.vaaaa.aw. (3) OWNFA(8)8101MTORE D P—a Macaw ppp.Oy R— ln.aw (IUpNUr., a P. p uwpllw cNMw...PNN Ty wDC —.t STATUTORY WARRANTY nP..RD DN. o'Dwum«I MAV lde 10on (Irwa E.NPrla l/ i to AAA nn Pwa.n.IPrpPMY(d )2/ 5 =0— 7 W.Saj.Pft. { f,R nnn An Enpl «Ta: ERN. i r = AD Lwal 31 i 17D DD MINw.rN NIw.N:1 /81aN S_r.H— D,M.,M lP.wpy: 1 /Nat. T..1 0.. (t1EE bi ON REVERSE 810E) AFFR/AYIT I CFRTwY UNDER PENALTY Of PEt1ApiY IIIIOFJi THE L1W8 OP M STATE OF ABIWNfr01 TNAy�FE FOREOOIND b TRUE AND CORRECT ENNIIITURF S R NnME ��) DALE H. GOOD.AA-RD DATE A /� —r PLACE�hF SgwNOSll R J sRECm (aroNyw•II'w(w.. «lwwbr'. .i.a/w.. «•. ap.8 Atldrw a rwW /.�w���.Vw /�Ip.c. a Uuwl«. a V.r«. rwllw (.P.db): SAME AS NO, 1 ABOVE Q '�1. bEO.vq epbwl IW..ww w.rpa.N« IW RCra u.1i.120 ){propMy.11M IX«daaN: yps IN) .. Do.c cwrvar�rlw NrdrlalraO.. YFi Ip lwo , w phyYCal wpOMtt ❑ p ❑ .bwlt" .«pbi 4. P..N w1 IIPW.rruINpM rpp w.nNlpYq w 1❑ 2E) bwp aX N wlw ❑ 2 ❑ 10. pwaa.Nw.mNinT w lwa NNrE M Yl.um 10 20 .OS«up pKy; N,NO wv«n: C.l a a.ld.rNy, N ❑ 213 1 ❑ apPOWNNI 2 ❑ opnp a*o— s ❑ —o-1 pIMwwT M WNW. ewrwl ww w wweM1.MaNa t❑ 2❑ 1 ❑ ap (a. uN1a) 6 ❑ Y,pualrNl 0 ❑ nNO.rIWI T c.mmwcNl s ❑ wobW howl. 9 ❑Bear PPr.L�.awl w Irrw rrN FOR TREASWIER'8 U3E ONLY /5 -90 COUNTY TREASURER ^S- tH�n nuE q, �jQ� 9226'T, Updated 02/19/2002 Site maintained by Information Services http: // isserver/ ImageSearch /Ex ... /LaserFicheExciseMulti .asp ?EXCISE TAX NUMBER =6226 3/15/02 N Q'� 0 Submit to Counly Treasurer of the This form Is your receipt when atempec county in which properly is located. REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX by cashier. Pay by cosh or cadmec cheek to County Treasurer. CHAPTER 82.45 RCW PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CHAPTER 458 -61 WAC�� /�� ��`cc •�]���,,`///���� / ^' rut¢ AFFInAVIT WIII NnT RF Ar`CFPTFn IINI FCC ITFYR lr/ THR.1inti 11l ARE FULLY COMPLETE. dESJ • VL/ Or Name C.1. 1, 1_. f{ . lrlilil)l.l li 2 O Neme $ U �; . I: U U • U U Personal Properly (deduct) 2/ ¢0 f- N ¢ (J, 1 1',I %7:! ('I.:1.lU „lti! ¢ W toa to (.7 fir,fi i Street U' 1 La I Street $ Delinquent Interest: 4 /State $-- "'-%'" Cu i "•.1Ri 11:.LI]Ol l: state lu zi p J' $ city C':.1i,. A;;1; Ll1D state lr%, zip 9''sbii 3O NEW OWNER'S PERMANENT ADDRESS Name 1. dTJ. 1 .` I ALL TAX PARCEL NUMPERS II ;i 4 p I� (, + jj r -� Z �'1 IO o (SEE 1.5 ON REVERSE SIDE) FOR ALL PROPERTY TAX RELATED Street I ,. .. 1 EJ III; -. [ (1 1. I. F- L 1 CORRESPONDENCE City /Slate Zip 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN UNINCORPORATED :_ i. L -COUNTY COUNTY ❑ OR IN CITY OF et �' I '- 111 T PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 11, EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT —OF —WAY LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 20. PARCEL B: LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 5 THROUGH 12, BLOCK 12, EISENBEIS BAY VIEW ADDITION, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Exempt from property tax under nonprofit El 1-1 Chapter 84.36 RCW? Receiving special valuation as historic ❑ ❑ property under Chapter 84.26 RCW? Type Property: ❑ land only ❑ land with new building. ❑ land with previously ❑ land with mobile home used building SEE TAX OBLIGATIONS ON REVERSE SIDE (1) NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (RCW) 84.33 or RCW 84.34) II the new owner(s) of land that Is classified or designated as current use or forest and wish(es) to continue the classification or designation of such land, the new owner(s) must sign below. If the new owner(s) do(es) not desire to continue such classification or designation, all compensating or additional tax calculated pursuant to RCW 84.33.120 and 140 or RCW 84.34.108 shell be due and payable by the seller or Iransleror at the time of sale. The county assessor must determine it the land transferred qualifies to continue classification or designation and must so indicate below. Signatures do not necessarily mean the land will remain in classification or designation. II it no longer qualifies, it will be removed and the compensating taxes will be applied. All new owners must sign. This land ❑ does ❑ does not qualify for continuance. DEPUTY ASSESSOR DATE !� (3) NOTICE vF COMPLIANCE (Chapter 84.26 RCW) If the new owner(s) of property with special valuation as historic properly wish(s) to continue this special valuation the new owner(s) must sign below. If the new owner(s) do(es) not desire to continue such special valuation, all add!- Clonal lax calculated pursuant to Chapter 84.26 RCW, shall be due and payable by the seller or transferor at the time of sale. (3) OWNER(S) SIGNATURE If exemption claimed, explain Type or Document i`•r1'U'1`RAI I1 ,J,I;1,11TY UI1,ll Dale of Document 1' r 1 •1 `1 r . " -' U Gross Sale Price I/ $ U �; . I: U U • U U Personal Properly (deduct) 2/ $ - U ”' Taxable Sale Price $ 60, U U L' . U U Excise Tex: State $ 67 L . 40 Local 3/ $ Delinquent Interest: 4 /State $-- "'-%'" Local $ Delinquent Penalty: 4 /State $ Total Due $ r `'• " - (SEE 1.5 ON REVERSE SIDE) interest corporate affiliates, related parties, trust, AFFIDAVIT 10 1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS 01 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUI AND CORRECT( (see; #5 01, ; reversp'lot pen Ities). SIGNATURE NAME (print) DATE 8 PLACE OF SIGNING:. 1 SPECIFY (circle) grentoi /,grantee /grantor's agent /grantee's ages Address of residence or piece of business of person signing (specify) ,.. ,[IL lt:i 1,0. 1. :t00411 0, The following optional questions are requested by RCW 02.45.120 Is properly at the time of sale: YES NC YES NO e. Does conveyance Involve a trade, partial a. Subject to elderly, disability, or physical Improvement ❑ ❑ interest corporate affiliates, related parties, trust, 1 ❑ 2 ❑ exemption? 1 2 receivership or an estate? I. Is the grantee acting as a nominee for a third 110 2 ❑ b. Does building, If any, have a heat pump or solar 1 ❑ ❑ party? heating or cooling system? 2 g. Principal use: c. Does this conveyance divide a current parcel of land? 11:1 2 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ d. Does sale Include current crop or merchantable ❑ ❑ agricultural 2 condominium 4. El pt (4+ units) 5 ❑ industrial 3 recrealio 6 11 residentii tImber7 1 2 7 ❑ commercial 0 ❑ molr#;home 9 ❑ timber FOPM REV e4 -0001 3m (1189 1165 FOR TREASURER'S USE ONLY go-OUNTY ASSESSO Additional PLC Testimony March 22, 2002 RE: Glen Cove LAMIRD Expansion John Lockwood, People for a Liveable Community Commissioners: Note that on the attached Utility Billing Meter Information Report from PUD #1, 12/27/01, the report column "install Date" contains mostly the date 01/01/1980 which is before the date of the installation Glen Cove water main. A date of 01/01/1980 appears to be a computer default date that means "no date entered ". The earliest meaningful date of the report is in 1998. O 0 O L CU v y T (A T = O C-0 0 0 O 0 CC CDC O O O O O a- O am O O CC) CDC 00 0 00- r r O T-- 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N Z ONN(DU)U')Lf) LO004O 00,14, tOTTrpIrT I- r T M N r W O T M M M M N 0 0 0 T M 0 0I` Q> r MOM= (17 N I` h ti CD T T rr1,- fl- NaMCDON 0-r-(- Lorl-NawM00t'd' N N N r r N N N �r T Nrl OrMCOrr�I���i chMf'- Lf)rI-NOOCOTM(00 000MLl LOr- MM M M CD W aLOLOOOOOO7rO mmMCOMMONI-T LONCOMOOMNNNmmm 'etNrNNN0M=MNf-rati0I-I,- 0 03 M fQ a MM1- �7 I,- LOV t V 0MM O CD O M M M M M M M M M M U') C L L =0 M M M't O M M O r�� M et 0 M M M M M.M M M M M M M a i co �t co co _ co co co _ _ _ 0 co co co 00 G : rMN- T- TTTNTTTU7LOTT-Lo TLO LCiTLOTrriO3 LO LOrr T T LO U- O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O - CO CDOCOCOmmww0.700w47CS w CY xm0co- coco000coco00cocoN0o000 O 0 0 0 0000)0 O) 00000000 00006)00)0000006)0000 O O 0 T T r r r T r r T T T T T r r r T T N r T r r r r r r r r r r r r h. r r T r r r T r r r T T ;::--m O O O O n- Z) O 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 O O O O O O N N O O O O N O O O O OO O O O O O O O � r rOrrTrrTTrrrTr rT�rrr� -r d'�TrTrrTTM C_7 M T C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-- O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O LM W J J fn LL W F• C9 F- m z J LU U U W Q O W U W W W W W U W 0ZW Y Q a W W MOM M a_ W S<4 Z z W U Q m F- F- F- LL. z 00� } W ZW C9w WQn D Q OZ Q =w z 0 z¢ 02 ill c o� ��� a o �� W� �zw w w o Q w w w Q Q Z Z} m LO W z Z ppz Zm mJ gJ 2J Z LLI 0 0 Od m } Z —OZOZOZ M J Z O] X J J Of Q' J ry J J IX ry J m X X J J x Z 0 Z O z 0 N O C C O *k F- 00 co W W W W W W W W L w CD LUWWWW W c yco WZW000 0 WWWWW WWW WWF-WW F- >Wcgc)cnc)cl) fn U) c/) N 0 W =WQQQWQOW WW'XW W W W W WCnWw cnQYYYYYY Y Y Y w z XQX000 OOXXF- -���OfX WX�XX z 000000 U U U u, N F- =F- ���OWOF- F- U)CJ)F- F- F- F- F- F- I - -i—F- � - - - - -- - - - a = . c�lnzzz z�u)u)oocnOwwwu)wwwwwF -- wwwwww w w w owooO000zoo F- O~OOOOOOm00l�" >000000 0 0 0 O F- O 00 } w w w w w w w w w O F- =F-WWW wF- O0E- OF- F- F -LU F- �F- Q�Xzxxw Of w IY w O <Ocncnw—wWo0 0 OOOOOOWOOOOmw(1_(LL-ILIi w w w Of 0 LO OOOrNr lzrrmQ m 0) LO NN Mrr i- Ln0rl-0MMMMrM00wMp- 0LOM0- NN0MMM M M r cl) N LoN',trNNin NNNNNNNNrrrrrr- rTM cl) r-- sN -rN-NN N N N 7 Y rn 0 0 0 L d CD N N N Q) m N CU an d N 6 (l) d (u 0 -O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > m > > > ,> > > _> > > > > > V U U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U> U U> C,) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U C Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q S Q Q C Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 L CU y Z O TMNO)rN cm to r amQNM ".tMCmf—q'OTNaTmCDCQDCmOCUOM�� 0 CfJ 117 O Z ONN(DU)U')Lf) LO004O 00,14, tOTTrpIrT I- r T M cl) r W O T M M M M N 0 0 0 T M 0 0I` Q> r MOM= (17 N I` h ti CD T T rr1,- fl- NaMCDON 0-r-(- Lorl-NawM00t'd' N N N r r N N N �r Nrl OrMCOrr�I���i chMf'- Lf)rI-NOOCOTM(00 000MLl LOr- MM M M CD W aLOLOOOOOO7rO mmMCOMMONI-T LONCOMOOMNNNmmm 'etNrNNN0M=MNf-rati0I-I,- 0 03 M fQ a MM1- �7 I,- LOV t V 0MM O CD O M M M M M M M M M M U') L- M M M't O M M O r�� M et 0 M M M M M.M M M M M M M W U- O - U) O_OLOOOOOO000a 00 N 00 LO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOr NNMd'LO COI-00(Ma NM_M�LoLoLocor,-ooa)(AO N McrLOCOI,- h ti co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O T r r r r r T r T r T T N N CV N N N N N N O O O O O O O N N N T OO O O O O O O O.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 0 CDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 coo 0 0 0 O O O O O O D) n- Z) W- N ON N N N (=)a O N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N LO N0000 N N N N N N 0.. I r m r o p o 000 r000 -no 00000000 Coo 0000000000ro 00000 W O COO ; O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N O 55 O O 55 555 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc) 0 0 cc) (=)(=)(=) 0 Coo 0 0 0 O O O O O N r � N 0) (n C� •` N a N co O co CO CC) CO 00 00 CO d- co _ co 00 CO CO _ d` CLi e O CO CC) CO _ _ _ 00 co co CO N CO In Lf) L[) in LO to Ln Lc) m Lr) Ln to Ln Ln r r r r M l{� r Liz r LO to to r r r Ln in LA L0 U') O O O m 0 00 CO r r O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 o r O 0 0 0 0 o M O co 000000a o cm 0)02;) co CO00000000NN 00000000000 CO CON 00m co 00000 0 O 0(M 00) m0000 m0) m0) 00m0m 00000m 00(M 0)(M 410) 0)0)0 00000 r r r r r r N N N r r r r r N r r r r r r r N r r r N r r r r r r r r N N N N N r r r I.- Ln r CO �' I` ti r r r r Cp r r r r r r r N r r r r r r r r r r r r r Lo r r Ln O O O O N M o N N r 0(=)C) 0 N O 0 0 0 CDC 0 N Conan 0 cc 0 no o O O O O O { C r r O N C C) M �t , • I O o r rrr N r r r r rrr M r r r N r r r r r O r __c0__ j - O C­ r o on Coo O O O Cocoon O O Coon O O O 000 O o r O O o o O O LU 7 ¢� W O ccnn 0 F- O di -1 W EL Z O U W . W LL O m J v �z O = 0 a O o �WZ ZF_ w O am I_- a zwa o >- ¢LU >p 9z O O i - > >w ry0Oz z 0 >WLL. zm� u- T- o- w Z �: 0 W0 3:L 00�U) o ct 000 QQm 00 O w °tea =QOoLL w =OQ = �¢F-� �WLL i- =. awCnwcnaa �azY w It cnwz -w0 wa 0 wp o ¢�¢c7aQQ Q¢ =U ¢ a¢J� ¢mow J¢ a CnZ w W w o W w w J W W Q w W Uj 0 0 w Q W O w a' � N C 6 Z O g l- g Z Z U- Z m m Z Z 2 Z t U Z (A J N z a W 0 J F- (<J) 0�Cn J J J J Cn J J JJ J J ry Z uj Z (,d CL 0) It m w W F- W W w w cr- WwW00 00 �- 2 W'IY IY _0 OO QQ as U) W WI W �S cn cn rw cnc wwzzt -o0 000 i--WWW wi- cNN J 0Jw0J w cncn�cncnc (na)cn »fn�a'LU NN(n0(nCn O LWU O J ry J JRJ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (n W W W W w W to I-> > N�- ¢aY>wwwwww }`l) YY���WaQy_W� try -Of 0000000000o� ¢o0c�¢¢Y�UUcncnrw��a� m wmMwm w wwwWwwwwwwLU C)0w >_00 FyOLauwaa�� (D��g0 �omJO a o0 coo 00o0 »wzzOzzzw = =Wwcocncn U) --=7X< <3 < ° w WwwwwIIWW>- >owwF- zww0__o ww» -a ¢ �WJJW2a:LLJ xa00 U) 2F cn m �m U LL LLLLL.LU_LLU_LLLLLLMM =000ctr 0w >LL LLJ.JOE5Qm Ovi oc) LL LL LL JQLnL6C`Mar L) C.) N t Lot— mNMt?7MNN00 OOrMtnM titi OCO Lntn J000�m -,n <,r 07 OrrNLnmNNOMrLnI�.1*_NNOLn -corn MCOONN d'�'�t O r- to In Cn N M M M M M M d• Lo - N N Ln N N M M M M M O O 0 CO rrr CO m m m r r r r Cn fL 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O 2 0) 0 0 0) 0) 0) m 0) O 07 0) 0) O 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) N 0 O 0) 0) 0) 0) > > >.> > > > > > c > > > > > 5.5 > > > > 5.5.5.5.5.5.5 > > > > > > > U U U U U U cam.) U U U U U U> U U U U V .0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U C7 U U a U ¢m ¢m ~ COOOrOCOCOtnrMf�M00MNmOrm01�Ln1�01�InCOrC4C4 c1' m CO COOrN Z O N N N M r s M CO LO CO m f- LO W In r O LO N O V d-I- LO CO Q O m r O M M N 1l- m LO LO O LO Ln O Z d' ,T CO V rM0 00d' d' 00 C000LOLOMN rNrr- MOOctCO0)CVrrNd-Cc 00000 (n N Nrr OLOCOONmMOOI­NLf)NI-NI-NNt -Lnl� r1­01` -C.0 I1 LnNm CJNCO09N r 0 m t- 1- 1l-r NLnONNMCD0Ll 7o0rMOMMLnrrr- OCOOMMMCOOCO m 0 CO 1- LO CO CO C0 0 CO r 00000 Co Cc LO Cc (D W 00 CO M = - M LO W 0 N � 0 0 CO CO O C0 N M CO 0 m � r N NCO co ChMC0000Il- NI`I-mMLnN0) MMMM0MM NCO I- -O CO COrNO m0Co00 W fn -d• 'd•m0d•V rrm�MMMMMMVMMMMMOd'M "T- Md'"•MMMrM Cn0r0)0 LL W LL 0) cn UM O O CV M d Ln CO ti o N Ln OO o 0 000000 O 0 00 0 tn0 0 0 0 0 0 LO O "T 'IT LO W 1-- 0000 -rNM LO M r-M OOO- Or NM [t rr r rr r od 0 0 000000r - NM N cMMMMMMMCMMMMMMC+1cMMcr)cr) -) 'IT d• Ill- `•t'IT "It dd' tg1t�tLnLOLn OOO000 OOOO LO LO LO LOLn 00000 t o 0 oo0C =000OO00000C00000O0 0`w o 0oo0 co000O0 000 O0 000 o00 O0 OOOdo0OOOO o000o Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 2 Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 04 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v a� m m a. 0 0 MOON rmrOMf-MMNMr- -C" L0 C r-M'T MOM ONNrPMM0NCQDNNM LO v LDLorN`rt`t`t`m mr( D! �COmCDNtiNtimmmtimM t`OrOCOCOMMLnCDmLloMM O r M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 U) M M M M V N 0 N r (A Mr '-t- ANC%) mmmm" tMMMMM== MMwwMMMMMLo0LC)I-f-M MI- NI-f-COCO OI- I-NI-NCOCOcooO=ItcmcowCOCOO OM OCOCO(DCOLOOCC0rrCOCOf-,ITNrmM r O Q O O Co CDC O O cc CC) O CDC O O O O r r O O r r r r r r (=)a 0 0 0 0 cc r r 0 CDC w O O ca O O O O CDC O O O O O O O COO O O O cc Ca O O CDC O O O O CC COO= 0 O O O O O O O O 000 O N O O O O O O O O COO O cc COO O O O O O O O O O O O O O N r m LO 0 M O N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N 'IT Lo 01` m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLB O O O r r N N M C1' U) CD Il- m M O r N M 'IT 0 0 0 CO I- m m m m m m m M O r N M TY Lo 0 r- r- m M O 'a N In0 LC)U)LC)U)Lo U7 LC)LC)0U)C.D CO CD CD cccCDCD0 CO 000 w CD OD M M 0 r- � 1` ti I` ti I• I` I` ti I-m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ca 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C L' N N N CV N N N CV CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N coco coommoococomco00coM wcococoMMwMmN_ m V'mm m n U) U) LA UP) LC) L[) U') LoLf)LC)LC)lIn 1p LLCM iF)- l 5 iB l5 iB Lf)In;B Lo L5 iB Z?5 Lj U') L0 Lo Lo tj Lnr Lo MLo LJ Lo m r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CDC) O ma O m m m m M M Co O O O O O am m 0 CDC N O O O m O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m M M m m M O M M M M m m m m m m m m M M m m m � O O M M ,M O) M M O) O) M O) C) O M O) O M M r M r M M r Qr ) a r r - r r r r r r r r r N LZ6 m Lnr MrN m m Lf) m r r r r r r r r tie}'rrr O O N O N O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 C rNMrMrrrrrrrrrr rrd'er-- MMNNUiU)rrrrrrrrmMrrr JJ >¢�. J > Q F- �civ�iw�� -w z www -w¢w ¢ waaw >�U of w wwa ww a> LL >w ° =�ww0 w w¢ °�000p °o o �¢ o°a_a�=oa U F- 0 p w Q a w w w 0 p 2 w a J z cozzz �Z ry m CD c o a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w UUUUUUUUUUQUUUUUUUUUUUUUU a a mo Of W wMWWx =wIr �1� =0 00 xx Tgg0w��0� O O _c: W- w- �of WWxwT- �of T- of ry n, of of of ct NYof of wof of m ofaa Of - ��H-> alwiw- wHHiw- Fw- Iw- �rw- Iw- hw- Hfw- F-- tw- �w- Fw- Iw- �-- Fw- Iw- Iw-tw- w¢Qwwww w `�E¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢a¢¢¢¢¢g¢¢gQQaa �ww =wwww =ww yN maa--- - - - - -- E of WE T- =zz mOZ aaaaaaaaaooa00000aooaoaao QOQQF- F-F-F- o¢a ¢ <�Q ��0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °¢UwUCaiz ° °zz ° °az wzz m f A��UQ¢ Q¢ QQ¢¢¢¢ QQ ¢¢¢Q¢QQQQQ¢¢¢(„)�aQ'�'NNNNNd.ZZ c) ory COM A N Lo Lozr -,:r N N M M -z3- -,;r Lo Lo CD 0 N N 4 4 r I-MrM0Orf m CptitirrO)MNNMMVV OLOCO NCNN W r r I'- M C!) r r r e- r r r e- N N r r N N N N N N N N N N N N LD r CO M M r N N M M M N Lo cA C9 Cn > m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m >_> > > > >_> > >_> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2 > > >2 > >.>,>.>.> > m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ a m CD m CT C6 Z O MOON rmrOMf-MMNMr- -C" L0 C r-M'T MOM ONNrPMM0NCQDNNM LO O Z LDLorN`rt`t`t`m mr( D! �COmCDNtiNtimmmtimM t`OrOCOCOMMLnCDmLloMM O r M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 U) M M M M V N 0 N W ry Mr '-t- ANC%) mmmm" tMMMMM== MMwwMMMMMLo0LC)I-f-M MI- NI-f-COCO OI- I-NI-NCOCOcooO=ItcmcowCOCOO OM OCOCO(DCOLOOCC0rrCOCOf-,ITNrmM LU cow MLOW Lf) COCO coo CDCOI-COCOCDCOCOCDC000000O COO OcDacocom M Coto NN Coto (M Lf) m ll- m fl- I- ll- I- fl- il- l� O fl- tl- l` N N. ti ti N t` f` ti r- N-_ I� 1�- 1`- Co LD LC) U) LC) 0 cc N M m 0 0 0 LL (n MrMcf M�d'cf �P�Pet��V' ep��"} "a'It .y-��"}�� 'T � "T MMMMMMMMMMM�tY' w LL. m od LO 0 M O N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N 'IT Lo 01` m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLB O O O r r N N M C1' U) CD Il- m M O r N M 'IT 0 0 0 CO I- m m m m m m m M O r N M TY Lo 0 r- r- m M O r m In0 LC)U)LC)U)Lo U7 LC)LC)0U)C.D CO CD CD cccCDCD0 CO 000 w CD OD M M 0 r- � 1` ti I` ti I• I` I` ti I-m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D =O O- � 2' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ca 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N CV CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m CT C6 O O r rn ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O °O 0 t` W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MCC 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N r m f!1 m d m co 00 co CC) = co�coCUC00oN= =V) ooN�«»Nco -N0000 cocOOOZ�aoN0000LNco � LnLO����z u�u�LO Lj�LO��LOLO tpiO�In�InLO���LC3�LnL [1L[1L.C���� L=O LOLO� m 0000000 000000000 Ooo00000000000000000000 WNW coco W co coco coNW co co co co W co 00 co0000co W00 W co coNN CC) coNW Waoco W co 0 0)CA(M m(M0)0) M(m0)0000 00) 0)m0)cmcm(M(MO)0)0) a ma700)0)mMm0)mcmM r r r \ r \ r r T r r r T r r T r r r T r r r r r r r r r T r r r r T r r r r r r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r r [- T r r r T 000000T r -------------------- 0000000 0 00 000O000o00 CDC 00oo000 r r r r T T r T r r r r r r r r r r T T ------------------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn F- LU :D QPamo ZWC9 _ J W Cn F- J J W W wQ>2: _0 >ww¢Zw Dw[O W QJ nO Cl. LU Sm(D H =Wm [apF-w�W wa_ ° Z W m F° X O W- 0 H F- W 0'= 0 0 w OOzLLO -a_p o =Ocnw�om ~ LL LL p§�Ow�w LL Z Zn =m =�OJ ppryZ�Oa_O -W 0a_ p rY0LL �W2t -Q 0 = =�0=�w2O= =O w O LL F- oC -) -X� u U' U' W mW WJU` W ~ ( E- J LL c�U ¢ooZw W CD LL. (DZma=zw �_ U' Q J J a_ J LLJ J D! OJ z Z J J~ OO J J Q! J Z N m w W W w _ Z =D LU oWWDODO ¢ ¢pj 0 0 v T fn T ° ❑ O O O O O 00 O O O O OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OO OO 00 O O O 00 O OO O O LLJ 00 00 O 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N COMI- MOc I' GOLOCM7 "T(o=mMOI-"'Lo�� mm- m000CP'C mmP-- nmmt*- N_M-0 Mr mOMmmr-- OT000000JO0O )mf�Mc}'CO'chMOf�l`d'T(p "t -p -T - -T T .Q N LLI N f/) LOCOCOCDCDM=cmmmmmmmmm WCOCOCOCoCOOJCOOJCOm=omI-- r -mil- )f_I_ I-f-I�I� NI'- I-I-I-NNf,-TTT Tr c - LOTf\f- r- ti — — - .- - TLOI.- I`LOMMLOMLOMMMMMM _C L LL a) co 00 co co co 00 co co co co CC) c co co Co co co co 00 co co co co 000 co co 00 co CC) co co co co co co co co co 00 cc co C - - Ui L-0 U7 z to z za L Z6 - Z'f5 ii5 Z?5 LO LO tf LO tC� ll� U� Oz In LO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ O O O O m O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O m m m m m m m m m m m m m rn m m m T T T T r r T T T T T T T T T T T T T r T T T T ----- T ------------ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ T T r r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O T T T T T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T r T T O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O O O O p O O O p p O O O O O O O O O CDC O p p O O O cc G 0 Q J N m O C O [D N Q w E O -� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ Lo01 -wm °T C L11 ❑ ❑ ❑❑ Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q <<<< Q Q Q¢ Q¢¢ Q Q Q Q Q y N M ¢¢¢¢0000000 ❑0000 000000000000w 000oo00o w U �- - O O O o w 2 w w w w w w of 2 w O 0 J J J J J J J J � �' a 00000000000000000000000000000> v�a��aaaaa cDcDcDcDocDcDcDc�c�ocDc�0000c�cDoc�cDcD (D as a00000000 a QZZ_ Z_ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ _Z_Z_ZZzZZzzZzZZo0000o00oo00 O o O J J J J J J J J ¢ ¢Q¢QQ¢¢¢¢¢Q¢¢¢¢QQ¢¢¢Q¢¢Q¢ O J Q Q Q Q J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J -1 0 x m A Cn fn (A (n (A (n (J) WJJJJ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Cn Q¢¢ Q Q¢¢¢¢¢Q tl Z LL LL LL L _ OO T OOT C, O O o 0000TTOOTLC')MTOOTT CD S'N'IT N N''0 U TT OOOrN M��t' 4Cpi�0000N�i' M�71.[)C DOOtpCp CpppOOQ�MNd'ON�If)l{�CO00 Cn d' LO M f- m T T T T T T r— T T r- N N N N N N N N N N N N M M LOT 0 M to O (Q co L > > > > > > O > > > O O O O N N N O O N N N O Lu CU (V O N N N N N N CU O CU N O O N O m 0 4) m N > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2 > >.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< L m U Z 0 O z COMI- MOc I' GOLOCM7 "T(o=mMOI-"'Lo�� mm- m000CP'C mmP-- nmmt*- N_M-0 Mr mOMmmr-- OT000000JO0O )mf�Mc}'CO'chMOf�l`d'T(p "t -p -T - -T (n d'�t'M�rMC d m = LO Ln M Ln Itm mMLOLOMLOLOMMMOCDtiOCDOCDCOCc=w0 mmmmmmMMNNNNNNNNI-NOMOMM OM= Or-MM QNNlzrNNNN CNN NN LLI L O LOCOCOCDCDM=cmmmmmmmmm WCOCOCOCoCOOJCOOJCOm=omI-- r -mil- )f_I_ I-f-I�I� NI'- I-I-I-NNf,-TTT Tr c - LOTf\f- r- ti — — - .- - TLOI.- I`LOMMLOMLOMMMMMM - LL � CO f� I- 1l- f- CO CD Il- CD CD c Co CD fD cc= I,- c r- I- M m r- w m - f- f` N m m m m mom m m m m C7 M M M M M C'7 M C'7 C'7 M M M M M M P'1 C'7 M M M M C+') C+') C+') M C•J M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W LL N O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O T NMet LO BCD M _ NMd'LO CD f.- CO m O r N M cP LO CO [�- O m O T N M "t LO CD �mmO N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M MMMV'ci'd'C'��ct �i'd'ch M in LO LA LO LO LO LO LO Lo= co ❑ ❑ UOJ a p r f r r r T r r T T T T T T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T' r T r T T r T T tfJ 0000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000 m N N N cc N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N C) 0 v r fA W r p ❑ O r r W O O O N N r � N D N co t� a) coO co co O O m O ❑ r r r r r r O O O C O r r r W m D z w W t- c W ° :_ 15 W CL -j O N �c c ° mm TE UU ° �(D 0 r 1 O* J of LL CD aWw OO a) Q Qww U Q cn co cn N y 7 (6 cn L (D CD CD N > > > Q Q Q ❑ L co cC) I- U Z o to LO O z co ooi U do W a) m0 ° 2 LL cn ccl) w ° LL p cn oLno E 06 N C14 co co co z O k. m r r r a) ❑° 3 000 ca CL � W NNN F- Customer Printed: 03/18/0214:38 Page 1 Customer Name Service Address 14 035185 MOBILE LOGIC 9495 -A HIGHWAY 20 14 035190 A PLUS EQUIPMENT RENTALS 9493 HIGHWAY 20 14 035200 WESTSIDE MARINE 31 FREDERICKS 14 035205 ROBERT DISHINGTON 8871 HIGHWAY 20 14 035210 JOHN C NESSETT, TRUSTEE 72 W FREDERICKS ST 14 035220 JULIAN HOY 91 W FREDERICKS ST 14 035230 FRED KIMBALL 151 FREDERICKS ST 14 035235 LOUIS VOHS 183 FREDERICKS ST 14 035240 DALE GODDARD 125 LOUISA ST 14 035242 RONALD HAXBY 82 LOUISA ST 14 035250 JAMES & MARSHA EADES 105 LOUISA ST 14 035260 BPOE ELKS LODGE #317 555 OTTO STREET 14 035270 FOUNTAIN FITNESS 22 TAHLEQUAH LN 14 035280 JOE DAUBENBERGER 420 OTTO ST 14 035290 CHARLES LANDAU 130 SETON RD 14 035300 SEBASTIAN EGGERT 210 SETON RD 14 035310 EDENSAW WOODS,LTD 211 SETON RD 14 035320 SIDNEY /STEPHANIE MORRELL BY 251 OTTO ST 14 035330 SUBURBAN PROPANE 25 SETON RD 14 035340 MICHAEL AND BECKY BLEAKNEY 274 OTTO ST 14 035350 NW WOODEN BOATS SCHOOL 251 OTTO ST 14 035360 THERMMIONICS NW 231 B OTTO ST 14 035370 MITCHAEL AND BECKY BLEAKNEY 234 OTTO ST 14 035380 MICHAEL BLEAKNEY 234 -R OTTO ST 14 035390 NW THERMIONICS 211 OTTO ST 14 035410 BRAD HOOVER 190 OTTO ST 14 035420 ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE 193 OTTO ST 14 035430 ALASKA POWER TELEPHONE 191 OTTO ST 14 035440 RALPH ERICKSEN 182 OTTO 14 035450 DAVID/ JO J KLEMANN 163 OTTO ST 14 035460 NW ELECTRIC APPARATUS 71 EISENBEIS ST 14 035470 SOSKIN FAMILY TRUST 155 OTTO ST 14 035480 PORT TOWNSEND MINI STORAGE 38 OTTO ST 14 035490 DOUGLAS BRAMHALL 111 BAYVIEW ST 14 035500 ANN MCLAUGHLIN 120 FREDERICKS ST 14 035510 CELLA B CLAYTON 123 FREDERICKS ST 14 035520 CHRISTOPHER SCHNASE 203 FREDERICKS ST 14 035530 SCOVIL A MOTORSPORT 211 FREDERICKS ST 14 035540 JULIAN ARTHUR 284 FREDERICKS ST 14 035550 KATHY ARTHUR 305 FREDERICKS ST 14 035560 JULIAN /SUSAN ARTHUR 317 FREDERICKS ST 14 035570 JULIAN /SUSAN ARTHUR 319 FREDERICK ST 14 035580 JULIAN ARTHUR 322 FREDERICKS ST Page 1 Customer Name 14 035590 JULIAN ARTHUR 14 035600 MARY MIKELSON 14 035610 SANDRA HUMMELL 14 035615 WILLIAM PETERSON 14 035620 JAMES GARRETT 14 035630 PETTIT OIL COMPANY 14 035640 MARK HERING 14 035650 B & B ASSOCIATES 14 035660 BRAD /KURT JENSEN /DOBSZINSKY 14 035670 ROYNO.LD GREY & ASSOCIATES 14 035680 NICHOLAS D'ANDREA 14 035690 ATLAS TECHNOLOGIES 14 035700 RUSSELL JAQUA 14 035710 EASTVIEW STORAGE 14 035720 COYOTE FOUND CANDLES Records printed: 58 Page 2 Service Address 353 FREDERICKS ST 393 FREDERICKS ST 423 FREDERICKS ST 522 FREDERICKS ST 192 FREDERICKS ST 230 BAYVIEW AVE 210 BAYVIEW AVE 55 FREDERICKS ST 270 GLEN COVE RD 321 OTTO ST 323 DENNY AVENUE 305 GLEN COVE RD 353 GLEN COVE RD 2 WORKMANS ST 31 WORKMAN ST Cc' kC-C 33/-15ja pORT TO City of Port Townsend Office of City Attorney o Waterman & Katz Building 181 Quincy Street, #201, Port Townsend, WA 98368 '''•rq�wAS, Telephone: (360) 385 -5991 Fax: (360) 385 -4290 e -mail: jwattsCa?ci.port- townsend.wa.us March 22, 2002 Board of County Commissioners MA , 2 2 ?_0C? 1820 Jefferson Street` -? ©,vim, P. O. Box 1220x, t� ' i Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Proposed LAMIRD Expansion - Hearing March 18, 2002 Dear BOCC: This letter provides additional comment for the record in the BOCC's pending proposal to expand LAMIRD boundaries. Recently the Growth Board found invalid Skagit County's ordinance which sought to update a County development plan by adding significant commercial /industrial acreage (C/1) to rural zoning, using a process that was not consistent with the County's comprehensive plan process. The Board stated: "Skagit County must make no further CP [comprehensive plan] amendments adding to rural C /I, beyond that already specifically designated, until it implements its CP amendment process...." Anacortes v. Skagit Co., et al., FDO, WWGMHB 00- 2 -0049c (2001), p. 29. Similarly here, the County must use its comprehensive plan amendment process to change or "update" its Glen Cove boundaries from the boundaries designated in the County comprehensive plan. This is what the County's own plan states. ( "[Glen Cove boundaries shall be revisited] upon completion of the Tri- area/Glen Cove Study through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with [Land Use Policy] 1.4." Land Use Policy 11.3.2, CP, p. 3 -83. Italics added.) 2. County UDC only provides comprehensive plan amendment on an annual basis, with exceptions that do not apply here. UDC 9.3. 3. The state Office of Community Development (OCD) letter dated March 18, 2002 to Commissioner Wojt states a boundary amendment appears inconsistent with several provisions of GMA, namely: annual comprehensive plan amendment requirement, no A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT City of Port Townsend John Watts, City Attorney March 22, 2002, Page 2 GMA basis for interim controls (which are limited to preserving status quo and not to expanding allowed uses or regulations), and absence of required notice to OCD. This letter supplements the comments in my Memo dated March 18, 2002 (delivered to the BOCC at the hearing on March 18, 2002). Thanks you and please call with any questions. Sincerely, J John Watts City Attorney Copy: David G. Timmons, City Manager G:Let {BOCC LAMIRD 3 22 02} The Malzefield company A full service shop specializing in the design, fabrication, and installation of anything you can imagine. Mantels Turnings Staircases Mouldings binetry rrZ Furniture Display Environments CJ 9 160 March 21, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend WA 98368 Dear Sim- AfAb 9 e LUj J�FFER �c 2002 804RD OF SON oU TY ISS10PERS Once again we meet in a conflict between well- intended legislation and flawed planning. The City of Port Townsend and other concerned citizens see the expansion of industrial development in Glen Cove as an obvious contradiction to the intent of the Growth Management Act, and so it is. Those of us that have purchased, Invested substantial funds in developing, and cannot now use our property in Glen Cove want to put those properties to their original intended use, and the County staff agrees. They maintain, based on recent findings by the State, that "substantial development" is constituted not only by structures (as was the primary determinant of inclusion in the first tight -line boundaries)but can include other Infrastructure development such as roads, waste disposal systems, electrical services, water lines, clearing, grading and ballasting. 152� I purchased my property in the fall of 198&with the purpose of buWft' y woodworking shop av4 other woW incubator buildings there. The property was located close to Port Townsend, the seat of government and the location of all my suppliers. Edensaw Woods purchased the property I originally, wanted, so I got the lots across the street. The land price included an 8" water line, a tap, perc approval, fire hydrants, decent roads, and heavy three phase power right overhead. It was zoned light Industrial/commercial (or so we all thought). After ail, why would the County put in roads and the P.U.D. put in waterlines adequate for industrial uses if not intended for that purpose? I never wanted to disturb residential neighbors with the sound of my work and I 203D Fredericks Street Past office Box 336 Port Townsend WA 98368 360.385.6789 voice 364.385.7177 fax Licensed, banded and insured since 1978 The Maizefield Company A full service woodworking shop specializing in the design, fabrication, and installation of anything you can imagine. Mantels Turnings Staircases Mouldings Cabinetry Furniture Display Environments wanted to operate a serious business In a commercial location where long term growth was allowed and encouraged. At that time (long before the industrial park behind Frontier Bank), there were no opportunities for affordable industrially zoned land with similar infrastructure in place inside Port Townsend except at the Port where .land was only available for a long term lease. I wanted.to mAM a long term comrbttment to this town SAO my future by building my own place on my own property. later on I could renting out my buildings to other growing businesses. I purchased the property in September of 1988.I had the water tap installed, the water running and my first bill from the P.U.D. in the same month. Soon after that I filled, graded and compacted roads and ballasted storage yard areas on the property and began to bandsaw salvaged bridge timbers and maple logs for resale. Several boats were moved there for storage and I built a temporary structure to protect the salvaged wood. I granted Puget Power an easement for utility access for which they built more roads and cleared and graded ground in 1990. In 1992 I excavated, filled, graded and compacted a 7,000 square foot area for a building foundation slab and parking area. I applied for and received Interin Zoning Approval on May 24, 1994, allowing me to build a 3,600 square foot structure on one portion of my property. Also I in 19941 built a phi pale harm for moYwood storage,. iten to- enlarge it later for anoth g er shop space, and Installed4 my septic , . system in April of 1997 after many extensions. In 19991 installed single phase electrical service to the property. I didn't have the funding to move quickly, but I have moved steadily. In the last year I have grown my business enough to build a stronger financial foundation, and with it I have hired three more employees (for a total of six) and more than tripled my business. I have moved from a 1,000 square foot shop in the Boat Haven to a 4,000 square foot shop space in Glen Cave, and the rent I pay for that space would pay for a 6,000 square foot shop on my own property. The Mazefield Company A full service woodworking shop specializing in the design, fabrication, and installation of anything you can imagine. Mantels Turnings Staircases Mouldings Cabinetry Furniture Display Environments I moved in December, 2001, but last summer I applied for a building permit to build a 2,000 square foot building on my property that would allow me storage for materials storage and equipment used Infrequently in my work. I planned a gradual transition from the Boat Haven to my property, but the denial of that application made, It necessary for me to move out of Port Townsend completely and m` }ove Into a space larger and more expensive than I needed since . I could create four more family wage jobs if I had that additional (and affordable) space, but where an I going to find 1t7 Certainly not on my own property, unless I can build a larger structure there than is now allowed in my Interim Zoning Approval. Certainly not in Port Townsend, since the rent for the space I need will make it difficult at best to compete with shops that are working freely without county approval out of their homes, both in town and out in the county. With the loss of Port Hudson and the limited space available in the Boat Haven for business incubation in Port Townsend, businesses such as my own will not have the chance to grow, and that is by far the most serious problem. I chose to build my future based on the idea that the Glen Cove Industrial Park was just that an industrial park. Allowing so many businesses to grow there if they weren't supposed to is a mistake three County and the City now must hye with, ?� construction of Jewish settlements In the West Bank. Tlaere l ave been many mistakes made by well- intentioned people, both private citizens and public officials, elected, appointed, and hired. We cannot go back and correct these, but maybe with careful planning we can mitigate them and use them to inspire better solutions in the future. We must now move forward to allow infiil in this area as a LAMR.ID, so this community of business and industry can remain, thrive, and retain the jobs therein. Selection of properties to be included in this increased tight line should follow the same guidelines as allowed by the state: around substantial infrastructure development. Without this, the interest of The Maizefield Company A full service woodworking shop specializing in the design, fabrication, and installation of anything you can imagine. Mantels Turnings Staircases Mouldings Cabinetry Furniture Display Environments the public to limit sprawl cannot be fairly served. It does, however, make good sense to utilize these existing infrastructures to their greatest extent, especially if it serves to support out economic well- being. One thing for sure: without good paying wages to replace jobs lost at Port Townsend Paper, and a diversification of industry, this town-,"-:.. : WM k ern into just another high - priced retirement community tourist trap. Our strength as a community comes with diversity of culture, jobs, income and opportunity. Here is an opportunity that has been missed, not just for me, but for all of us to support sustainable family wage jobs for our community. Do the right thing, and do it NOW. Even I am tired of waiting, and as this testimony shows, my patience is long. The future of far more than my little piddling effort is at stake.. Sincerely yours, R. Sebastian Eggert cc: Jeff Randall, City of Port Townsend Director of Community Deveopment and Al Scalf, Jefferson County Department of Community Deelnent