Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM122396 ../ I. ~'ii.1 Q II~.I: I g. ~ E ~() II ~i ì g&1 ili!,.' ¡¡¡i.i.i.. I'~II MINUTES WEEK OF DECEMBER 23, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Robert Hinton were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of December 9, and 16, 1996 as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded and amended the motion to correct the minutes of December 9 (page 4 - budget appropriation for Superior Court - add "The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ") Commissioner Huntingford seconded the amended motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion and the amended motion. Both motions carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: An explanation of the community goals for the lrondale area; a comment on the letter of complaint about the ICAN mission statement; the question of how the work being done on GMA fits into the County's Mission Statement; the statement that the designation of the Irondale area as a Rural Activity Center is not appropriate; a statement of support for the County to accept Redeemer Way as a County Road; and a problem with the Permit Center regarding when a building permit is required for plumbing repairs. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete items 4 and 5 and to approve the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 115-96 re: Supporting a Partnership Between the Housing Author- ity of Jefferson County and the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority to Bring a Self Help Housing Program to Jefferson County 2. RESOLUTION NO. 116-96 re: Designating the Stormwater Administrator as Provided for in the Jefferson County Stormwater Management Ordinance ", Page I .Il,.,,'e., . . ", ,0 .at. 22 rAG~. Ot827 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 3, RESOLUTION NO. 117-96 re: Establishing County Project QF1284; Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood Management Plan 4. DELETE Resolution re: Establishing Weight Limitation on Y81T Bridge, #17E (See Item later in Minutes) 5, DELETE Resolution re: Dissolving the County Courthouse Building Bond Fund and the Coyle Community Center Project Fund and Providing for an Equity Transfer of Monies Therein (See item later in Minutes) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 118-96 re: Updating the Official County Road Log: Otto Street, Tahlequah Lane, Lawn Street, Seaway Place, Edgewood Drive, Timberton Drive, Deer Hollow Circle, Heritage Lane, McKenzie Lane, Leighbrook Lane 7. NOTICE OF COMPLETION re: Day Labor Projects; CR1209, CR121!, CR1214, CR1236, CR1239 8. CONTRACT #1-96-745-047 Amendment re: Community Development Block Grant Funds to Support Activities Sponsored by Clallam-Jefferson Community Action Council; State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development 9. CONTRACT #G9700029 re: Grant for Big Quilcene River Flood Hazard Study and Comprehensive Plan; State Department of Ecology 10. Final Subdivision Plat Approval, LPA93-0003 re: To Divide 20 Acres into 4 Residential Lots; Lofall Heights; Off of Eaglemount Road, Chimacum; Don Lofall 11. Final Subdivision Plat Approval, SUB95-0004 re: To Divide 72 Acres into 36 Residential Lots; Woodridge Village; Off of Teal Lake Road, Port Ludlow; Pope Resources 12. Approve Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund; VFW Post #4607 for $75.00 Establishing Weight Limitation on Ya" Bridge, #17e: Commissioner Huntingford reported that he discussed this matter with the Public Works Department and they advise that this bridge isn't up to code for carrying trucks that weigh over 19 tons, such as 10 yard dump trucks, cement trucks and local freight trucks. Public Works will apply for funding to im- prove the bridge as soon as the weight limit is imposed. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve a resolution establishing a weight limit on Yarr Bridge. (The motion died for lack of a second. ) Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels public notice is needed before this weight limit is imposed. Public Works Director, Klara Fabry, reported that posting this bridge will allow the Department to apply for funding to improve the bridge. Commissioner Huntingford asked if a longer vehicle (than a dump truck or cement truck) that is over the specified weight would be allowed on this bridge? Klara Fabry reported that a solution is to establish a maximum weight per Axel for trucks on the bridge. She will research this matter further and report back to the Board on how the weight limit can be posted and how long the bridge will be unavailable to truck traffic after it is posted. Page 2 ~ Val. 22 fAGf 0 182B Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 Dissolving the County Courthouse Building Bond Fund and the Coyle ComllUlnity Center Project Fund and Providing for an Equity Transfer of Monies Therein: Commissioner Huntingford stated that it is his understanding that the problem with the roof on the Coyle Community Center has been taken care of, but there ate still two other issues. Cy Heffernan, Park and Recreation District No.1, stated that two issues still remain to be resolved: 1) the spotting on the ceiling, and 2) the leaking concrete block wall. He feels that these two issues should be acknowledged if this fund is dissolved. Klara Fabry reported that this resolution is a bookkeeping issue, and has nothing to do with the agreement between Public Works and the Park and Recreation District on the Coyle Community Center. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 119-96 dissolving the County Courthouse Building Bond Fund and the Coyle Community Center Project Fund including wording that there are two unresolved issues with the Coyle Community Center. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Will Butterfield Presentation of Memo re: Request for Improvements to Arcadia West Street: Will Butterfield, Right of Way Agent for the Public Works Department, reported that he researched the validity of the easements in this area. He reviewed the easements, the surveys, the Assessor's records and checked with the title companies on what they show for these properties. He found there are two easements. In 1978 a survey was done of Irving Driving Park, by Milt Sandstrom. He found that the road was longer than shown in either of the 1977 or 1976 easements. Tax 23, 55, 32, 29, and 40 all tie together, but Mr. Burris' property (tax 17) is shy about 3 to 4 feet ITom the easement area. The existing road should be surveyed so the property owners know where the road lays in the easements, and where the easements are located in relation to their property. There is nothing in the official records to indicate this road was ever a County road. Klara Fabry noted that the land owners need to hire a surveyor and have a survey done at their own expense. Commissioner Hinton asked if the Prosecuting Attorney's Office was contacted to determine if there is any liability for the County? Klara Fabry reported that the Prosecuting Attorney was con- tacted, and they indicated that this is a civil matter and the County shouldn't get involved. Commissioner Hinton asked if the Prosecuting Attorney was asked if the County has any liability due to building permits being issued for the Hagen project? Klara Fabry reported that she will ask the Prosecuting Attorney for an opinion on this before a letter is sent to the property owners in the area regarding the results of the research done on the easements. A resident of the area asked who approved the placement of the utilities in the easement? Will Butterfield stated that the County Public Works Department doesn't approve the placement of utilities in private easements. Klara Fabry suggested, and the Board agreed, that the Public Works Department make a presentation of their research to the Prosecuting Attorney and ask for a legal opinion regarding this issue. Chairman Wojt asked that the Prosecuting Attorney be asked specifically if the County has any liability due to permitting for the Hagen project. Page 3 ,~) e VOL 22 rAG~ 0 1829 Solid Waste Advisory Committee Report on Status of R W. Beck Analysis of Solid Waste Operations: Frank Hall, Public Works, reviewed the recommendations from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee regarding the RW. Beck study of solid waste operations as follows: 1. Put the long haul contract out for bid as soon as possible, with input from SW AC. 2. Maintain transfer station operations. 3. No recycling RFP at this time. Commissioner Hinton asked if Skookum's contract is due to expire at the end of the year? Frank Hall reported that only the financial portion of the contract is due to expire at the end of the year. Klara Fabry reported that this is the only SW AC recommendation that disagrees with the operations analysis. She recommends that a negotiation process be started with Skookum. The SW AC is concerned about the expense of this operations study and they do not want to increase the work to be done by the consultant. Klara Fabry noted that there is a need to have a phased implementation plan for the recommendations in this study. SW AC does not support the consultants recommendation to charge any additional fees for recycling to generators outside the County system. The Public Works Department should prepare a site plan, with SW AC involvement. Jefferson County should take over the operation of the scales from Skookum as soon as feasible. Install a computerized scale as soon as possible. Purchase a knuckleboom crane immediately. Do not reduce the hours of the Moderate Risk Waste Facility. Consider scheduling changes, depending on usage. Do not charge residents who bring in materials (household hazardous wastes) ITom their homes at the Moderate Risk Waste Facility. Add walls to the Moderate Risk Waste Facility as soon as possible. 4. 7. 8. 9. Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUSINESS Vacation of a Portion of Masonic Temple Road; East of Rogers Street in Quilcene; Bill and Melody Bacchus, Petitioners: Chairman Wojt noted that a letter was received from Mark Huth, Attorney for the Hoskins. Terry Duff, Public Works Department, also submitted a copy of a letter from Bill and Melody Bacchus. (See microfilmed copies.) Mr. Hoskins stated that they have tried to resolve the issues with the Bacchus's and asked the Board to postpone a decision on this until a future date to allow an agreement to be reached. Commissioner Hinton stated that it is unfortunate that this situation has evolved into a standoff between the property owners. However, the issue before the Board is the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to vacate this right-of-way. The other issues are not before the Board for action. Commissioner Hinton moved to accept the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions to approve the vacation. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there seems to be more to this matter than meets the eye, and stated that he hopes the civil matters can be resolved soon for both parties. Chairman Wojt added that it's hard to come to agreement in negotiations without some sort of pressure to do so. He doesn't see any reason for the Board to make a determination on this vacation today. Commissioner Hinton said that the issue of the well is a civil matter. Mr. Hoskins added that if this vacation is approved they will lose the parking for their business. This problem isn't just the well, it is also the parking. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. 5. 6. 10, 11. Page 4 . ~al 22 f~G~ 0 1_830 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 12. Fees at the Moderate Risk Waste Facility for small quantity generators should reflect disposal costs, at least. The Moderate Risk Waste Facility should be purchased out from the Port of Port Townsend. Close all drop boxes except Clearwater. Fees should be charged at the Clearwater drop box site and a contract with a local providers will be pursued. 13. 14. 15. Klara Fabry reported that a schedule for closure of the drop box sites will be submitted to the Board within the next week. The discussion continued about the recommendation by SW AC to close the drop box sites. The Board members want to discuss this further before taking any action. Fire Truck Pump Test Station: Port Townsend Fire Department, Fire Chief Howard Scott, stated that Fire District No.1 and the City Fire Department installed a fire truck pump test station on County property, and have been working with the County on an agreement for their use of this site. He then reviewed the contract language. They don't agree with including insurance language, the 90 day notice of termination, and the requirement to add a section to allow them to charge a fee for use of the facility. Klara Fabry noted that originally a license to use County property was proposed for this site, but since they wanted to charge a fee for use of it, a lease agreement was more appropriate. The insurance requirements are the same for a lease or a license. After further discussion of the issues involved, it was agreed that Public Works will work with Fire Chief Scott to finalize a lease agreement with the City of Port Townsend, as lead agency for the Fire Districts, for the site of the fire truck pump test station. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S BRIEFING: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported that the City of Port Townsend has passed a resolution of intent to take over the Trail property. She asked about the reduction of2 FTE's in the Public Works budget for 1997? She asked if one of these positions is from the Engineering Division and one is from the Road Crew? She noted that she is concerned that the additional position in the West End will not be filled. The Board advised that the FTE's in Public Works budget were reduced by 2. She added that the Stormwater Ordinance should be administered through the Public Works Department because of their high level of expertise. Applications For Assistance From The Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the three applications for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund as recommended by the Jefferson County Service Officers Association in the amounts of$500.00 ITom the Service Officers Association and $420 and $250 from the American Legion. Commis- sioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING NOTICE re: 1996 Budget Appropriations/Extension; Various County Departments: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the RESOLUTION NO. 120-96 setting a public hearing for January 13, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. for the 1996 budget appropriations/extensions requested by several County Departments. Commissioner Hinton seconded motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 5 Val 22 rAG~ 01831 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 HEARING re: Intent to Establish County Road; Redeemer Way: Will Butterfield reported that this road is roughly 310 feet long and is currently chip sealed. Commis- sioner Hinton asked who is responsible to pay for the costs to upgrade the road to County standards? The Public Works Department recommends that if this road is accepted as a County road, Will Butterfield answered, that the property owner pay the costs to bring it up to County standards. Commissioner Hinton asked how much it will cost to maintain this road per year? Klara Fabry reported that the average maintenance cost for this amount of road is $2,000 per year. Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing, Robert Phinnizy stated that he has maintained the road and kept records of it. There is another 60 foot right-of-way adjacent to this road and the developers of the property have agreed to abandon that adjacent right-of-way and use this road. There have been 16,000 cars a year using that road. He doesn't feel the drainage ditch, recommended in the Engineer's report, is required because the SEP A requirement for base material when the road was put in, were met and they have never had a problem with water drainage on the road. He then submitted a petition signed by pre-school parents who use the Church, in support ofthe County taking over this road. He concluded by noting that the Church feels it is in the best interest of the citizens for the County to take over this road. Commissioner Hinton asked if the developer is 10hn Swallow? Mr. Phinnizy reported that is correct. Mal)' Louise Nelson indicated on the map where the subdivisions are located in the area. Hearing no further testimony the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved, that due to the usage figures presented by the Church and the possibility of development in the area, to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 121-96 establishing Redeemer Way as a County road. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Public Works Department took into account the second 60 foot right of way in this area? Assistant County Engineer Bob Nesbitt stated that he did not take that into consideration in his recommendation, It would not make sense to have two entrances, side by side, onto the County road. Commissioner Huntingford agreed, and said that he feels there is reason to accept this road as a County road as long as the Church pays the cost to bring the road up to County standards. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Interim Forest Lands Ordinance: (Continued ITom 12/16/96): Community Development Director, AI Scalf, reported that originally the County had a non-compliance order ITom the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (#94- 0017) on the County's Forestland's ordinance. Sections 4.20 and 6.20 were found to be invalid (net yield and opt out provisions,) He then reviewed the map for the existing ordinance (adopted in 1995) and an example of what could be done with properties in certain circumstances, and a map that reflects what would be required with the criteria in the negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MOD), and some minor corrections to indicate subdivisions that weren't shown on the original map. Commissioner Huntingford stated that during the negotiations of the MOU to address the net yield and opt out provision, it was his understanding that everyone was in agreement that what was mapped was okay. The negotiations were to build criteria to keep what was mapped as it was and that parcels would not be coming out of their designation. Now, it appears that because of changes to the criteria, the mapping has changed. Page 6 ~...~ .. . " . "..,0< VOL 22 rAG~ 0 1832 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Paul McIlrath, reported that dispute resolution is being used as an alternative to litigation. Jefferson County filed an appeal to the Superior Court of the WWGMH Board decision at the compliance hearing in 1995. The State Court of Appeals mandates that parties consider dispute resolution and that is why discussions were started with the parties to the appeal. The County, because of it's legislative authority, is unable to take the dispute resolution process to its termination, but a memorandum of understanding was developed. As part of the MOD each party is to make a good faith effort toward resolving this issue. This is an interim ordinance which will be replaced by the Comprehensive Plan. The parties came into the room pretty much in agreement that the maps represented a good effort at indicating what resource lands were designated. The problem was concern about language in the ordinance which allowed removal from designations based on net yield criteria, and also required implementation of net yield criteria. He feels there is an opportunity, through this process, for the parties to make progress on this interim ordinance. The MOD indicates that the participants will support the County's efforts. Chairman Wojt asked if it is true that this will all come up again during the review of the Comprehensive Plan, and if so, how important is it that this be resolved now? Paul McIlrath answered that resolution to these issues would remove the out of compliance issue with the Hearings Board. AI Scalf added that it is important for the Comprehensive Plan that the most accurate and current information is used. The Planning staff is stuck right now fitting the last couple of pieces of the pie together and one of those pieces is the Forestland map. This map effects 30 other maps, They are looking for resolution for completing the Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Craia Jones, Attorney for Pope Resources, asked that the Memorandum ofDnderstanding be made part of the hearing record, He then referred to Section D, which states that the proposed ordinance should be presented for readoption as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Even though the indication is that this ordinance is for an interim time, it was clear when the mediation took place, that the parties intended that what came out of this hearing today would be the ordinance that would be utilized and moved forward with the Comprehensive Plan, which he assumes would be with no amendments or changes. He then submitted a letter from David Cunningham, Vice President of Pope Resources. He continued by saying that in reviewing the MOD and the ordinance that is before the Board today, it is apparent that the ordinance is based upon a desire for political compromise rather than a truly reasoned and balanced evaluation of the merits relating to forestland designation. One indicator is the findings of fact. There are no findings of fact with regard to the merits of designating forestland. WAC 365.190.060 sets out specific criteria to be evaluated in the findings of fact that should be incorporated into the ordinance such as, the proximity discussion of public services, the local economic conditions, etc. This ordinance has none of these findings. To safeguard the County, he suggested that the County look at the findings and make sure they incorporate what they need to incorporate in order to make these designations. He doesn't feel that the findings that are in the ordinance today would pass muster with the Hearings Board if there was a challenge. There is only one particular finding made, which is the finding that was determined in the MOD. Mr. Jones noted that he had not seen the new map before and asked if it was just completed? AI Scalf answered that this map has been under review for the past week and was just completed last Friday. Copies are available at the IDMS Office. Craig Jones stated that there hasn't been an adequate review period on this map. He asked if this is an emergency ordinance and said that if it isn't, he questioned why the ordinance is not going through the Planning Commission review process before the Board of Commissioners consider it? If this is truly a non-emergency based ordinance then it should have gone through the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with the Planning Commission recommendation. Page 7 . ~at 22 fMl 0 1833 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 Mr. Jones pointed out that he feels there will be problems with the classfications and designations. For example, if a property is not within a water system service area, what happens when it comes within a service area? If the service areas are subject to change at any time, and properties are all of a sudden in a water service area, then that property would come out of the forestland designa- tion. What will that do to us with regard to how we're regulating our commercial development, harvesting, etc. He feels more consideration must be given to this type of problem. Chairman Wojt stated that eastern Jefferson County is within the PUD service area and he thought this discussion was if a property was actually served by water, not just inside a service area. Mr. Jones suggested that the ordinance should be reviewed again because it could be interpreted differently. Other issues are with regard to public participation. In this ordinance there is no deviation from the MOD and this raises the issue of whether there was really meaningful and continuous public participation in the process that will result in this ordinance. There are also Constitutional protection issues raised such as due process and equal protection and if they have been adequately safe guarded by meetings with limited numbers of individuals and County representatives and then an ordinance comes out that is basically ready to go with no further public participation. Nancy McHemy, Clark Land Office, representin~ Pacific Fundin~ Corporation, stated that regarding the (planning) staff memo oflast week, the proposed 500 foot setback within a lot, they agree with either Option A or B (delete that section or exempt residential uses from the setback). The original map did contain a couple of errors and the new map corrects those errors. The Lords Lake Loop area has been surveyed into 20 acre tracts (in June 1992) and would not fall under the forestland designations. Dave Cleven~er, Jefferson Count' Home Builders Association, 340 Cherry Avenue, Chimacum, read and submitted a statement. (See microfilmed document.) Gaty Phillips, 450 Penny Creek Road, asked that all of his previous written and oral testimony be considered as part of the record of this hearing. Mark Stevenson, Martin Road, urged the Board to take a long view of this which includes keeping flexibility because no one knows what tomorrow will bring. He feels it is important to keep some wood coming to harvest always. Dick Broders, 4503 Old Gardiner Road, Port Townsend, asked that all of his previous written and oral testimony from 1991 to date, be entered as part of the record on this specific ordinance and that all Planning Commission debate and findings from 1991 to date, be part of the record for this ordinance also. He also introduced into the record the Department of Community Development Planning Data Source Book/or Resource Lands and Critical Areas, especially page 30 which states "forestlands of long term commercial significance will include land classified in the high levels of the private forest land grade classification system. ... The DCD minimum guidelines require each County and City to base its determination of which lands constitute forestland of long term commercial significance on local and regional, physical, biological, economic and land use considerations." The DCD minimum guidelines require cities and counties to consider "combined effects of proximity to population areas and the possibility of more intense uses of the land when making a final determination on which lands, with potential for timber production, are classified and designated forestlands with long term commercial significance." He also asked that the document Future Prospects/or Western Washington Timber Supply, page 122 be made part of the record. It says "site class I, very high; site class II, high; site class III, medium; site class IV, low; and site class V, very low. He asked that the document Northwest Species Yield Tables (copyright 1990 by Attebury Consultants, Inc.) be entered into the record, particularly the yield data for Douglas Fir, based on 32 foot length oflogs, six inch perimeter, board feet volume. He also asked that the Manke decision on the Forest Ordinance in Mason County be entered into the record, particularly the findings of fact number 1 which says "The GMA specifies that lands of Page 8 VOl 22 ¡'AG~ n 1834 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 long term commercial significance for resource use are only those lands with the capacity, productivity, and soil composition to sustain long term commercial production. . . . consideration must be given to both the lands proximity to population area and the possibility of more intense uses of the land." Steve Hayden. Olympic Environmental Council, said that the County approached the Olympic Environmental Council, the Washington Environmental Council and the DNR in January oflast year. It took until two days after the election to come to an agreement. During that time many things were discussed including the effect of any changes in criteria on the maps. He remembers saying, at just about every meeting, that if some of the criteria were changed, the map would change. He feels the agreement Mr. Huntingford was referring to, was that the map wouldn't be reduced at all and that, in general, the map represented the best forestland. There were criteria in the original document that had nothing to do with growing capacity. One of the criteria said that anything within a half a mile of any land characterized as suburban in nature. On the original map areas such as Bridgehaven, subdivisions up the rivers, and rural subdivisions, were characterized as suburban in nature. The original map had a half mile setback ITom all ofthose. Since this had nothing to do with the capacity of the land to grow trees, we all agreed to redefine that setback to protect populated areas. There was a criteria in the original ordinance that was taken out by this agreement. This mediation happened very sporadically over a period of a year. There was no map made before the MOD was signed and the final language was only reviewed individually. There was no meeting where every change was reviewed by the group. He feels taking out the criteria that excluded land that did not have 75% or more of its perimeter on parcels 20 acres or larger in size, was a mistake. That criteria addresses the issues that have been raised regarding proximity to developed land or land with a higher intensity use. Having designated forestland adjacent to small parcels (5 acres, 2 acres, 10 acres) would make it very difficult for the forester and for the residential use. If that criteria were mapped, it would change the map. After determining that the ordinance being presented did not include the changes suggested by Planning staff on December 16, 1996, Mr, Hayden stated everyone involved in the mediation had a written copy of the ordinance as proposed and they had an opportunity to read it and discuss it with their constituents and to say "yea" or "nay." He is surprised that the County, and Commis- sioner Huntingford in particular, felt that it was okay to start proposing changes to it after it had been signed. Gary Rowe signed it on behalf of the County. He was also surprised that the Commissioners hadn't seen any of the proposed changes before the County signed the MOD. That MOD was to bring forward a redraft of the Interim Forestland Ordinance for public review and comment and ultimately action by the Board. The understanding of the parties to the mediation was that if this ordinance goes forward into the Comprehensive Plan as written they have no objection. If the ordinance is substantially changed, they reserve the right that any other person in the County has, to challenge it to the Hearings Board. No one is going into this so naive as to think that you can mediate legislation in the back room. OEC is on record supporting full and real public participation. He would expect that this ordinance should have full public scrutiny. Since the map produced today hasn't had public review, he added that no action should be taken until everything is on the table. AI Scalf read the letter ITom Martha Hurd of the DNR. (See microfilmed document.) Chairman Wojt read a letter ITom David Cunningham, Pope Resources. (See microfilmed document.) Jerry Gorsline, Washini1on Environmental Council, stated their concerns about the recommended language changes submitted by staff. They feel these violate both the spirit and the letter of the signed Memorandum of Agreement. They feel the proposed ordinance as is, accomplishes the intent of the interim ordinance to conserve forestlands and prevent incompatible development. The proposed changes encourage parcelization, and residential development and would waive design criteria with no attempt to mitigate any construction and development that did occur within commercial or rural forestlands. They disagree with those changes and do not want to see them made to the proposed ordinance. Page 9 ~< ~ VOL 22 f#: n 1835 '. Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of December 23, 1996 Hearing no comment for or against the proposed ørdinance, the Chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. AI Scalf clarified the corrections that were made to the maps, and reported that the Planning Department recommends that this hearing be continued to January 6, 1997 at 5 p.m. for written comments only. The discussion then turned to when the written comment period should close. Commissioner Hinton said that he feels the record should be left open for written comments for a minimum of 3 weeks and then after changes are made, the ordinance should be sent to the Planning Commission for review. Senior Planner, John Holgate, stated that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map is based on this forest land map and they are waiting for the issues on this map to be resolved before they can proceed with the Comprehensive Plan map. The discussion continued again about the map for this ordinance and how any delay in approving it may delay work on the Comprehensive Plan, the amount of time the public has had to review the draft ordinance and the new map, and public notice of this ordinance and change. Commissioner Huntingford moved that the public hearing be continued for written comment until January 6, 1997 at 5 p.m. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 10 ~"'. . " . w<o,o- \IDt 22 li'fÆ 'n 1836