Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111918_ca05 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS if All° _.e ff / /4/ , CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrat .%i FROM: Mark McCauley,Central Se ' irec Soy' `--- DATE: November 1%2018 RE: Request for Board of County Commissioners approval of a Notice to Title for the "Gateway Buffer Property." STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In July 2004 Jefferson County,the City of Port Townsend,and Jefferson Land Trust entered into an agreement to permanently protect forested land at the south entrance to the City on Highway 20,tax parcel 001162016—see attached aerial photograph. In the agreement the parties agreed that a Notice to Title should be recorded so that the grantor,grantee,potential purchasers and future owners,agents or representatives and any other concerned person or entity would be aware of the agreement and its terms. The Notice to Title was never recorded. ANALYSIS: To cure the defect a Notice to Title needs to be recorded.A Notice to Title is attached for the Board of County Commissioners to consider. The Notice to Title has two Exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a legal description for the subject property. Exhibit 2 is the July 2004 agreement.Also attached is the property Management Philosophy and Plan which was required as part of the agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: Fiscal Impact is minimal as there is a small recording fee charged by the Auditor's Office. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Notice to Title for the"Gateway Buffer Property". R ED BY: Apip o ley, Co dmin trator Date o m m D 86330240 114Q1U & w = Cnil,* ,, of-►ea '. 0 c. • J*i.. r i co O =, N 7 N 1° 0 tib g7 • . _C-.)_..a) cri Q t3 o w Q c 41 00/162024 .�� R i in 963301803 . ---7- # t co toLv0£Cg6 w t0 0 w Etif i �_ 0 0 II i , 0 S ndSt * ti J EP ED Eri /km 3 11'4? 00, t O 0� a 9633f11201 t o ` 0 0 cu I i - N a (to CO CO X63 �0,3,)� - 4�J I o 4 w ' `ply 3pQ4Or 3 G►,p07 9633 0020 1 0 9 3QQyQ o I ; ' 7 0 o 0 0 O ^. 3 d 0 N Q = i , ,..F f �•.'' 0 _ rte °' '"' © 0 1 m,r�..- -a 0 # -.. 2Q7s n) i N ^� S ? S p 0 m cInnl _. .•. _ .. a II ifi r 0 .� ria VIII - , i `` 6 N �. .0` alp O p 0 �"t` 'lig As .y .,0 ,' 44,,,tille ''' ca /u i 1 � r � �h t.' � 0 V 0 O � x n 0i to G1rfr P.3 7ph 9 4 J y _ { RETURN TO: Mark McCauley Director,Central Services Jefferson County,Washington NOTICE TO TITLE GRANTOR: Jefferson County, a Municipal Corporation GRANTEES: City of Port Townsend, a Municipal Corporation, and Jefferson Land Trust, a Washington Non-profit Corporation REFERENCE: Special Warranty Deed AFN 487270 Abbreviated Legal Description: Ptn NW 16-30-1W all situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. See Exhibit A for complete Legal Description Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No: 001 162 016 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the Grantor(s)/Owner(s) of the above- referenced real property, to potential purchasers and future owners, to agents or representatives, and to any other concerned person or entity: The property described on Exhibit A is subject to the terms and conditions of an AGREEMENT between Jefferson County—City of Port Townsend—Jefferson Land Trust concerning"Gateway Buffer Property" dated July 12, 2004 (Exhibit B). DATED this day of 2018. By David Sullivan, Chair Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Attested: Carolyn Gallaway,Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: Philip C.Hunsucker,Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 2 Exhibit A Legal Description Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M., thence South 1251 Feet; thence West 1387 Feet; thence North 1251 Feet; thence East 1387 feet to the point to beginning; EXCEPT that portion lying Easterly of State Highway S.R.20; ALSO EXCEPT a strip of land conveyed of Jefferson County for county road by deed dated January 21, 1977 and recorded under Auditor's File No. 239669, records of said country; ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of Discovery road right-of-way; ALSO EXCEPT the North 200 feet thereof, lying between Discovery Road right-of-way and State Highway 20; ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying Southerly of Jacob Miller Road right-or-way. all situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. 3 Exhibit B AGREEMENT between Jefferson County—City of Port Townsend—Jefferson Land Trust concerning"Gateway Buffer Property" dated July 12,2004 4 AGREEMENT Jefferson County—City of Port Townsend —Jefferson Land Trust "North Gateway Buffer Property" This Agreement, dated:! :_: i- , 2004, is between Jefferson County, a Municipal corporation ("County"),city of Port Townsend, a Municipal corporation ("City"), and Jefferson Land Trust, a Washington non-profit corporation ("Land Trust"), with a registered mailing address of Post Office Box 1610, Port Townsend, WA 98368. RECITALS: A. The County had intended to purchase and had agreed in 2003 on a price of S70,375 for the purchase of certain property known as the"Gateway Buffer Property", the legal description of which is set forth attached as Exhibit A-1, and shown on a map attached as Exhibit B. There is one portion of the Gateway Buffer Property South and another North of Jacob Miller Road. The latter is known as the North Gateway Buffer Property(referred to in this Agreement as the"North Buffer"). B. The purpose of the County acquisition is to preserve the native vegetation and trees on the Gateway Buffer Property as a forested buffer, which, by aesthetically enhancing the south entrance to the City on Highway 20, promotes tourism and contributes economic and aesthetic benefits to the City and County and its citizens. C. Earlier this year, the City Manager and the County Administrator reached a tentative agreement, subject to legislative approvals, as follows: the City would purchase property owned by the County in the vicinity of Kah Tai Lagoon for$25,000, which the parties agreed was the fair market value of the Kah Tai property. The assessed valuation of the property, according to the County Assessor, was $51,750. In return, the County agreed that it would use $10,000 of the funds received from the City purchase of the Kai Tai property as a partial funding source for the acquisition by the County of the Gateway Buffer Property, preserving it as a forested corridor on the entrance to the City. The City purchased the County property at Kah Tai March 8, 2004 (AFN 482088) for $25,000. The City, through the City Council, and the County, through the Board of County Commissioners, desire to memorialize and confirm the above tentative agreement, subject to the terms of this Agreement. The County agrees that but for the City's purchase of the County's property at Kah Tai, the County would not be undertaking the purchase of any of the Gateway Buffer Property, and this constitutes sufficient consideration for the representations made in this Agreement by the County to the City. D. The County had initially intended to use Conservation Futures Funds as a source of$35,000, or half of the purchase price of the Property. After the Conservation Futures Fund Advisory Board recommended against this action, the County asked the Jefferson Land Trust to assist in working with the owner of the Property and finding additional sources of funds. • 1 Agreement-North Gateway Buffer Property Jefferson County-City of Port Townsend-Jefferson Land Trust E. Jefferson Land Trust, in partnership with the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Council of Jefferson County, is involved in seeking creative solutions, funds and in-kind donations from individuals and entities to assist the County with the purchase of the Gateway Buffer Property. Here are the accomplishments and commitments: • The portion of the Gateway Buffer Property south of Jacob Miller Road will be sold directly to Mr. Kevin Widell, owner of A+ Equipment Rentals, Inc., for $20,000. He has agreed to protect a 50 foot forested buffer along the highway. • The portion of the Gateway Buffer Property north of Jacob Miller Road (hereafter referred to as the"North Buffer") will be purchased by the County for $50,375. • The Land Trust has secured the donated services of Walter Briggs, a certified forester, who has prepared a detailed Forest Management Plan for the Property. • Jerry Harpole, local horse logging expert, has offered to donate his services to carry out the first thinning of the forest as recommended in the Forest Management Plan. Anticipated timber proceeds of$7,500 to $10,000 will all go to the County. • Escrow services will be donated by Jefferson Title Company. • The County will notify the Land Trust in writing that the County has closed on the purchase and will request $16,000 of reimbursement. • The Land Trust, subject to the terms of this Agreement, will provide to the County $16,000 of donated funds to reimburse the County for some of the costs of the acquisition of the North Buffer. • The Land Trust and its partners desire to assure donors that the Gateway Buffer Property will remain as a forested buffer in its natural condition, and the County desires to provide that assurance, subject to the terms set forth in this Agreement. F. County, City and Land Trust desire to set forth in this Agreement the terms and conditions of their understanding relative to the County's purchase of the North Buffer property in this Agreement. G. These recitals are a material part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the County, City, and Land Trust agree as follows: 1. Declarations, Prohibitions, and Conditions Affecting the North Buffer (portion north of Jacob Miller Road). The County agrees, upon purchasing the North Buffer, legally described in Exhibit A-2, that it shall remain as nearly as possible in its current, natural state, as a forested buffer subject to the following declarations, prohibitions and conditions: a. All vegetation, including existing trees,or any future planted or naturally seeded trees, will be cut only as part of a Forest Management Plan developed by a professional forester and approved by the Land Trust. EXCEPT, Nothing prevents the County from removing dead, diseased, dying or dangerous trees that constitute a hazard to life or property. Agreement—North Gateway Buffer Property Jefferson County—City of Port Townsend—Jefferson Land Trust b. The County may perform, and is encouraged to do so, sustainable selective logging and thinning pursuant to the Forest Management Plan, for the purpose of improving forest health and obtaining funds in the approximate amount of$7,500-$10,000 to partially reimburse the County for the purchase of the North Buffer. The parties anticipate this will involve logging and thinning of approximately one-quarter of the trees present, and that this will occur within the next two years. c. If plantings occur, only plants and vegetation native to the Northwest will be planted. d. No structures of any kind will be placed on the North Buffer Property; EXCEPT, the foregoing does not apply to any fence determined by the County to be necessary for the protection of the North Buffer property. e. The parties contemplate the County will continue to own the North Buffer. In the event the County determines to sell the North Buffer, the County agrees to negotiate in good faith with the Land Trust and the City in an effort to reach agreement on a sale to the Land Trust or City. If no agreement can be reached, County may sell the North Buffer to a third party. In any sale or donation, County agrees to incorporate the terms of this Agreement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which the County divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the North Buffer. If needed in the future for public transportation purposes, County may also sell or change the use(from buffer to something else)of the North Buffer or a portion for that purpose. Proceeds from any sale of the North Buffer (or a portion) or a sum equal to the value of the portion of the North Buffer that undergoes a change in use will be used exclusively for the purchase of additional highway buffer properties near the entrance of Port Townsend, in concurrence with both the City and the Land Trust. f. The parties agree to record a Notice to Title affecting the North Buffer property in the form substantially set forth in Exhibit C. 2. General. a. The parties agree any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement allows any party to bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, including to enjoin the violation,ex parte as necessary, by temporary or permanent inaction, and/or to require the reforestation of any affected property to the condition that existed prior to the injury arising by the violation of the terms of this Agreement. b. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed by any party to bring any enforcement action against the County or owner resulting from causes beyond the County's or owner's control, including, without limitation, fire, storm, earth movement, or for acts of trespassers. 3 Agreement--North Gateway Buffer Property Jefferson County-City of Port Townsend-Jefferson Land Trust c. The prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. d. The venue of any action shall be Jefferson Count Washington,County, g on, or otherwise as provided by the laws of the State of Washington. e. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supercedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements between the parties relating to this matter. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by the County, the City, and the Land Trust. CITY OORT TO/ SEND JEFFERSON COUNTY / BOARD OF CO SII:.I 6' 'RS /i Byt By David Timnias, City Manager Glen Huntingford, C man 181 Quincy S,freet, #201 P. O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Port Townsend, WA 98368 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: /� By c_ f i� By �._�o\ 1 "'" ' ({. i �t L` John Watts, City Attorney Rp< BJuelie Dalzell, Prosecuting Airney ATTEST: ATTEST: . 3.- /,/ BY 'r ?;%_ ;FC _ By t.; C +;; / Pam Kolacy, CMC, City ClergLorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON LAND TRUST, a Washington non-profit corporation By Y Kcca K-o1•ff, President • .. >. . And By Ellen Crockett, Secretary P. O. Box 1610 Port Townsend, WA 98368 4 Agreement-North Gateway Buffer Property Jefferson County-City of Port Townsend-Jefferson Land Trust ... Map Output Page 1 of 1 1.....__ ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map -,,,,/•....:,.A.Y 1.-?:?":.Y 12%Y ',-.:,.,,..."-K)•W-, '-'..).4:-:',..,5)'z '.?:-)f,....:',...?.:-,,:.' •2'r-,:.......i"..,+:," ,;,......).,..y.,. ,Y.:,'•:?4,1.2.::,1 .1,....Y Ce.:..1(7•10.> .r N_____ r.r'..?'C,..3,•.:::..4 499 "•-•-•-•-c_._ C.Cr ,Y.4.+ ,.:,2 Y.. Crl?'Ce,?•21:.•2•1 or,..:6.,:!,,.....::,k .1:.•.?•a?.I.0::•'.: '1.,'S,-'2•IL!'-'42 C) cii ---___ c...p'. L UPINE ST St t.riS WAY I-'...-,,.,....,..I.,,• JI......?i,:,..?:.!.....• ---_______ , • 41..,.!,'......?•...?.?: CC.'(../..1Q2 .•?'-'1:4C:**1`:?-4 SIL-C'Ir-Y-:IY-•••••V.:01CC.1.4,:.1 r.:.•2 4,./...:,9.".,'i co.,.74.10..4,.. ,--(•/'r.:422,_".2,..-. CO',::::44.:Y.Y.: LINKNOtNN ce :.....'..?,?,:•,.,.., 4 oc,cee,:i•-)2.'..k Legend Selected Pooh .__, ,.,•.i•I.,..,:.••.v.," / TOVens ( 2)..c. Co./4 50.r . ...X)"rC"0 /.),:i'•/•0"/.) 13 •-:...::3,:• 2.,... i/ 0"eiCe22 (-,,,,-32,/t..:.," ,..-A r-.•,t4' ,fi * RJ-3 C..cir-e, . to 4 ..." ::()"6.2‘.2.2,' Rood Sytitent ,al•,. .. fj or),•,,'C..".2 Parcels-H - Boundaries 1....:.:t"!...,-...t, ' .:i.Y•r6',.Y.:q ..,.„....,...,..._,,,,, •::•::,"'6202' '.063.!,,,"Q' t'...,.•"•:.:..,!,..:,e..3 ,:iz..‘•_!/..,'.1.,-,....i .963 .'.. ** .:.:'.."6'002 Ci"62CCl/ . 42- :(..."e ..x.:-1 ...,.....-.;'ci.)3 I .c...,...t.- , ,42.7,0k ARCADIA ES T ..,...,.,:,.,....„ ., :..,. ,,..2,_,:. ,...,.: ',...,....Ye ...; S.) (-, Cr7)•'620:ri-, -:'2*''.'-'-''' :'.;**'2-•.'-`,' '-2 ...-..::,3i,_:raX?' a ,--,:•,,,,,::•1,_.• ..f.:," -..?.:::_?!.) ..1.Y.X.. .. v; 4,F24•2,1Y..?,.1 .-i'"',..‘"'k •2I''':",i'-:'., ,,,,,,,,........:. - -- C.2•"/-,"::•.j2 -.33'20...i.',"_. P3 I-- 41/•/".:4•3.::.' 3:. I ,.. .3,...., .... r..1:-...!!!,.,'......-1 --I UE rsiN•Y AV I- co FLORENCE s T -2,33111..i.:e4.:i 1.:,.I,•;„_,,,,...• to ......e,-..1,3,.,-1,...! GLEN COVE RD UlaiA c..5.,16/116,e0,1Cou1i1y(...".9111.,31 E.,.sivicGri:GIS U,_________-•-.----,-...------,.‘2k/411 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respec correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Fri Aug ( 2004 http://gisserver/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.0... 8/6/2004 ,_,1, . _ C "tet _ - 1. i , 37 - , d f�".'� . r _ ,- / 'lam '1\ T c aL S .+ 444, , ✓ k W �S 44:‘ :•V , , :1 r ti i.' Y r,16'r J / K,- 1J \'? t 14 � s".I iii ,. , 00/17/92)1402.92 `ii =-F'� ALTA Owners Policy ' ti.• / c. r pOLICY th TITLE INSII7:ANCEr \;-. .\ 11 E n i %P f> 7 (..:614 ISSUED BY 11) ( First American Title Insurance Corn an _ 1 1%,- ( Atli SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE,THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE °`'` B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a California ' 0 corporation,herein called the Company,insures,as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,against loss or damage, ter;:°} -4'e' not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of; :_ *or 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; ``� 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 1� ) 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. °" ',� .- ,v The Company will also pay the costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title,as insured, but onlyto the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. _:y . ,, k 30 .,_;1 01 tFirst American Title Insurance CompanyNr: 3 i , BY CV I ' iv. PRESIDENT ''' �}. 9 4 9 9 3 6 ATTEST _ j , SECRETARY \1 ��_�� .Y fr Al.r !y .'1,...,..,.. .z:, ri r ' M. n , ,:r . f.........,.:: M 1,a1" n - r -i4 : 1 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a)Any law,ordinance or governmental regulation(including but not limited to building and zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations)restricting,regulating,prohibiting or relating to (i)the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii)the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part;or(iv)environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b)Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a)created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b)not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c)resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e)resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors'rights laws,that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii)the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer;or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS. by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage for any loss or damage caused thereby. and shall state,to the extent possible,the basis of calculating (b) In the event of any litigation,including litigation by The following terms when used in this policy mean: the amount of the loss or damage. If the Company is the Company or with the Company's consent,the Company (a) Insured":the insured named in Schedule A,and, prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to provide the shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been subject to any rights or defenses the Company would have required proof of loss or damage,the Company's obligations a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, had against the named insured,those who succeed to the to the insured under the policy shall terminate,including any and disposition of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title interest of the named insured by operation of law as liability or obligation to defend,prosecute,or continue any as insured. distinguished from purchase including, but not limited to, litigation,with regard to the matter or matters requiring such (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or heirs,distributees,devisees,survivors,personal representa- proof of loss or damage. damage to any insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the be reasonably t imay l claimant trues,next of kin,or corporate or fiduciary successors. In addition, the insuredinsured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written (b) "insured claimant":an insured claiming loss or required to submit to examination under oath by any consent of the Company. damage. authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination,inspection and copying,at such reasonable 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE;REDUCTION OR (c) "knowledge"or"known":actual knowledge,not times and places as may be designated by any authorized TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. constructive knowledge or notice which may be imputed to representative of the Company,all records,books,ledgers, an insured by reason of the public records as defined in this checks,correspondence and memoranda,whether bearing a All payments under this policy,except payments made policy or any other records which impart constructive notice date before or after Date of Policy,which reasonably pertain for costs, attorneys'fees and expenses, shall reduce the of matters affecting the land. to the loss or damage.Further,if requested by any authorized amount of the insurance pro tanto. (d) land": the land described or referred to in representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall Schedule(A),and improvements affixed thereto which by law grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized rep- 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE. constitute real property.The term"land"does not include any resentative of the Company to examine,inspect and copy all property beyond the lines of the area described or referred records,books,ledgers,checks,correspondence and mem- it is expressly understood that the Amount of In- to in Schedule (A), nor any right, title, interest, estate or oranda in the custody or control of a third party, which surance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the easement in abutting streets,roads,avenues,alleys,lanes, reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to ways or waterways,but nothing herein shall modify or limit designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the the extent to which a right of access to and from the land is to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be insured has agreed,assumed,or taken subject,or which is insured by this policy. disclosed to others unless,in the reasonable judgment of the hereafter executed by an insured and which is a charge or (e) "mortgage":mortgage,deed of trust,trust deed, Company,it is necessary in the administration of the claim. lien on the estate or interest described or referred to in or other security instrument. Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a under oath,produce other reasonably requested information (f) "public records":records established under state or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary informa payment under this policy to the insured owner. statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting tion from third parties as required in this paragraph,unless constructive notice of matters relating to real property to prohibited by law or governmental regulation,shall terminate 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS. purchasers for value and without knowledge.With respect to any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. Section 1(a)(iv)of the Exclusions From Coverage, "public (a) No payment shall be made without producing this records"shall also incude environmental protection liens filed OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; in the records of the clerk of the United States district courtbeen lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has for the district in which the land is located. TERMINATION OF LIABILITY. destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the (g) "unmarketability of the titre': an alleged or In case of a claim under this policy,the Company shall Company. apparent matter affecting the title to the land,not excluded or have the following additional options: (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has excepted from coverage,which would entitle a purchaser of (a) been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be released To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Stipulations,the loss or damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. from the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual Insurance'To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance condition requiring the delivery of marketable title. under this policy together with any costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which were 13. SUBROGATION N PAYMENT 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER authorized by the Company,up to the time of payment or OR SETTLEMENT. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to (a) The Company's Right of Subrogation. The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as pay: Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a Upon the exercise by the Company of this option,all claim under this policy,all right of subrogation shall vest in of Date of Policy in flavor of an insured only so long as the 9 ro9 liability and obligations to the insured under this policy,other 'insured retains an estate or interest in the land,or holds an the Company unaffected by any act of the ins ed claimant. indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given than to make the payment required,shall terminate,including The Company shall be subrogated to and be ntitled to all ., , anv liahility nr nhlinatinn to dpfpnd nrncprufp nr rnnhnua estate or interest.This policy shall not continue in force in (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights favor of any purchager from the insured of either(i)an estate the Insured or With the Insured Claimant. and remedies against any person or property necetsary in or interest in the land,.or(ii)an indebtedness secured by a (i) to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured purchase money mortgage given to the insured. or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured claimant shall permit the Company to sue,compromise or against under this policy,together with any costs,attorneys' settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the name 3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation INSURED CLAIMANT. were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment involving these rights or remedies. and which the Company is obligated to pay;or If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover The insured shall notify the Company promptly in (ii) to pay or otherwise settle with the insured the loss of the insured claimant, the Company shall be writing(i)in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a) claimant the loss or damage provided for under this policy, subrogated to these rights and remedies in the proportion beloyt, (i) in case knowledge shall come to an insured together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company's payment bears to the whole amount hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the of the loss. the title to the estate or interest,as insured,and which might Company up to the time of payment and which the Company If loss should result from any act of the insured cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable is obligated to pay. claimant,as stated above,that act shall not void this policy, by virtue of this policy,or(iii)if title to the estate or interest, Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the but the Company,in that event,shall be required to pay only as insured,is rejected as unmarketable.if prompt notice shall options provided for in paragraphs (b)(i)or(ii), the Com- that part of any losses insured against by this policy which not be given to the Company,then as to the insured all liability pany's obligations to the insured under this policy for the shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or claimed loss or damage,other than the payments required to reason of the impairment by the insured claimant of the matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, be made,shall terminate,including any liability or obligation Company's right of subrogation. however,that failure to notify the Company shall in no case to defend,prosecute or continue any litigation. prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless (b) The Company's Rights Against non-Insured Obtlars the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only 7. DETERMINATION,EXTENT OF LIABILITY g . to the extent of the prejudice. AND COINSURANCE. The Company's right of subrogation against non- insured obligors shall exist and shall include, without 4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual limitation,the rights of the insured to indemnities,guaranties, DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE. monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the other policies ofi insurance ored in thosebonds, instruments ich insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason terms or conditions contained in instruments which (a) Upon written request by the insured and subject to of matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy. the options contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and herein described. 14. ARBITRATION. Stipulations, the Company, at its own cost and without (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of an not exceed the least of: Unless prohibited by applicable law,either the Com- insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim (i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; pany or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the adverse to the title or interest as insured,but only as to those or Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration stated causes of action alleging a defect, lien or en- (ii) the difference between the value of the insured Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not cumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy.The estate or interest as insured and the value of the insured estate limited to,any controversy or claim between the Company Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice or interest subject to the defect,lien or encumbrance insured and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy,any (subject to the right of the insured to object for reasonable against by this policy. service of the Company in connection with its issuance or cause)to represent the insured as to those stated causes of (b) in the event the Amount of Insurance stated in the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of Schedule A at the Date of Policy is less than 80 percent of arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is any other counsel.The Company will not pay any fees,costs the value of the insured estate or interest or the full $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either or expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, orf the Company or the insured.All arbitrable matters when the causes of action which allege matters not insured against by subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected Amount of Insurance is in excess of$1,000,000 shall be this policy. on the land which increases the value of the insured estate arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the (b) The Company shall have the right,at its own cost, or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of insured.Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do Insurance stated in Schedule A,then this Policy is subject to Rules in effect on the date the demand for arbitration is made any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or the following: or,at the option of the insured,the Rules in effect at Date of desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest, as (i) where no subsequent improvement has been Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the made,as to any partial loss,the Company shall only pay the include attorneys'fees only if the laws of the state in which insured.The Company may take any appropriate action under loss pro rata in the proportion that the Amount of Insurance the land is located permit a court to award attorneys'fees to the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured estate a prevailing party.Judgment upon the award rendered by the hereunder,and shall not thereby concede liability or waive or interest at Date of Policy; or (ii) where a subsequent Arbitrator(s)may be catered in any court having jurisdiction any provision of this policy.If the Company shall exercise its improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the thereof. rights under this paragraph,it shall do so diligently. Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an 120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by the A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any Schedule A and the amount expended for the improvement. Company upon request. litigation to final determination by a court of competent The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole costs,attorneys'fees and expenses for which the Company 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; discretion,to appeal from any adverse judgment or order, is liable under this policy,and shall only apply to that portion POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT. (d) In all cases where this policy permits or requires of any loss which exceeds,in the aggregate,10 percent of the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. (a) This policy together with all endorsements,it any, action or proceeding, the insured shall secure to the (c) The Company will pay only those costs,attorneys' attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of contract between the insured and the Company.In interpret- action or proceeding,and all appeals therein,and permit the these Conditions and Stipulations. ing any provision of this policy,this policy shall be construed Company to use,at its option,the name of the Insured for this as a whole. purpose.Whenever requested by the Company,the insured, B. APPORTIONMENT. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all based on negligence,and which arises out of the status of reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing If the land described in Schedule(A)(C)consists of two the title to the estate or interest covered hereby or by any evidence,obtaining witnesses,prosecuting or defending the or more parcels which are not used as a single site,and a loss action asserting such claim,shall be restricted to this policy. action or proceeding,or effecting settlement,and(ii)in any is established affecting one or more of the parcels but not all, (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or if the Amount of Insurance under this policy was divided pro hereto signed by either the President,a Vice President,the interest as insured.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or of the insured to furnish the required cooperation, the to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made sub- authorized signatory of the Company. Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall sequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the it SEVERABILITy prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this or matters requiring such cooperation. policy and shown by an express statement or by an In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid endorsement attached to this policy. or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be 5. PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE. deemed not to include that provision and all other provisions 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. shall remain in full force and effect. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been (a) If the Company establishes the title,or removes the 17. NOTICES,WHERE SENT. provided the Company,a proof of loss or damage signed and alleged defect,lien or encumbrance,or cures the lack of a sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the right of access to or from the land,or cures the claim of Nr noppes mired to De given the Company and any statement Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall unmarketability of title,all as insured,in a reasonably diligent in wring required to be furnished me Company shag include the ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage.The manner by any method,including litigation and the comple- number of this policy and shag be addressed to the Company at proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect in,or lien ton of any appeals therefrom,it shall have fully performed its t Fust American way,Santa Ma,California 92707,or lo the offal or encumbrance on the title,or other matter insured against obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable which issued this policy. aa ,�,,, _ .- � - RA `v; „ ��"�„ ;.�v4 > :;,',.10.,0 .,,..?� te.}i R-i gr._'�.LL�" �3g :"{ 2. '-i� t/ ,,.�q,� J.4 ti ,, ��. ��pp .,yyam� q , ee. 4.. 4 A 44.it .orf. '`n .i-•-• i--3,„......I �St z� ¢ , o• ,..,t,„ .• n, 6, .„ ,,,,,,, - 4,... ,..::::, \( (ge io 3 --o en ;;. ) rt- ' _ 4 :: % 4, e t (r) - 1 TH ' j '' ,t,,, t (,- „,,,. 1 4-1,- 1 ,.- 0---;) .0 ., ,.. , 4** ...4 , ° ,.. .„-.. , vizi, -.- i 442. 1 ,,, i ,fitg.- 4;i= (ii 1....,- .7_ ,_ '' ,,- r j, "' ` fie_ ii� i. „i" .. , „, kfti p.... ._,.,1, ., :,,„...i, ,.:,,,,.1,. t! 41,kkk :4 \v ) , ,wo (.=, 0,-,... .....;a,i td%`tt .3:es;:. , 1- _ , ..,,,:a.4 p0 Kamm] 011111111.7 .1.. ..,t-t. - .,-.1. ..:' cb /- •-•,%::::,,At4roitT„,,,,- .,.,.,,. ,J...,,,,,,„t raMe4 . �! - 6 .aFP 't i t 4n\ j '`1i * P( .„, , ,, ,..., y i �lll1 4,41 l 15 Argir agile tiVTt , i ..' it,, 5 5'5 5.\\\It\1 .., - pt-...„ >„ /*::- , ._.,.., ,,:i ,,,„, .,, ( fes , /° f 03 ',,7--* l'-'-i ) ' i1 9 • 01. 1,"' -----:.. a � N s� f g i • " � yr t Kl 4 ` / � � a �.-{-; i7,-,---71, ,r r �s r � N; .wrN rM ni '+ ''',..:',...;°' '4.3,_ S ,, t 1 SCHEDULE A AMOUNT OF INSURANCE: $50, 375. 00 POLICY NO. 1949936 PREMIUM: 296.00 Order No. 64566-P DATE OF POLICY: July 23, 2004 at 12: 10 PM 1 . NAME OF INSURED: JEFFERSON COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation 2 . THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: FEE SIMPLE ESTATE 3 . TITLE TO THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND IS VESTED IN: THE NAMED INSURED 4 . THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED ON SCHEDULE A-4 ATTACHED: Cm Countersigned: ��Gk,, Li--C-42A Authorized Officer or Agent SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE (AND THE COMPANY WILL NOT PAY COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES OR EXPENSES) WHICH ARISE BY REASON OF: PART ONE: 1 . TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS BY THE RECORDS OF ANY TAXING AUTHORITY THAT LEVIES TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS ON REAL PROPERTY OR BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 2 . ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTEREST, OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION OF SAID LAND OR BY MAKING INQUIRY OF PERSONS IN POSSESSION THEREOF. 3 . EASEMENTS, CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 4 . DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREA, ENCROACHMENTS, OR ANY OTHER FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY WOULD DISCLOSE, AND WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS. 5 . (A) UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; (B) RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF; (C) WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER; WHETHER OR NOT THE MATTERS EXCEPTED UNDER (A) , (B) OR (C) ARE SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS; (D) INDIAN TRIBAL CODES OR REGULATIONS, INDIAN TREATY OR ABORIGINAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING EASEMENTS OR EQUITABLE SERVITUDES. 6 . ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIAL THERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 7 . ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE, CONSTRUCTION, TAP OR REIMBURSEMENT CHARGES/COSTS FOR SEWER, WATER, GARBAGE OR ELECTRICITY.. Policy No. 1949936 SCHEDULE B PART TWO: POLICY NO. 1949936 1 . General taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1 ; 2nd half delinquent on November 1 ) Tax Account No. Year Amount Billed Amount Paid Principal Balance # 001 162 016 2004 $382 . 52 $191 .26 $191 . 26 2 . Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon the land herein described as granted to Jefferson County, State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 239669 . END OF SCHEDULE B 3 Policy No. 1949936 SCHEDULE A-4 POLICY NO. 1949936 THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M. , thence South 1251 Feet; thence West 1387 Feet; thence North 1251 Feet; thence East 1387 feet to the point to beginning; EXCEPT that portion lying Easterly of State Highway S.R. 20; ALSO EXCEPT a strip of land conveyed of Jefferson County for county road by deed dated January 21 , 1977 and recorded under Auditor's File No. 239669, records of said county; ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of Discovery road right-of-way; ALSO EXCEPT the North 200 feet thereof, lying between Discovery Road right- of-way and State Highway 20; ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying Southerly of Jacob Miller Road right-of-way. Situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. This policy contains the following endorsements: NONE 4 JEFFERSON TITLE COMPANY JEFFERSON • I I I U L Jefferson County PO Box 2070 Port Townsend WA 98368 RE: 64566 Enclosed please find your Final Policy of Title Insurance. Please keep in a safe place. If you have any question regarding your policy, please give me a call at (360) 385-2000, ask for Bethany. Thank you for choosing Jefferson Title Company, Inc . We look forward to serving your title and escrow needs in the future. • • t-nany -SMith Final Policy Dept enclosures AM tiox 1()V •!: • 1110110 (380) 385•2000 FAX ( 1-42;; • "23- JEFFERSONCOUNTY TREASURER P.O. Box 571 a Fort Townsend, \ivasrington 98368 41* u Er rail:;rnorrisrtocJ.jofforsof Vs./ LAS www.co.jorierson.w us Morris Judith 'E. 9vtor r -Treasurer tai o) 385-9154 w> !Janet Holbrook,-Chief Deputy (:360) 385-9151 ` : IN*, '= December 8, 2004 JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE PORT TOWNSEND WASHINGTON Jefferson Land Trust P 0 Box 1610 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: North Gateway Buffer Property Payment President, Mark Demsbro Pursuant to the agreement executed in July 2004, between Jefferson County and the Jefferson Land Trust, payment is being requested. The agreement stipulated the "The County will notify the Land Trust in writing that the County has closed on the purchase and will request $16,000.00 of reimbursement." The conditions have been met, and the County hereby requests reimbursement of $16,000.00. The check should be sent to Jefferson County in care of the Jefferson County Treasurer P 0 Box 571 Port Townsend, W 98368. Should there be questions, they may be directed to me at 385-9154. J ` Judi Morris, Treasurer CC: John Fischbach, County Administrator; Juelie Dalzell, Prosecuting Attorney. General Tax Accounting Information Foreclosure Fax (360)385 1152 (360)385-9150 (366)385-9352 (360)385-9149 GATEWAY BUFFER AGREEMENT Mr. Timmons introduced the agreement which would be among the City,County,and Jefferson Land Trust for the purchase of approximately three acres known as the Gateway Buffer. The agreement includes provisions that the County will dedicate $10,000 for the purchase of the buffer from the$25,000 purchase price received by the County from the City for purchase of County Kah Tai Lagoon property and commits the County to a covenant that the property will remain a forested corridor subject to selective logging according to a management plan. New language was also presented which was just received from the County, adding a sentence in page 3 regarding the North Buffer: "If needed in the future for transportation purposes, County may also sell the property or a portion for that purpose." Ms. Sandoval asked if the new sentence refers to public or private transportation purposes. Mr. Watts stated the intent is for public transportation,not private access. He added that adding the word"public" would probably be an acceptable addition. Public comment: none Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to authorize the City Manager to execute the North Gateway Buffer property agreement with the County and Jefferson Land Trust with the addition of the word "public" before "transportation" in the new line. Mr. Benskin seconded. The • motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS Regarding items to address for the"In Box"work session, Mr. Benskin suggested considering a universal street vacation ordinance for all rights of way affected by the "non-user statute"such as tonight's Clallam Street vacation. Ms. Sandoval suggested addressing noise and traffic at the Fairgrounds and whether it is exempted from the City's noise ordinance. Ms. Fenn noted that she would not be present on July 15. She requested a list of the"In Box"items so that she can comment on them prior to the meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Pamela Kolacy, CMC City Clerk • City Council Business Meeting Page 12 July 6, 2004 DRAFT ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map .X71084012 _:..--i 041084004 991000401 I l 9910.X.~301 1 991000201 ] 11---997c0U 5th St 997 3 _ I99r8{}1101._ 1_I 999100010E -I 1 0010834)12 gy,0UU50E {{- _ - 99,70040601 001094005 1J.- 991000701 001094008 l r a 1 1 -001093021 001093023 001(Y930t)7 i i ilipidid.-:- 001093005 , 004093022 001093024 001093006 001094007 001094004 P � S i lupine$t' 001093001 b 95)100407 '' 1 1 1950'00202_950700109/, m S W®Y 001083012 950100406 1950100301 (.._ 9 J7042U1'r`)'.950700101 s I 950100405 -..._-" 950700305 — 950100207-_ 001094021 950100102 --. 95014403 950700'x01 i * - . 101 _ ' 950'00/02 ;'1 ' ' ' • 1... 950 700601 I I I.1 it I ' 950'00801 950700 I i I 1 001093014 f 4. I I, ! 001093015 1 001093041 001093003 '1'' f 001043004"; 00E094006 I tl(}30930i 7 003093018L. ! a4)4 .3020 Legend 96.13024104 , j 963304102 cj Selected Features i 983302401 _' 963304501 963300101 001162013 d i ; 963301401 001162014 ';` 17 001161002 Towns I ; - 001162077 _ p ; ._..__-. i ,..__i I YJ' fr' .-- - - 1'� County Seat . 00117'0 0 iR �! GO1E62U22 963301604 9(x33470201 1 001/6/004 963301301 ,`tio. -* Rural Centers 00'111011 _,..._ ! 001162007 ii 4 l} Ir f' I t; r` JC_Raads i 001111034 9633011.0c3��.� ry,�i 001162016 4K 00/161002 I.__I Parcels-H } 9 3301201 -, I, _. ..,_ i I 963300301/1!j }; 93`x100601 001162019 ' .e_", ;773'7'.;;;;-, . }I 00116 002 1 . 1 ,y 96330.803963301101 {t 931100199 1162024 001162023 } 1. c 11 00116202. 300401. -)%= 7.:621900000 T 1. _T_ --- 001164002 "- �z.;:.. 931100303 ' 001162018 �— 001162010 } �"� 93110019X7. _. 001'624X}4 001162002 S Arcadia West �..g--6F { 001162015 001162003 11 t 9633000501 .,_ s 1017'?4)17 j AP 001162001 992400101 I ' ' 0--96330=4)0` �t'a �.. 001161(]04 ( i{ Gj 4...., i 1 F 001162006 .i I 001171(09 001':62009 r t X1710 2 j ,,+` 963.302002 3001302 947100303,Bolen 202 947100 0 161003 f� IE 001161003 963302001 ,} 98.''1300601 992400401 0011620 6 f 963.300603 0404 - 963302105 30� 001162'096 1 963304)701 9401110407: gF 1 9ti 302"101 963302101+ { / 94IEWSf)1 417104-6[)1 f 983302201 963300804 t f t_.._.3 ;947100402 947;00829 t. 9471(X}64? th 1 it 6. 963302505 96330205 963300703 i ; 7 ";f Denny Au . �.:..s - a aa I 1 4 ".Florence 5t 963; -- 947100901 , 9411c0802 947100701 I� . 9,17100001 Glen Cove Rd"r""" 943302802 'ft 988YOU302 986700403 ` , _...- , 958YCr 4e7` a 9867(X}6(11 986700702;}01164007 95310020'95310030's 98610114J1 {i+__ _ ku (:e6:rakd try• uxe Courty CetraI:XSOct."S Wit_966701.10, 4. ! 986100101' ----- 0*_ ., 953100102`.-:1 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY- Jefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respect to its correctness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Tue Aug 26 18:16:14 PDT 2014 City Council Busines Meeting August 18, 2014 Page 1 of 1 DRAFT Parcel Number: 001162016 08/I5/20I4 Owner Mailing Address: JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PDBOX 1Z20 PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368-0920 Site Address: 98368-0920 Section: 16 School District: Port Townsend(SU) Qtr Section: NW1/4 Fire Dist: Chmacunn(1) Township: 30N Tax Status: COUNTY Range: 1VV Tax Code: 0111 Planning area: 98368-0920 Sub Division: Land Use Code: 9700 98368'O9I0 Property Description: S16 T3ON R1W TAX'48(LYNG N OF JACOB MILLER RD) (FOREST AREA APPROACH INTO CITY) District No. I Commissioner: Dan Titterness 0 Ca District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford 45) 1v ; ,g Soea, off, District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers /W County Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Loma Delaney S�zNGz0/ MINUTES Week of June 28,2004 Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order. Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers were present. Discussion re:Highway 20 Corridor Property Purchase: Kees Kolff,Jefferson Land Trust, updated the Board on the property purchase negotiations for the Highway 20 Corridor buffer. The fundraising efforts from the private sector has raised almost$16,000. The donors have requested that an agreement be drafted and signed by the Land Trust, the County, and the City of Port Townsend to ensure that the property will be protected as a forested buffer. He reviewed the draft agreement and the funding sources for the $70,875. The Board discussed the County's portion of the cost which is approximately$26,875. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he is only willing to commit$20,000 in funds,which represents $10,000 of the proceeds from County land purchased by the City earlier this year and $10,000 from the County. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the draft agreement. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford stated that he is concerned about several details, including the increase in the County's portion of the payment, when the County will be reimbursed for the logging of the property, and how much of the money will come from the General Fund. Commissioner Rodgers advised that any money that is spent needs to be based on priorities because of the County's current budget situation. Commissioner Titterness replied that the County adopted the Highway 20 Corridor Policy 20 years ago and this purchase is consistent with that policy. The actual cost to the County has been reduced by community donations, and he feels that the County is committed to moving forward with the purchase. The Chairman called for the question. Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion failed. Commissioner Titterness moved to continue with the Highway 20 Corridor buffer purchase on the condition that funding sources are clearly identified. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion and called for the question. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion carried. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 4 : Later in the Week: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the agreement with the Jefferson Land Trust,and the City of Port Townsend regarding the purchase of the Highway 20 Corridor buffer property. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers abstained. The motion carried. (Please Note: This agreement was never fully executed. A revised agreement was approved on July 12,2004.) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the City of Port Townsend should pay for the SR20 Corridor property; John Fischbach,the new County Administrator,was welcomed by several people; the County needs to look at priorities for spending and not waste time and energy on every request that comes along; it isn't good to be a reactionary government; the SR20 Corridor property should be 100% funded by citizens; the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club voted to become a member of the Hood Canal Coalition and this means that the National Sierra Club also becomes a member; if a County official gets a vehicle allowance,they shouldn't be able to use a motor pool car or have the County pay for other transportation like the van to SeaTac; any staff enforcing the nuisance ordinance will need training on the procedures for going on to private property; there used to be a lot of stores in Port Townsend where people could shop locally but now the shops appeal to tourists and residents have to go to Silverdale; and, trucks hauling gravel create more pollution than barges. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item#6 and approve the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO.32-04 re: Updating the Official County Road Log: Extension of Parkridge Drive 2. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services; Risk Management and Employee Safety Programs; David Goldsmith 3. AGREEMENT re: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; City of Port Townsend 4. AGREEMENT re: 2004 Hotel/Motel Funding; Jefferson County Administrator; Forks Chamber of Commerce 5. AGREEMENT re: Permit Process Improvement Initiative;Jefferson County Administrator; Latimore Company, LLC 6. DELETE: AGREEMENT re: Installation of New Jefferson County Courthouse Front Doors;Jefferson County Central Services;Little&Little Construction (Approved Later in Minutes) 7. AGREEMENT NO. G0400236 re:Northwest Straits Project; Marine Resources Committee Year 5 Project, CZM3 10; WSU Cooperative Extension; Michelle McConnell 8. AGREEMENT re: Animal Services; Jefferson County Health Department; Hadlock Veterinary Clinic 9. Final Long Plat Approval, #SUB97-0006;Woodland Hills Division 2 Phase 2 Located off of Woodland Drive,Port Townsend; Eagle Eye, Inc., Applicant Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 , ;. 10. Letter to Office of the Secretary of State re: Intergovernmental Agreement Between the State of Washington, Office of the Secretary of State, and the Jefferson County Auditor's Office; Reimbursement of Additional Costs to Implement the New Primary System Barbara Pastore re: Conservation Futures Oversight Committee Annual Funding Recommendation for 2004 Application Period: Interim Environmental Health Director Dave Christensen explained that the Conservation Futures tax funding is used for acquisition and stewardship of open space lands. An ordinance was adopted that outlines the complete process for distribution of the funds. The Conservation Futures Oversight Committee makes recommendation to the Board who makes the final decision on the funding awards. He introduced Barbara Pastore, Chair of the Committee. Barbara Pastore explained that the Committee's job is to do research and site visits on the properties that have been proposed as projects in the applications for the funding. There are nine very diverse members on the Committee that are appointed by the County Commissioners. She thanked Barbara Bowen, County staff, for her work and energy in helping the Committee process this year's applications. She reviewed the process. The Committee received the applications, conducted site visits on the properties,rated each of the applications on a scale, discussed the results, and rated them a second time. A funding decision from the Committee requires an absolute majority to recommend a project. Eight members deliberated on two of the projects and seven members deliberated on the other project. When they determine that a project is to be recommended for funding, the amount is also determined. There were three applications: Highway 20 Corridor Buffer Project: The Committee was very sensitive to the aesthetic value of this project, however, there are specific guidelines for awarding Conservation Futures funding. The application was to fund $35,000 to acquire a conservation easement. The recommendation not to fund the project was unanimous. Commissioner Titterness asked why this project was not considered a "signature property?" Barbara Pastore answered that this property is identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Plan,but the Committee had concerns that a conservation easement would not accomplish the goal of preserving the property. When they did a site visit, they found that the wooded parcel adjacent to the property gave an illusion of a forested property,but the parcel in the application was actually sparsely forested. As this property borders a County road and a State highway, any widening of these roads would reduce the conservation easement. A provision in the application stated that 20-30% of the timber would be removed and this would thin the parcel more. There was also a question about who would be responsible for the stewardship of the property, but this may have been resolved since May 2 when any additional information had to be submitted to the Committee. Quimper Wildlife Corridor;Jefferson Land Trust:The Committee agreed that the Board approve funding for this project, however, the amount to be funded was an issue. The maximum for Conservation Futures funding is 50% of the total project cost. Other open spaces acquired by the sponsor within the previous two years that are adjacent to, or directly linked to, the property under application can be considered as their portion of the total cost. Block 94 was recently purchased and was used to achieve the sponsor's 50%,but some of the Committee members didn't consider it a direct link. The application request was for$80,000. A motion to fund it at $57,750 was a compromise that was approved by the Committee. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Tarboo Valley Conservation Project;NW Watershed Institute: The Committee was asked to fund $50,000 to purchase a conservation easement on the west side of Tarboo Creek. They were impressed by the restoration project,how it relates to the rest of the valley basin, and the ultimate benefits of the whole project. The request was to provide the initial funding for the project which would be leveraged for other grants. If the funding is approved,the Committee feels that the funds should not be released until the other funding sources are committed. They rated the project very high,but ran into a technical problem. The applicant is a private organization that doesn't have a chapter in Jefferson County as required in the Conservation Futures Ordinance. After the deadline for applications, the cover letter of the application was replaced with a page indicating that the Jefferson Land Trust was the applicant. The Prosecuting Attorney was asked to give an opinion and the Committee was divided on the issue. The Committee rejected a motion to fund the project, 3-4. The applicant has been encouraged to reapply next year using a local sponsor. Dave Christensen added that the County Administrator had suggested that the cover page be revised. Barbara Pastore explained another concern that the Committee brought up is that the burden for on-going stewardship of the property falls on the sponsor. HEARING re: Conservation Futures Oversight Committee Annual Funding 2004 Application Period: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing. Dave Christensen explained that this hearing is to receive public comment on projects submitted to utilize the Conservation Futures Tax Fund. The project goals must protect and preserve open space. Funds are distributed in accordance with the Conservation Futures Fund Ordinance. Recommendations are provided by the Oversight Committee to the County Commissioners. The three projects for the 2004 application cycle are: the Highway 20 Corridor Project, the Quimper Wildlife Corridor,and Tarboo Valley Conservation. The total amount of funding for the three projects $165,000. The revenues collected in the fund are about $160,000 a year. Due to an unspent balance from previous years, there is enough money to fund all the projects. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the meeting. Mark Dembro, President of Jefferson Land Trust,recommended that the Commissioners approve full funding as requested for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor and the Tarboo Creek project. Jefferson Land Trust exists to take on stewardship of the land forever and they accept this responsibility whenever they are given the opportunity. The Oversight Committee did excellent work in evaluating the merits of the projects, but got distracted by some technical points. The public support for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor has been demonstrated by donations of over$400,000 from the community. The parcels noted in the application are key connecting pieces as part of the overall project. The Tarboo Creek project was rated very high by the Committee. Peter Bales,the coordinator for the project,has a successful history of conservation work in Jefferson County and also has a residence here. There is enough money in the Conservation Futures Fund to fund the entire amount for both of these requests. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Peter Rhines,Tibbals Lake, stated that he is an oceanographer and teacher at the University of Washington. He and his neighbors have pledged$30,000 to the Quimper Wildlife Corridor project. Acquisition of these parcels will come very close to completing the project. These parcels are contiguous to Tibbals Lake which is a 43 acre preserve which seven families maintain. Tibbals lake was an old pasture that has been rehabilitated into wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl. Block 94 is located across the lane from the parcels in the application and it is a contiguous part of the project. Allen Risley,Port Townsend,stated that he and his family live on 38 acres almost adjacent to the Quimper Wildlife Corridor and they have contributed to the matching funds that the Land Trust has raised for the project. He owns an organic farm and the critters in the wildlife area nearby help to keep a balance. His family values the open space and wildlife in the City. Block 94 is a small technical detail. Regarding the Tarboo Creek project, a technicality should not prevent a worthwhile project from moving forward. He asked the Board to fully fund both projects. Christine Edwards,Tarboo Road,asked the Board to fully fund the Tarboo Creek project because it is an important part in the salmon run restoration. The salmon disappeared about 10 years ago and they are starting to come back. Peter Bales has already helped with work on the riparian zones to create shade in the spawning areas. Jeffrey Delia,Tarboo Bay, stated that he tries to help the survival of the bay. He has lived there since 1976 and as a fisherman,he sees Cutthroat, Silver salmon, Chum salmon and a small run of Chinook salmon. He is a member of the HBLC Board that works with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council on habitat projects. He has worked with Peter Bales in the past and knows that Peter contributes a lot of his own time and money to keep projects going. Tarboo is a very large estuary with only a few residences and Rock Point Oyster Company has a big interest in the bay. Tribes have used the bay for Silver runs. The Tarboo Creek project connects the estuary with the uplands and it is a great project. They could use the money now. He asked the Board to support the project and fund it in full. Allen Fairbank,Port Townsend, stated he is a Board member of the Land Trust. Most of the people who have spoken have shown the importance of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor and the Tarboo Creek project. It is exciting to see all the people in the community working together to accomplish something that just one organization couldn't do. He appreciates the County's potential contribution towards these goals. Peter Bales, NW Watershed Institute, stated that they are in the process of moving their home office from Oregon to Port Townsend and they will soon become a locally based organization. He thanked the Committee for their support for the Tarboo Creek project. Jefferson Land Trust is the project sponsor and he appreciates that they took the lead. When NWI originally applied for the funding,they talked to staff about whether NWI should be the applicant and Jefferson Land Trust should be the sponsor because it wasn't clear in the documents regarding applications. The Committee asked County Administrator David Goldsmith and he said that under the guidelines, NWI wasn't eligible,but the application could be revised. The application was revised and originally the Committee agreed that they would accept it,but at another meeting several members changed their mind. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Dennis Shultz, Conservation Futures Oversight Committee, stated that the Highway 20 Corridor project was the Committee's lowest rated project to date. The Committee agreed unanimously after their site visit that the Tarboo Creek project is a great project. The problem came in bending the rules to accept the revised application,but the Board has the authority to approve the funding. Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Rodgers asked Barbara Pastore to explain why the funding amount for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor was reduced by the Committee? She replied that the parcels to be purchased are not contiguous to Block 94 because there is a road between them. The other view held by some members of the Committee was that each parcel is a piece of the greater whole. The key is the hydrological link, and there hasn't been a technical determination. Dave Christensen presented a map for the Board to review. Mark Dembro stated that the clear intent of the wildlife corridor is that it exists as a single entity. The best science available to the Land Trust regarding hydrology is that the entire wildlife corridor area is hydrologically linked and a single flood plain. There are several roads through the existing wildlife corridor and the integrity of the corridor is not affected by these roads. A road doesn't create a boundary in a wildlife area. Dennis Shultz added that the amount the Committee recommended was 50%of the actual purchase price of the property. The application had requested more than 50%. Commissioner Titlerness explained that including Block 94 as match raised the cost of the project. Chairman Huntingford explained that the agreement regarding the Highway 20 Corridor Buffer has detailed the amount of funding the County will need to contribute. It appears that the stewardship concerns that the Committee had have been addressed. Commissioner Titterness stated that he feels that the widening of the road is not an issue because the DOT has 50 feet on both sides of the center line in the highway. He suggested using Conservation Futures funds rather than using General Fund money to pay the County's portion of the buffer. Chairman Huntingford stated that the Committee did a lot of research and review on these applications and he thinks that their rationale on the recommendations is well-founded. It would be difficult for him to override their recommendation. Chairman Huntingford stated that he has concerns with the Tarboo Valley Conservation project. Commissioner Tittemess suggested that if the NWI offices are moving to Port Townsend, this could be considered a change in address and not a change in the applicant. Chairman Huntingford understands why the creek channel in the valley is being reconstructed and protected,but one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to protect farmland. Much of the property is already in a farming program. There seems to be a lot of leverage of other properties. It sounds like a great project, but it is difficult for him to see how the project fits together at this point. He added that sometimes it is not clear how the Conservation Futures Ordinance ties in with the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Christensen suggested that the criteria for an application could be clarified to protect "agriculture in an ag area"or "wildlife in a wildlife corridor." Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Barbara Pastore explained that follow-up after the funding is awarded is very important. If funds are committed, every year until those funds are dispersed, the applicant has to write to the Committee with an update on their project. They also check for applicants with strong track records in the County. The Committee recommends that the Conservation Futures funds not be dispersed until the other funding is committed by other funding sources. Commissioner Titterness moved to take$26,875 out of the Conservation Futures Fund for the Highway 20 Corridor Buffer project. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Titterness voted for the motion. Commissioner Rodgers voted against the motion. The motion carried. Chairman Huntingford asked the other Board members about the Quimper Wildlife Corridor application? Commissioner Titterness stated that he feels that Block 94 is contiguous except for the road. He moved to approve the total funding amount of$80,000. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Titterness moved not to approve the funding for the Tarboo Valley Conservation project this year and suggested that the application be submitted for next year's funding cycle. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Josh Peters, Community Development Review&Adoption of Resolution re:In the Matter of Adopting International Codes:Director of Community Development Al Scalf explained that Appendix A of the Unified Development Code is the County building codes provision. The UDC adopts national and state codes by reference. He introduced Senior Planner Josh Peters who will address the code revision and Stan Southworth, Building Inspector, who will address the technical review. Josh Peters explained that the draft resolution before the Board acknowledges that the International Codes are in effect beginning July 1,2004. Last year the Legislature amended the law to include a process allowing the State Building Code Council to develop rules which were then adopted into the WAC. The Uniform Plumbing Code was the only code that wasn't changed. For people applying for single family and duplex building permits,the new codes will be easier to follow because they are all under the International Residential Code. For all other types of buildings, the International Building Code will apply. Projects vested before the IC will still be reviewed under the Uniform Building Code. Stan Southworth stated that the UBC that has been used for several years and it can be difficult to find information in it, especially for the layperson. In the International Code,the IBC establishes the occupancy of the building and if the occupancy is a single family residence or a duplex, the information is in a second manual specifically for residences. The manual is set up in the order a house is built from the foundation up. Al Scalf added that staff has attended training sessions and some of them are certified in the International Code. The Department is reviewing forms, handouts, and spec sheets to update them. Most of the permits submitted in the County are for residential buildings. He listed some of the changes. Commissioner Titterness stated that he would like to review the IC manuals before the Board approves the resolution. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 Later in the week: Commissioner Titterness noted that he found the IC to be an exceptionally easy code to access. He moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 33-04, adopting and implementing the 2003 versions of International Codes as of July 1, 2004 pursuant to rules of the Washington State Building Code Council. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. for an Executive Session with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Community Development Director, and an Associate Planner regarding actual litigation. All three Commissioners were present. AGREEMENT re:Installation of New Jefferson County Courthouse Front Doors; Jefferson County Central Services;Little&Little Construction: (See Item#6 on the Consent Agenda) Commissioner Rodger asked if this project was put out to bid? Facilities Lead Loring Bemis explained that the design/install option was substantially lower when the process first began approximately 10 years ago. In order to meet the Historical Preservation Code,the decision was to hire a contractor who could do the complete job at one time. The local contractor will do the structural historical preservation requirements, acquire the manufacturer to replicate the doors, and do the project management. A maximum cost of replacement of 100%of the wood that is being replicated is$35,000 and this had to be added to the amount in the agreement. This may not need to be used. Four doors will be totally replicated. Two will be stationary and two will be sliding doors. The original doors will be crated and securely stored. Currently, the operation system of the doors is inadequate and obsolete. Developing sliding doors eliminates the congestion at the bottom of the stairs. Commissioner Rodgers noted that he is not opposed to having new front doors, he is opposed to the cost. Loring Bemis stated that the woodwork will probably last another 100 years and the mechanical system should last 30 years. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the agreement with Little and Little Construction for the installation of the new front doors for the Jefferson County Courthouse. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday. All three Commissioners were present. DECISION re:Fred Hill Materials: Chairman Huntingford stated that the Board needs to make a decision on the proposed Fred Hill Materials Mineral Resource Lands Overlay,MLA02-235,a Comprehensive Plan amendment that was remanded to the County by the Growth Management Hearings Board for additional environmental review. The review was completed,the Board held a public hearing, and there was a workshop after the public hearing where the Board discussed the proposed amendment. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez reviewed the record. • FHM made application for an MRL in April, 2002 for 6,240 acres in an area south of SR104 Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 • The application went through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and on October 25, 2002, FHM's Attorney sent a letter suggesting a 765 acre MRL instead of 6,240 acres. • Staff issued a combined GMA/SEPA report around November 25, 2002 with the MRL reduced to 690 acres to provide a 500 foot boundary from Thorndyke Creek. This was approved by the Board in an ordinance dated December 13, 2002. • The decision was appealed by the Hood Canal Coalition to the Western Washington Growth Management Growth Hearings Board. • The Hearing before the Hearings Board took place in June, 2003 and the County received the decision around August 22,2003. The detailed decision ruled that the County had complied with GMA,the Comprehensive Plan,and the UDC when the 690 MRL was adopted. However,the SEPA analysis was inadequate because the three alternatives had not been adequately discussed. The three alternatives were: a 6,240 acre MRL, a 690 acre MRL,or no action. • The County did additional environmental review because the Hearings Board ruled that only the 690 acre MRL had been adequately studied during the process that lead up to the combined GMA/SEPA report from Staff. • An RFP was advertised for the additional SEPA work and 4-5 companies applied. Wheeler Consulting was chosen and prepared the draft supplemental EIS which was available in March,2004 and analyzed the three alternatives in more detail. • The Hearings Board's final order in 2003 said that Pit-to-Pier project analysis could be done at a later date and they understood that the County was going to issue a DS on the project. This is a project action distinct from the legislative action on the MRLO. Mineral lands designations serve to put the County in further compliance with GMA. The County has an obligation to designate and protect mineral resource lands because they require nuisance and notice provisions. GMA is very specific about protecting mining activities from the neighbors,not protecting the neighbors from mining activities. • One of the larger sections of the draft SEIS was a detailed transportation analysis which indicated that there would only be a .7% increase in truck traffic on SR104 between Lofall Road and the Hood Canal Bridge. During the hearing,the Hearings Board asked several questions about truck traffic. • All three alternatives were addressed in the draft SEIS. The SEPA rules opened the draft SEIS for comments for 30 days. Six comments were received,some of which were from the petitioners. The final SEIS was issued May 12, 2004. The deadline for the compliance report to the Hearings Board was May 25, but the Superior Courtroom was over capacity for the public hearing which had to be recessed and reconvened on June 9 at Chimacum School Auditorium. Several hundred people attended the hearing on June 9 who were on both sides regarding the designation. • The Board has had a chance to study the three alternatives and they have been reasonably informed of the environmental impacts that may or may not occur as the result of designating the MRL. Both the draft SEIS and the final SEIS say that there are no unavoidable impacts that can't be mitigated on the 15 conditions that the Board originally imposed in the ordinance approved on December 13, 2002. Commissioner Titterness stated that there is a lot of history regarding this issue and a lot of division in the community. During the original amendment process, the Board had several discussions regarding the environmental review of the three alternatives. However, that information was not included in the SEPA document. He feels that the decision before the Board today is a"housekeeping"issue. People ask,"Why Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 do we continue to hear that the MRL is about protecting resources?" In the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that the County is supposed to protect resources. He feels that the public is well served in the action that is proposed for the MRLO. The GMA says that the County needs to encourage economic development and protect natural resources. The Comprehensive Plan says that the County needs to encourage resource based economic activities. Anything other than that would be contrary to the laws and the codes that have been adopted. The Board needs to be consistent with the laws that are adopted. He added that he is not particularly in favor of the other project that has been woven into the background of the MRLO designation, but that is not the decision before the Board. Commissioner Rodgers reiterated his reasoning process to get to the decision. Is the MRL, by itself, independent of anything else that may happen, a worthwhile pursuit? The MRLO would allow the mining to go deeper into the ground and additional resource would not be available without it. It protects the ability to extract the resource and is a worthwhile process that allows the capture of a resource that would be unavailable in another method. In reading the draft June 10,2004 ordinance, it clearly states that this is a stand alone procedure. It also states some of the concerns that the Board has about any other type of proposed project. The MRLO is perfectly consistent with the GMA and the Comprehensive Plan and he can support the amended MRLO. Chairman Huntingford explained that the Board has discussed the need to get a clearer message out to the public on the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier project. In reading through the draft documents,he thinks that this has been done. In his mind,the MRLO is a line on the map, an area where mining is proposed. Before FHM starts mining,they must submit an application and go through full environmental review on a project specific basis. The Board sees the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier project as two separate things, and the Pit-to- Pier project will have to live or die on its own merits. Very few people are opposed to FHM staying in business and providing jobs, but they really have concerns for Hood Canal and a pier in the Canal. They feel that if the MRLO is approved, it sends a message to the next group of decision makers that Jefferson County is supportive of this project, therefore, you should give it some approval. In the last deliberations meeting, he suggested reducing the size of the MRLO and limiting it to ground transportation only. The Prosecuting Attorney has indicated that this would not be possible at this point in the process. The findings of fact and conditions include the environmental review for mining in the new area and additional review for marine transportation. Staff has added findings of fact that address the Board's concerns. Chairman Huntingford read the additional findings of fact into the record. 138. When a project specific action (like construction of a conveyor and pier facility is proposed) the new project specific action EIS, which has not been started, will focus on the impacts and alternatives including mitigation measures specific to the project action proposal. These impacts will be analyzed to a degree not possible through the non project EIS for designation of an MRLO. Because this non project action is focusing primarily on development regulations that would apply to mining in an inland forested area, the DSEIS and FSEIS for MLA 02-235 will not have any relevance to a marine transport proposal. This means that when a project specific EIS process is started for a marine transport proposal we will be starting the SEPA process from the very beginning. This will include ensuring that the EIS prepared for the marine transport proposal is the County's document by ensuring that the consultant reports directly to the County, the process that occurred during the preparation of the DSEIS and FSEIS for MLA 02-235. The project specific EIS will then follow the Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28,2004 EIS process which will include scoping the issues, issuing a DEIS for comment, and addressing the comments in the FSEIS. 139. After the SEPA process is completed, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Conditional Use Permit for a conveyor and pier facility would be reviewed at a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 140. The conveyor and pier within the shoreline jurisdiction would be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit before the Hearing Examiner. The criteria for a shoreline review are found in the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act (Section 5 of the UDC, RCW 90.58 Shoreline Management Act; WAC 173-27 Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Provisions). For actions on Shorelines of Statewide Significance(i.e. Hood Canal), there are additional local and state protections. If the proposal does not meet all of the criteria, the proposal will be denied. The WA State DOE makes the final decision on all Shoreline Conditional Use Permits. Numerous other State and Federal approvals would also be required. 141. The Zoning Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed at the same public hearing as the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit before the Hearing Examiner. The 12 approval criteria for a Zoning Conditional Use Permit are found in the Section 8.8.5 of the UDC. If the proposal does not meet all 12 criteria the proposal will be denied. 142. The BOCC has the initial impression that a pier facility(Pit-to-Pier)proposal contemplated by the applicant does not meet all of the twelve(12)approval criteria, including the following: 8.8.5(1) whether a pier facility in Hood Canal is harmonious in design, character and appearance with the development in the vicinity; 8.8.5(3) that a pier facility in Hood Canal is detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity; 8.8.5(4)whether a pier facility will introduce noise, dust, vibrations, and other conditions (like light&visual impacts) to uses or property in the vicinity; 8.8.5(5) whether a pier facility approximately 90 feet above the Mean Lower Low Water Mark(MLLM) will unreasonably interfere with allowable development or uses of neighboring properties; 8.8.5(6) whether ship openings to the Hood Canal Bridge associated with a pier facility would impact traffic in the vicinity of the proposal; 8.8.5(7)whether a pier facility would comply with all State and Federal requirements, including potential impacts to threatened and endangered species; 8.8.5(9) whether a pier facility would cause significant adverse impacts to the human and natural environment that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; 8.8.5(10) whether a pier facility with the limited job creation, limited revenue benefit to the County,potential impacts Hood Canal and to the Hood Canal Bridge (i.e. ship/barge collision with bridge) has merit and value for the community as a whole; 8.8.5(11) whether a pier facility is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; 8.8.5(12) whether the public interest suffers no significant detrimental effect from a pier facility. David Alvarez pointed out that since the Hearings Examiner is considered an employee representing the County, Finding#142 could be considered premature without seeing the merits of the total project, and this could cause problems. He suggested putting that finding into a separate resolution. Community Development Director Al Scalf interjected that, as a point of process, the Hearing Examiner removes any information brought forward to him from the County Commissioners in an open record hearing. He does not consider the information in his deliberations. The position of the County comes through the staff report that is based on certain criteria. Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 28, 2004 After a brief discussion on Finding#142, Commissioner Rodgers asked if "applicant does not meet"could be changed to "applicant may not meet?" David Alvarez agreed that the revised language is acceptable. Chairman Huntingford stated that he would like to have these additional findings of fact included because he feels that they raise the issues on behalf of the citizens that have those concerns. The Board concurred that they have heard the citizens' concerns and they feel they are valid and need to be addressed. Commissioner Titterness pointed out an error in Finding#34 on page 9. He said that it should read, "mining would never reach below a point that was less than 10 feet above the seasonal high water mark." On Finding#55, he listed additional policies in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that he feels should be referenced,specifically Economic Development Policies 6.2 and 6.2.1 which encourage the establishment of new sustainable resource based activities; Natural Resource Policies 2.1 to 2.4; Natural Resource Goal 7.0 and Natural Resource Policy 7.3. Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt the previously adopted 690 acre Mineral Resource Land Overlay with the additional findings of fact as read by Chairman Huntingford, and with the change of does to may in Finding#142,the addition of policies and goals from the Comprehensive Plan, and the correction regarding the water table. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion. Commissioner Titterness asked David Alvarez if Condition#14 on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was updated to reflect the submittal of the Pit-to-Pier Project application? David Alvarez read#14 which states, "The application for a conveyor and a pier facility for barge loading in Hood Canal has previously received a threshold Determination of Significance(DS) from Jefferson County requiring the preparation of a project action environmental impact statement(EIS)." The Chair called for the question. All three Commissioners voted for the motion. MEETING ADJOUNE1 . , JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER SEAL: t t , / • ;'• e ,./1%. 01-1 G en Huntin:f.rd,C is��%' ATTEST: ki11of . (t L' L. Dan Titterness, Member lie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Patrick M. Rodgers, Member Page 12 O.4 C01* , District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen oN Huntingford ,, District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers ,N County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney • 11/NG MINUTES Week of July 12, 2004 Chairman Huntingford called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the minutes of June 14, 2004 as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: County Administrator John Fischbach discussed the following items: • He presented the Board with the final draft letter to DSHS requesting that they fund the County's Best Beginnings Program. Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the letter to Dennis Braddock with DSHS regarding this funding. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. • Mary McQuillen explained that this is an annual traditional canoe journey for several Northwest Tribes. She asked the Board if the participants could use Memorial Field to stay overnight after they arrive at Point Hudson on Sunday, July 25? There is a ceremony when the canoes come ashore and approximately 20 canoes will be staying overnight. Last year when they camped at Memorial Field, they were very orderly and left the facility as clean as when they arrived. The Elders make every effort to keep their young people drug and alcohol free and the canoe journey encourages this discipline. The majority of the trip is funded through donations. Warren Steurer,Parks and Recreation Manager, said that he will work with the Tribes on the details. The fee for a non-profit to use the facility, including lights and showers, is$175. Mary McQuillen added that she would appreciate any help that the Commissioners could give them. • The County received a letter last week from the State Military Department, Depth tment of Emergency Management, stating that they sent a recommendation to FEMA to fully fund the County's grant application for hazard mitigation planning for$56,000. • He will meet with the Elected Officials this week to discuss the 2005 budget process. He plans to ask for two scenarios in the preliminary budget even though the Iman initiative won't be on the ballot this year. The scenarios include a 2% increase over the 2004 budget and a 15%decrease which will help with the program funding analysis for future budget planning. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12,2004 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the agenda bills are part of the public record and should be kept and attached to the items on the Commissioners' agenda; why weren't comments on the draft nuisance ordinance that were submitted before the comment deadline listed on an agenda?; it would cost the County approximately$27,000 to have the Commissioner's meetings televised on PTTV; and it doesn't make sense that the Sheriff should preside over the public hearings for junk vehicles as outlined in the new draft of the nuisance ordinance. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA:Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Community Development Block Grant Regional Microenterprise Project, Olympic Microloan Fund; Grays Harbor,Pacific, Wahkiakum,Mason, Clallam,Thurston, Island and San Juan Counties 2. AGREEMENT re: Employment as County Administrator; John F. Fischbach 3. AGREEMENT NO. G0400363 re: Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding for Compliance with the Solid Waste Management Plan, Moderate Risk Waste Plan and the Hazardous Waste Management Plan; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Ecology 4. AGREEMENT re: Purchase of North Gateway Buffer Property Located within the Highway 20 Corridor; City of Port Townsend and Jefferson Land Trust(Replaces Agreement Approved on June 28, 2004) 5. Authorization of Funding to Proceed re: Agreement No. 2004-232A for the Design, Documentation and Bidding Portion of the Castle Hill Remodel Project; Jefferson County Central Services; Washington State Department of General Administration Dave Christensen, Interim Environmental Health Director and Veronica Morris Nakano, Administrative and Financial Manager Re:Animal Services Budget:Dave Christensen explained that Animal Services revenues for 2004 are much lower than they predicted. The number of kittens and puppies put up for adoption has decreased and half the kennels in the Shelter contain dogs that are being held as evidence in a Court case. In addition, the facility rent for the Shelter increased by over$4,000 after the 2004 budget was prepared. They have been able to make some cuts without significantly changing Shelter operations. He requested that the Board approve a transfer of$11,000 from the General Fund into the Animal Services budget. There was a discussion about the three alternatives that the Health Department had regarding the revenue shortfall: reduction in staffing levels, increase in fees,or transfer from the General Fund. Dave Christensen explained that the staff at the Shelter are working the minimum hours for full FTEs and the operation would have to be changed if staffing was reduced. If cutbacks were made, employees would become part time. The fees were recently raised and that may be contributing to the lower adoption numbers. The amount of funding that the City of Port Townsend contributes to the Animal Services budget was also discussed. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12, 2004 Th) Animal Services Officer Bob Grewell stated that the Shelter has turned people away who bring in dogs to put up for adoption because half the kennels are holding dogs for the Court case. If they charged for "boarding"these dogs, the fees would be approximately$6,000. Dave Christensen added that the Prosecuting Attorney is dealing with the dogs' owner and staff has no involvement in the case. In order to balance the budget for 2004, half an FTE would need to be cut. This would result in a reduction in service. Dave Christensen stated that the Board has discussed privatization in the past, but it would take staff time to research this option. The County Administrator offered to work with staff on the privatization issue. Commissioner Titterness suggested that the Board schedule a workshop with representatives from the pet support groups in the County and the Shelter staff to discuss the future of Animal Services. Commissioner Titterness moved to reduce staffing at the Shelter by half an FTE in order to balance the 2004 budget. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Dave Christensen stated that he hopes the Board will keep this mid-year cut in the Animal Services budget in mind when they review the budget requests for 2005. MEETING ADJOVIi.1PED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONS' SEAL: C len Hunti g ore, ATTEST: • ��0� ":Ata( J'I t ; ('rn(._., an i erness,Member Mie Mattes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board 40110:0 04 Patrick M. Rodgers, Member Page 3 11111111 111111 111111 III 11 l4872t 2 • 07/23/2004 12.12P J.tl.r.on County, MR JEFFERSON TITLE CO I BUD 20.00 Filed at the request of, Jefferson County Excise Tax and when recorded return to: Aff # 1 1 : : Date /2 a_5-CW Pacific Funding Corporation Tax$ ' ' P.O.Box 1449 I, al Saleb Amt$ .3-0j325- Edmonds,WA 98020 By ���\♦,t, h . Deputy Treasurer R—64566 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED ( \ Grantor(s): Pacific Funding Corporation and Twin Cedars Associates Grantee(s): Jefferson County Abbreviated Legal:Portion of NW 1/4 of Section 16,Township 30 North,Range I West,W.M.,Je erson:County,'Washington. Additional Legal(s)on page:2 i� ) Assessors Tax Parcel Number(s):001-162-016 I ;. THE GRANTORS, Pacific Funding Corporation (a Washington corporation) and Twin,Cedars Associates (a partnership),ton g p p),each as to an undivided 1/2 interest as tenants in common,for and uTconsiderstion of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION in hand paid,grant,bargain;set[,c`Onsey aitd,confirm to Jefferson County,a Washington municipal corporation, the following described real estate situatedJn J fferson-"C6unty,Washington: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated hereii(by tbis r*ernce. Ptn NW 16-30-1W —-, `� Subject to:Right to make necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon the andhefein described as granted to Jefferson County,State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No.239669. / r <' The Grantors,for themselves and for their successors in interest db by`these prese)tts Oxpressly limit the covenants of the deed to those herein expressed,and exclude all covenants arising or to arise by sfktutor'or tither implication,and do hereby covenant that against all persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim by,2hrough or-under said Grantors and not otherwise,they will forever warrant and defend the said described real estate. i Dated this 21st day of July,2004. \ Pacific Funding Corporation,a Washington corporatio -Twin C ,\` 'sociates ashington partnership By / �� its Sec taer ry/Treasurer d' I. > / / i' Its Managing General Partner r`,,/ \� I /) STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) ,-7r i.\ On this 21st day of July,2004, ,efbre me.the\ndersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn persogal)y appearet�Ikark f9.Zenger,to me known to be the Secretary/Treasurer of Pacific Funding Corporation,the cotpe ��th'at',eestted't e foregoing instrument,and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act anrf `i1, ••.,.,•ailon,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to$7cckfdfn1i�,b`#Sy� it• - and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WVNES.p 4idu a t J' , Giea1 he4eto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. ••i� ! NO ART PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,residing at ` •U. • Bellevue.My commission expires 04/30/2006. X45! tt =:% { ; STATE OF WASHINGTON-) ,J . ) ss. COUNTY Qi .� G ) ;On itis 21 Z`d4ye ,personally appeared before me Eric Evans,known to me to be the Managing General Partner 6f Twin'Cecdars g,f�tg+Lt rtttership that executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged the said instrument /to bea-the free-and it IttliSillOb r��7 s 19fid partnership for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that-he was"guthottzed tiµ(e,the ment. --�WITNT S ttlyrliand� tS $ereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. �;,••••..•;.._ No Public in and for the State of Washington residing at ls`' ',`- .r-r..0- .My commission expires:J1/.6DIDG 11111111 III Illlllll IIII flll[ 11487270 Jefferson County, MA JEFFERSON TITLE CO I SIA 20.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M. , thence South 1251 Feet; thence West 1387 Feet; thence North 1251 Feet; thence East 1387 feet to the point of beginning; \ 3CEPT that portion lying Easterly of State Highway S.R.20; \ ALSO EXCEPT a strip of land conveyed to Jefferson C4iityo county road by deed dated January 21 , 1977 and record'cL ru itor;s File No. 239669, records of said county; \i ; N\ ) l ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of Discov4ry Ypad right-of- way; �� ALSO EXCEPT the North 200 feet they f; l'ying>\etween Discovery Road right-of-way and State Highway/2 - -/ -- ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying So4 erly) 514. Jacob Miller Road right-of-way. Situate in the County of JefferSi, State of Washington. ')N ( mss /N> \ C ' " N c N h� \moi f . RETURN TO: NOTICE TO TITLE GRANTOR(S): Jefferson County, a Municipal Corporation GRANTEE: City of Port Townsend,a Municipal Corporation,and Jefferson Land Trust, a Washington non-profit corporation REFERENCE: Abbreviated Legal Description: all situate in the County of Jefferson, State of Washington. See Exhibit A for complete Legal Descriptions Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Nos: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the Grantor(s)/Owner(s) of the above- referenced real property,to potential purchasers and future owners, to agents or representatives, and to any other concerned person or entity: The property described on Exhibit A is subject to the terms and conditions of an AGREEMENT between Jefferson County—City of Port Townsend—Jefferson Land Trust concerning"Gateway Buffer Property" dated , 2004, AFN Dated this day of , 2004. [SIGNATURES BLOCKS AND NOTARY] CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Agenda Bill: AB04-129.A City Council Meeting Date: July 19, 2004 Agenda Item: V.0 _X_Regular Business Meeting Study Session Date Submitted: July 12, 2004 Other: (specify) Department: Legal Contact: John Watts Phone: #385-5991 SUBJECT: - Revision - Gateway Buffer Agreement with Jefferson County and Jefferson Land Trust CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X Consent Resolution Amount Budgeted: $ Ordinance Staff Report Expenditure Amt: $ Business Proclamation Contingency Req'd: $ X Contract Approval FYI Supplemental Req'd. Other Public Hearing (see note below) Legislative Quasi-judicial closed record Quasi-judicial open record Quasi-judicial closed record appeal NOTE: If the Public Hearing is quasi-judicial in nature, then the appearance of fairness and conflict on interest rules apply. Except at the public hearing, communicating with other councilmembers, and contact with proponents or opponents must be avoided. SUMMARY STATEMENT: On July 6, Council approved a Gateway Buffer Agreement(in the nature of a covenant) in connection with the County purchase of Gateway Buffer property. Following Council approval, the County requested a clarification in paragraph (e), shown below. The clarification does not change the meaning of the covenant. The County states it has no intention of disposing of the buffer or using the buffer for transportation purposes, and the paragraph is only to cover the situation should it arise. New version (additions shown in underline):. The parties contemplate the County will continue to own the North Buffer. In the event the County determines to sell the North Buffer, the County agrees to negotiate in good faith with the Land Trust and the City in an effort to reach agreement on a sale to the Land Trust or City. If no agreement can be reached, County may sell the North Buffer to a third party. In any sale or donation, County agrees to incorporate the terms of this Agreement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which the County divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the North Buffer. If needed in the future for public transportation purposes, County may also sell or change the use (from buffer to something else) of the North Buffer or a portion for that purpose. Proceeds from any sale of the North Buffer(or a portion) or a sum equal to the value of the portion of the North Buffer that undergoes a change in use will be used exclusively for the purchase of additional highway buffer properties near the entrance of Port Townsend, in concurrence with both the City and the Land Trust. [NOTE: The following is repeated from the Summary Statement for the July 6,2004 meeting Council packet:] This matter concerns Council approval of an agreement with the County and Jefferson Land Trust for the purchase of approximately 3 acres known as the Gateway Buffer. County BOCC approved the purchase(using Conservation Future monies and other monies), and the Agreement, at its June 27, 2004 meeting. The Agreement memorializes a tentative agreement reached between the County Administrator and City Manager earlier this year(which agreement was subject to legislative approvals)that the County would dedicate $10,000 for the purchase of the buffer from the $25,000 purchase price the County received from the City for the purchase of County Kai Tai lagoon property(assessed value, $51,750). The Agreement also commits the County to a covenant that the property will remain a forested corridor, subject to the terms of the Agreement(which allow for selective logging according to a management plan). A one-half acre portion of property will separately be sold to the owner of A+Equipment Rentals. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement NOT ATTACHED—if anyone wants so obtain or review a copy of the Agreement,please contact the City Attorney's Office. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: If adopted as part of the Consent Agenda, no further action is needed; unanimous approval to authorize City Manager to execute the Agreement, as revised, with the County and Jefferson Land Trust is indicated. ALTERNATIVES: If removed from the consent agenda for discussion,move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with the County and Jefferson Land Trust. Take no action. Postpone action. CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN Resolution No. Continued to Ordinance No. Referred to Department Director or Name of Council Committee&Date of Motion Approved Failed Other City Manager DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION City Attorney CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND Agenda Bill: AB04-117 City Council Meeting Date: July 6,2004 Agenda Item: V.H _X_Regular Business Meeting Study Session Date Submitted: June 29, 2004 Other: (specify) Department: Legal Contact: John Watts Phone: #385-5991 SUBJECT: Gateway Buffer Agreement with Jefferson County and Jefferson Land Trust CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X Consent Resolution Amount Budgeted: $ Ordinance Staff Report Expenditure Amt: $ Business Proclamation Contingency Req'd: $ X Contract Approval FYI Supplemental Req'd. Other Public Hearing (see note below) Legislative Quasi-judicial closed record Quasi-judicial open record Quasi-judicial closed record appeal NOTE: If the Public Hearing is quasi-judicial in nature, then the appearance offairness and conflict on interest rules apply. Except at the public hearing, communicating with other councilmembers, and contact with proponents or opponents must be avoided. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This matter concerns Council approval of an agreement with the County and Jefferson Land Trust for the purchase of approximately 3 acres known as the Gateway Buffer. County BOCC approved the purchase (using Conservation Future monies and other monies), and the Agreement, at its June 27, 2004 meeting. The Agreement memorializes a tentative agreement reached between the County Administrator and City Manager earlier this year(which agreement was subject to legislative approvals) that the County would dedicate $10,000 for the purchase of the buffer from the $25,000 purchase price the County received from the City for the purchase of County Kai Tai lagoon property (assessed value, $51,750). The Agreement also commits the County to a covenant that the property will remain a forested corridor, subject to the terms of the Agreement(which allow for selective logging according to a management plan). A one-half acre portion of property will separately be sold to the owner of A+ Equipment Rentals. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: If adopted as part of the Consent Agenda, no further action is needed; unanimous approval to authorize City Manager to execute the Agreement with the County and Jefferson Land Trust is indicated. ALTERNATIVES: If removed from the consent agenda for discussion,move to authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with the County and Jefferson Land Trust. Take no action. Postpone action. CITY CLERK'S USE ONLY APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN Resolution No. Continued to Ordinance No. Referred to Department Director or Name of Council Committee&Date of Motion Approved Failed Other City Manager DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION • City Attorney • 1 NORTH GATEWAY BUFFER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY AND PLAN Acquired using Conservation Futures Funds by Jefferson County in July 2004 Reference July 12,2004 Agreement between Jefferson County,City of Port Townsend, and Jefferson Land Trust FOREST MANAGEMENT North Gateway Buffer lands extend over approximately 2.7 acres owned by Jefferson County. This small stand is of high scenic value at the highway entrance to the Port Townsend area. The recent history of forest management can be surmised from the existing timber stands. The majority of existing trees are 70 to 100 years old. This indicates that most of the acreage was harvested by homesteading pioneers in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Reforestation of areas harvested in the 1870s and subsequent decades resulted from natural seeding coinciding with favorable environmental conditions for the establishment of new stands of timber. Since Douglas-fir dominated the acreage adjacent to harvested areas, it was the primary tree available to provide seed. Naturally established stands of Douglas-fir therefore tend to be very dense, often containing more stems per acre than is desirable for optimum growth, vigor and health. The existing stands have essentially developed naturally. Western red cedar and western hemlock, both shade tolerant species, are also present in large numbers. However, the stands are dominated by Douglas-fir. Common broadleaved tree species are bigleaf maple, red alder, willow, madrona and wild cherry. This forest management plan provides programmatic and silvicultural policy for management of the North Gateway Buffer Forest. It outlines procedures,projects and silvicultural prescriptions to restore, enhance, conserve and protect the productivity and resources of the stand. The plan's policies address existing relict older trees and younger trees, as well as restoration of a vigorous and healthy forest stand that is structurally and biologically diverse. The plan is consistent with Jefferson County's intent that the North Gateway Buffer Forest be managed as a healthy forest stand that presents a welcoming and aesthetically pleasing appearance. High traffic roadways surround the North Gateway Buffer Forest, but to the extent practicable, it will be managed on a multi-disciplinary, multi-use, watershed basis. This means that other natural resources programs and uses, such as wildlife management, endangered species protection, wetlands protection, etc. will be incorporated on a reciprocal basis to assure that all natural resources programs are truly integrated. Appropriate signage may be an element of the management. This approach will facilitate the greatest good for the greatest array of uses over the longest period of time without diminishment of future forest productivity and land use options. Specific management strategies and prescriptions are presented below in the appropriate management sections. The forest management objectives for the Gateway Forest are: (1) continue to maintain the timber stands in a safe, healthy condition through selective thinning using low-impact logging that will increase tree and stand vigor and enhance structural diversity while removing understory and hazard trees (2)planting native tree species (3)preserve relict older trees (4)protect water quality (5) integrate forest management with other natural resources disciplines and programs to protect natural resource attributes associated with the forest, and(6) support natural resources aspects of open space, education and public relations. Forest management programmatic and silvicultural policies protect the real estate investment, conserve and enhance both consumptive and non-consumptive natural resources,maintain high soil and water quality and provide financial returns to the owner, as well as contributing forest products to the local economy. Good stewardship of the lands provides the local and regional communities with confidence that the Jefferson County is committed to natural resources management that is not only in consonance with law and regulation,but which also serves to enhance the resources and contribute positively to the community. Community and public relations is one avenue of transmitting this information. Management of the North Gateway Buffer Forest will be coordinated in an integrated,balanced natural resources program to furnish soil and watershed protection, enhance wildlife habitat,promote natural beauty and other natural resources. These policies and plan will guide the silvicultural techniques and projects used. When implemented,this plan will enhance the horizontal and vertical structural diversity of forest stand to create habitat structure and opportunities for biological diversity and to encourage development of late-successional forest structures and compositions. Revision Schedule This plan will be revised on a 10-year schedule. The greatest needs in the North Gateway Buffer Forest lie in the thinning of dense second-growth stands to encourage development of understory vegetation and to enhance structural diversity; removal of hazard trees; conservation of older trees; and restoration of the original coniferous forest cover to areas historically impacted by construction, altered drainage or disease. Thus,the plan will need revision when: (1)the prescriptions have been fully implemented and the desired forest composition and structure are achieved; (2)when sufficient time has passed and, in the absence of plan implementation, natural processes have so changed the forest conditions that the plan no longer reflects existing conditions; or(3)when land use changes have occurred in the surrounding area to an extent that the plan is outdated. Given recent types and intensities of uses, it is anticipated that a 10-year revision schedule is appropriate. Silvicultural Policies. Jefferson County is committed to conserving and managing soil,water, forests, fish, wildlife, aesthetic and open space resources. Silvicultural prescriptions will be interdisciplinary and ecosystem-oriented in approach, and considerate of watershed conditions. This means, for example: forest management will be holistic to include a wide array of natural resource uses, values and functions that wildlife,water quality and fisheries issues are incorporated into forest management planning,project criteria and operations as applicable that wildlife trees are integral parts of forest management and timber sales unless they present a threat to public safety that thinning prescriptions will achieve vertical and horizontal structural diversity to foster greater opportunities for biological diversity; stand prescriptions will contribute positively to enhancement of wildlife habitat and corridors, and endangered species protection, conservation and recovery that wetlands will be protected adjacent land conditions will be considered in prescriptions and implementation schedules Environmental Documentation Activities undertaken on the North Gateway Buffer Forest will comply with applicable state and local laws and regulations. Variances from this Plan prior to revision will be collaboratively evaluated to determine the nature and extent of additional environmental analysis. Endangered Species. This Plan fully supports the conservation and recovery of state and federally listed Threatened and Endangered species. Forestry Contracts. Sales of forest products and service contracts are accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. Sales of forest products and forestry services are not combined under one contract. Authority to award both types of contracts rests with the Jefferson County. FOREST DESCRIPTION AND INVENTORY Vegetative Characteristics. The Gateway Buffer Forest may be generally described as second growth mixed conifer forest with some ruderal alder,probably as a result of land clearing for construction. Broadleaved trees present include red alder,bigleaf maple,willow,wild cherry and madrona. Understory species are typical for the area, including various blackberries, ocean spray, fern, salmonberry, nettle, huckleberry, etc. Overall,the stand has trees too close together for optimal development of old growth structure, and areas not fully stocked with native conifers. The southern alder area is deficient in understory vegetation,reproduction and structural diversity. This is the result of high stem densities that preclude adequate light from reaching the forest floor. Topography The land surface topography is fairly gentle without much vertical relief. Forest Soils Soil characteristics may be used to predict the probable impact of various forest management practices on individual soil map units. Probable impacts can be predicted for: woodland suitability, soil compaction, slope stability, competing vegetation and tree windthrow. Soils at Gateway are Dick loamy sand (well-drained and permeable to about 5 feet) and Clallam gravelly sandy loam(usually 2-3 feet of a well-drained layer underlain by a slowly-permeable cemented layer). With the exception of coarse sandy and gravelly soils, the soils are subject to compaction and churning damage from the use of logging equipment when the soils are wet. Because of these risks, in general forestry operations using ground-based equipment should be scheduled for periods of low soil moisture, usually May through November. Impacts to forest floor soils by forestry practices will be minimized by using proper harvesting systems, or by accepting practical alternatives that would avoid problems. Management System Forest management will enhance structural and biological diversity, and values as open space while recognizing the limitations imposed by the size and shape of the parcel and its proximity to high-use roadways. Existing stand delineations will be the planning base for future age classes. The typical selective thinning prescription will specify that, if available, 100 of the best commercial species trees, "Leave Trees",will be left uncut and undamaged on each acre, spaced consistently and uniformly throughout the thinning area. In general, no cedar trees will be cut. In addition to the specified Leave Trees and all cedars, small non- commercial sized trees will be left intact. This includes less prevalent species such as wild cherry, willow, madrona, etc. The purposes of this approach include: sustainable forest management without diminution of future diversity and productivity minimizing stand disturbance while opening up the canopy sufficiently to allow more sunlight to hit the forest floor and foster understory vegetation preserving and enhancing both horizontal and vertical structural diversity through retention of shade tolerant understory trees and development of grasses, forbs and woody brush species providing a population of understory and suppressed trees that are recruitment for snags in future decades but do not present a hazard to roads or powerlines providing botanical and structural diversity that will enhance forest stands for wildlife species Snags, Hollow Logs and Wildlife Trees Snags and hollow logs play a very important role in forest ecology. Timber sale contracts will protect snags that are not a hazard to roads, as well as downed large organic debris. In addition, trees deemed unique or of special interest for wildlife, such as advanced second growth specimens, trees with large limbs or cavities, or less prevalent species (yew, cottonwood, bigleaf maple, wild cherry, willow, etc)will be protected in timber sales contracts and may be field marked with signs or paint prior to thinning operations. Snags and downed hollow logs, important to cavity-nesting birds and other animals, will be left uncut except when determined to present a safety hazard and no alternatives are available for working around the snag. All naturally downed logs will be left on the forest floor, unless inadvertently moved as part of the logging process, to provide habitat for wildlife including small mammals, salamanders, insects, and other arthropods. Slash left from cutting the tops and branches off of harvested trees will be left on the forest floor to allow it to decompose naturally. For aesthetic and fire safety purposes, this material may be pulled back from forest edges and/or chipped and spread. Species To be Grown Douglas-fir is the hallmark species of the Puget Sound and the most prevalent species in the Gateway Forest. Western red cedar is also a valuable tree for structural diversity functions. In general,cedars will not be removed in the thinning. Because of shade tolerance and persistent foliage, it is critical for horizontal and vertical structural diversity in the forests. For the foreseeable future, all timber sale contracts will prohibit the cutting of any cedars. They are generally small(<24 inches DBH), of low Girard Form Class and low current commercial value. Their highest and best use is contributing to structural and biological diversity over the next several centuries. Other less frequent species will be also emphasized in selecting leave trees to foster short-term and long-term biodiversity. Natural regeneration of other native species such as alder,willow, wild cherry, hazel nut, big leaf maple and vine maple is expected to diversify stands thinned or replanted, resulting in a species mix that will be more resistant to insect and disease attack through the synergistic effects of species and wildlife habitat diversities. Reforestation Reforestation will use a mixture of site-adapted native coniferous species. Plantings will be conducted the first planting season after harvest to achieve full stocking,which is defined at 302 live stems of commercial species per acre. This equals planting seedlings 12 foot on center. Hand planting conifer seedlings will be the method used to reforest or to fully stock deficient stands. Hand planting is more expensive than seeding,but affords more rapid and dependable stand establishment and can provide positive influence on stand species composition. Hand planting will be attempted first through volunteer donations of planting materials and labor. If this is not possible, it will be accomplished by service contract. Deer browsing pressure on seedlings is a perennial problem. In spite of recent losses to the "wasting syndrome", deer numbers remain sufficient to cause considerable damage to seedlings. Douglas-fir and western red cedar seem to be especially hard hit by the deer. This browsing pressure retards growth until the tree leader grows above the reach of deer and the seedling begins putting on significant height growth each year. Other than repellant sprays, no treatment is anticipated to keep deer from browsing the seedlings. Various types of protective cones and sleeves have been tried,with mixed results. While they may protect the seedling for 1 or 2 years,they can also lean over or catch the leader and adversely impact growth and form. Rotation and Cutting Cycle It is not appropriate to set allowable harvest,rotation age or cutting cycle. Thus,this Plan will focus on intermediate silvicultural treatments and thinnings that will promote forest health and vigor, structural diversity and aesthetics. This will allow for development of a high quality forest stand, which will provide superior structural and biological diversity supporting a mixture of consumptive and non-consumptive products,values and functions. Silvicultural Treatments (1) Methods of Cutting. Except in cases of salvage of timber due to natural windthrow, deadfall or pest infestation/outbreak, landslide, fire or somesuch, it is anticipated that clearcutting will not be used under this Plan. Selective cutting will be the system used in precommercial and commercial thinnings for the duration of this plan. Intermediate selective cutting will be used to thin stands for the concentration of growth, development of horizontal and vertical structural diversity, and to salvage mortality losses. Thinning will improve stands by removing diseased trees, inferior species and damaged trees. In mixed alder and conifer stands, selective cutting may be used to remove the alder while leaving the conifers to mature. Additionally,this technique will be used to remove alder from mixed stands and to make room for supplemental plantings prescribed to achieve full stocking levels. (2)Insect and Disease Control. Insect and disease problems have not reached epidemic proportions on the North Gateway Buffer Forest in recent years. The following specific forest pests are the most frequently encountered and are listed along with the prescribed control method: a. Tent Caterpillar is always present in broadleaved trees and does considerable defoliation. Whole trees may be defoliated, causing an unsightly mess. Alder is seldom killed by this, and investment in forest control measures (notably spraying) is not warranted. Also, conversion of alder to coniferous species will reduce the number of host plants on the installation. b. Root Rot is a persistent problem, especially on some of the heavier soils. Often, infected trees also fall prey to bark beetles, which speed loss of foliage and mortality and may offer the first outward sign of fungal infection. In such areas, selective cutting will be used to salvage infested areas and planting back to a different species. c. Douglas-fir Bark Beetle is frequently seen as a secondary invader of trees weakened by old age or disease. This insect has the potential for epidemic attack, but proper forest sanitation including thinning and harvest of overly mature or diseased trees should keep it under control if it becomes a problem. In such cases, selective cutting will be used to salvage infested areas. d. Douglas-fir Tussock Moth has built into an epidemic in southwest Washington, but has not yet been identified on the North Gateway Buffer Forest. If this defoliating insect does become a problem, control will be difficult. "BT", a biologic control agent may be adapted to Tussock moth control in the future. At present, aerial application of insecticides is the only known control method. Any pesticide application will have to be thoroughly reviewed and approved prior to use. e. White Pine Blister Rust, an introduced disease,has virtually eliminated white pine from serious management at this time. Development of rust-resistant strains may allow planting white pine in the future. f. White Pocket Rot is a fairly common pathogen in Douglas-fir and is occasionally seen in young second growth. There does appear to be some root rot in the North Gateway Buffer Forest. Patch cutting harvest during the initial thinning of identifiably infested trees plus a surrounding transition area is the best control. Replanting should be done with western red cedar. g. White Heart Rot is a very destructive disease of alder. This fungus is responsible for the slow destruction of alder stands after the age of 40 or 50 years. The best control is the harvest of mature alder before the fungal losses take their toll. Particularly near roads, fences,powerlines, etc. and in areas where pedestrians walk,risk alder should be removed. h. Gypsy Moth is a recently introduced forest pest that has shown great capacity for destruction and sudden epidemic growth in Washington. Both the European and Asian gypsy moths are of concern. They have not been detected. The Jefferson County will continue to cooperate with state and federal agencies conducting surveys for the moths. Control is achieved by pheromone trapping, spraying with EPA approved insecticide as well as spraying with"BT. (3)Wildlife Damage Control. Deer browsing the growing tips of young Douglas- fir cause reduced height growth and in extreme cases may stop height growth completely. Small mammals such as mice,moles, squirrels,rabbits and mountain beavers also inhibit reforestation by eating seed and seedlings. Seeding is not anticipated as a means of regeneration. Raptor predation helps keep small mammal populations under control. Snags and scattered low-grade perch trees will be left as feasible to provide roosts and hunting perches. Further small mammal discouragement is not anticipated. (4) Fire Suppression. Suppression of wildfire would probably be accomplished by a combination of local fire departments. (5) Slash Treatment. Logging slash,the residual scrap tops, limbs and non- merchantable logs, will be treated after logging by lopping and scattering or chipping and dispersal. Slash from partial cuttings such as thinnings will be lopped and scattered within the forest. The slash from thinnings is of low fire hazard due to overhead shade, closeness to ground and compartmentalization by skid trails. Piled slash provides cover for songbirds and small mammals as well as foraging resources for insectivores such as the Bewick's wren. Concentrations of slash will be removed to a minimum of 25 feet from roads and structures. NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT Control of Non-point Sources of Water Pollution (1)Pesticides. Pesticides have not been used in forest management and are not anticipated to be used in the future. If and when pesticides are used, they will be applied by trained and certified personnel in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. (2)Erosion Control. Erosion in forest areas has not been a problem because of the minimal disturbance to soils,the good vegetative cover and infrequency of silvicultural treatments. Wind erosion will be prevented by maintaining the vegetative cover, slash treatment and windrows to provide windbreaks. The risk of erosion during the exposed period of logging and early regeneration is greatly reduced by careful planning and early planting or seeding. Erosion control requirements are included in timber sale contracts, so additional funds and projects normally should not be required. (3)Logging Debris. Logging slash will be treated as described above or in special cases will be treated or disposed of in a manner to reduce,trap or repair historic erosion. (4) Riparian Zones. Machinery, in general,will be kept 50 feet or more from drainages and wetlands. If an area is to be thinned with machinery, long-lining will be the allowable yarding technique. (5) Horses. Due to their very low impact on the forest floor, certain logging or other silvicultural treatment maybe accomplished using draft horses instead of machinery such as skidders. Clear cuts for alder conversion, construction, safety zones or hazard tree removals may use horses or machinery. (6)Wetlands Protection. Wetlands will be protected in accordance with applicable law and regulation. The erosion control and buffer strip requirements included in the Plan and in timber sale and forestry services contracts will protect wetlands from damage by forestry operations. (7)Endangered Species Protection. Federally listed threatened and endangered will be protected in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). (8) Cultural and Historic Site Protection. Known sites will be protected during silvicultural treatments by establishing them as exclusion zones. If additional sites or artifacts are discovered during presale investigations or other field inspections,they will be evaluated and protected from logging activity through restriction of treatments and operations in such areas. The activities under this plan will comply with pertinent law and regulation. (9)Aesthetics. As with any question involving beauty,the question of forest aesthetics may be viewed from several perspectives. The common public view is from the highway,at posted speeds from the immediate foreground. From a distance this affords a vista of evergreen and deciduous trees, with conifers dominating the forest. Overall, it presents a rather pastoral "natural" scene. It is hardly "natural",however, since it is the result of considerable land disturbance and a conversion of old growth to second growth forest. In areas thinned pursuant to this Plan, it is not so much what is done to encourage structural and biological diversity, as the rate at which it is done that might upset some viewers. Up close,the reforestation efforts will appear somewhat harsher than from a distance. Trees cut or pushed over will appear less attractive as they turn brown and lose their leaves than they did when green and upright. Lopped,piled or windrowed slash will look better from afar than up close. This can be kept in mind when writing a prescription for silvicultural treatments. Aesthetic considerations in forest management are intended to reduce visual impacts of logging and site preparation and include clean logging,placement and layout of cutting areas,and buffer strips to create visual barriers,when possible, between work areas and main roads. Coupled with public outreach,this should fully and fairly inform viewers of the forest's pretreatment condition, management techniques and goals. Over many years and from a wide variety of sources, such as local conservation groups and visitors, and local, state and federal agencies,comments about the beauty of the North Gateway Buffer Forest have been consistently positive. The management outlined in this plan will enhance the ultimate aesthetics of this forest. (10)Wildlife Habitat. The silvicultural methods used for reforestation,timber stand improvement and harvest will be supportive of wildlife. Dense timber stands shade out the understory plants, which provide food and cover for wildlife. Thinnings and reforestation will provide young forest stands with a wide diversity of grass, forbs,woody shrubs and trees for food and cover. This will encourage a diversity of animal species. Treatments to improve the stands will help open up the forest canopy to allow sunlight to reach the forest floor so that the understory will be stimulated, developed and perpetuated as foraging,nesting and thermal cover for all wildlife species. Timber harvest might temporarily displace wildlife from the operation area to adjacent undisturbed forest while operations are underway. Quite frequently, browsing and avian species will visit thinning areas during working and nonworking hours to take advantage of the food and cover resources available. Following thinning, as the area seeds or sprouts to brush, weeds and young trees, the rapidly growing young forest and decaying logging residues will provide increased forage for deer, granivores,and insectivores. Consequently,predators will benefit. Some species preferring closed canopy habitat will be displaced until the young trees reestablish a closed canopy. (11) Multiple Uses. Within the constraints of safety requirements,the forest will be managed for multiple uses of aesthetics,nonconsumptive, wildlife,timber and other forest products and clean water. (12) Road Construction. To implement silvicultural treatments, it may be to develop temporary haul spurs. Haul spurs will be developed using old grades or natural openings where possible. Where these do not exist or present unacceptable risks,new spurs will be created by meandering between leave trees. Road construction will be minimized in order to retain as much land as possible in production and to minimize land disturbance and costs. Reforestation will be up to road edges to reduce occluding ruderal vegetation and to fully stock the site. Full stocking will eventually function as a protector of the road corridor. Within cutting areas, road construction will be limited to temporary spur roads as narrow as possible. These temporary spurs will be waterbarred or otherwise treated(seeding, cross ditching, etc) as necessary and wise to prevent erosion. WORK OBJECTIVES AND THINNING CRITERIA Annual Objectives. The long term forest management goal is to achieve fully stocked, healthy, mixed conifer stands of timber exhibiting old growth characteristics for an aesthetically pleasing welcome to the Port Townsend area;to protect and preserve relict older trees; and to provide opportunities for education. Over the span of this plan,this may involve thinnings,plantings, and selective cuts. Specific recommendations are given below. Invasive Plants Invasive plants pose a threat to the overall health and vitality of the native forest ecosystem. Due to the relatively small size of the stand,the preferred and anticipated treatment for invasive, non-native plants will be hand-pulling or mechanical control. Herbicides are only to be used in extraordinary circumstances, and only then if their use is approved by Jefferson County and Jefferson Land Trust. Sales Procedures. Timber sale contracts to sell forest products as well as service contracts used to acquire forestry services are accomplished in accordance with applicable authority, law and regulation. Sales of forest products and forestry services are not combined under one contract. Forestry Consultations and Support. The authorities responsible for forest management will seek and secure professional forest management as needed. This will include public relations, forestry education tours,marking project boundaries,wetlands and riparian buffers,preparing and administering contracts, and coordination of commercial and precommercial thinnings,plantings and other forestry work as needed. Public Relations. Timber thinning operations within the North Gateway Buffer Forest will be highly visible to the community. Public relations activities are recommended to provide advance notice of forest practices and the forest management goals. Thinning Criteria. Thinnings will leave 100 stems/acre of merchantable trees uniformly and consistently spaced over the entire forest area. Additionally, less frequent species, wildlife trees, snags, and unique specimens will be marked or identified in the contract for retention in furtherance of the goal of improving biological and structural diversity. Hazard trees will be felled and removed if necessary. The following are typical but not exclusive contract provisions governing selection of Leave Trees. These criteria apply to all thinnings and will be adjusted as needed in light of specific stand conditions. Leave Tree Selection and Cutting. On the coniferous thinning areas, one hundred(100) of the best live Douglas-fir or other conifer species shall be left uncut and undamaged as Leave Trees on each acre of the sale area. This equates to a spacing of approximately 20 feet on center between Leave Trees, which are to be uniformly and consistently spaced over the entire sale area. Trees marked with yellow paint and/or signs are designated as wildlife and structural diversity trees, and are to be left uncut and undamaged. Live trees greater than 8 inches DBH so marked may be included in the 100 trees per acre. Dead wildlife trees may not be included in the 100 trees per acre count. Leave trees shall be Purchaser selected on the following basis and criteria: 1. Preferred coniferous species in the following order: Douglas-fir, western red cedar, grand fir, Pacific silver fir, and western hemlock. 2. No western red cedar or western yew trees may be cut. 3. Coniferous trees free of defects, disease or damage. 4. Fastest growth as evidenced by larger relative diameter breast high(DBH), greatest height, and light colored bark with active, buff colored crevices. 5. Good form and straightness of the bole, and lack of forked tops. 6. Spacing as near as possible to 20 feet by 20 feet, on centers, for a uniform and consistent distribution of 100 Leave Trees per acre. 7. Dead trees, non merchantable culls, and understory trees less than 6 inches diameter on the stump are not to be selected as Leave Trees, but are to be left uncut when possible. 8. Pitch bleeding western white pine and dwarf mistletoe infected western hemlock shall not be selected as Leave Trees. Live wildlife and structural diversity trees marked with yellow signs and/or paint may be selected as Leave Trees. 9. Less abundant tree species such as madrona, dogwood, wild cherry, willow, bigleaf maple, western yew and holly may not be counted as Leave Trees and are to be left uncut and undamaged in the residual stand. Such trees do not have to comply with spacing requirements. Trees to be cut and removed shall be Purchaser selected and cut so as to avoid damage to all Leave Trees. Trees smaller than 6 inches stump diameter and not selected as Leave Trees shall be left uncut when possible. Dead trees and non-merchantable culls shall be left uncut. Trees cut along sale area boundaries shall be felled into the sale area so as to contain slash and debris on the site. Stumps shall be cut as low as practicable and shall not exceed 12 inches or one DBH in height, whichever is greater. Limbs and tops are to be cut from merchantable stems and left in the woods. The Purchaser shall exercise diligent care and use directional felling to minimize damage to residual trees. All felled trees shall be utilized to 6" DIB at the small end by 24 feet in length. Bucking to reduce length or diameter is not allowed. If the Purchaser bucks felled trees to reduce diameter or length,the spoiled merchantable portion will be scaled as though it were whole and the Purchaser will pay for such material at the unit prices bid. Preferred yarding technologies include draft horses or mules, skidders, and cable logging. Clearcutting will only be considered for salvage cuts due to fire, insect infestation, disease, blowdown, or other natural causes. STAND PRESCRIPTIONS. The following stand prescriptions provide guidance in the preservation, management and treatment of forest stands. The prescriptions are descriptive and prescriptive. They address in unrestrictive terms the management and silvicultural goals and treatments to be applied over the lifespan of this plan and subsequent editions. Management will be adjusted in light of any unforeseen circumstances that pose new situations for forest and land management. Changing or evolving requirements and natural disasters may require some adjustment of the location, sequence and timing of silvicultural treatments. However,the silvicultural policies described elsewhere in this plan are considered ecologically sound and will be adhered to in the absence of urgent and compelling alternative land use requirements documented and adopted through established programmatic and project planning processes. Due to the sensitive nature of such areas and resources, no information will be included here concerning historical, cultural or archeological items and sites discovered over the years while conducting forestry work. Such information may be available from the controlling authority,through confidential discussions as appropriate and pertinent to land management issues and uses. Relict Older Forest Trees. While there are no stands of old growth timber within the North Gateway Buffer Forest, scattered relict older trees will be retained. To the maximum extent practicable,these will be preserved for the unique characteristics they contribute to the forest stands. Older trees that present a safety hazard to vicinal roads will be removed. Mixed Old Growth and Second Growth Stands. The stand is mixed conifer, with stem densities too high in some parts and insufficient stocking in others. This area will be thinned"from below", i.e.,the smaller trees will be removed in accordance with the thinning criteria given above. Additionally, alders leaning or within tree height of roads may be removed if posing a hazard. Areas not fully stocked prior to thinning will be planted with a mixture of native conifer species seedlings.