HomeMy WebLinkAboutPort Townsend, City of - 111918RETURN NAME and ADDRESS
Mark McCauley
Director, Central Services
Jefferson County, Washington
621117 PGS:16 NTIT
12/06/2018 02:55 PM $164.00 ' JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
Jefferson County WA Auditor's Office - Rose Ann Carroll, Auditor
1111 W&M914N"I41i h KFA461411214 11111
Please Type or Print Neatly and Clearly All Information
Document Title(s)
Notice To Title
Reference Number(s) of Related Documents
AFN 487270
Grantor(s) (Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial)
Jefferson County, a Municipal Corporation
Grantee(s) (Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial),'
City of Port Townsend, A Municipal Corporation
Jefferson Land Trust, a Washington Non-profit"Corporation
Legal Description (Abbreviated foam is acceptable, i.e. Sectionl'rownship/Range/Qtr Section or Lot(Biock/Subdivision)
Ptn NW 16-30-1 W
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID Number 001162016
The County Auditor will rely on the information provided on this form. The Staff will not read the document
to verify the accuracy and completeness of the indexing information provided herein.
Sign below'only if your document is Non -Standard.
I am requesting an emergency non-standard recording for an additional fee as provided in RCW 36.1&0 10.
I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some parts of
the text of the original document. Fee for non-standard processing is $50.
Signature of Requesting Party
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 ' W�J'ij'l 2018.
By
David an, Chair
Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners
Att ted:
Carolyn Gallaway, Deputy Cl k of the Board
Apirove�i�tom:�j- I: /I/ zo
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney
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.
Exhibit B
AGREEMENT between Jefferson County — City of Port Townsend — Jefferson
Land Trust concerning "Gateway Buffer Property" dated July 12, 2004
AGREEMENT
Jefferson County — City of Port Townsend — Jefferson band Trust
"North Gateway Buffer Property"
This Agreement, dated >_ _. 2004, is between Jefferson County, a
Municipal corporation ("County"), pity 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 S 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 S35,000, 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.
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 57,500 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 — Forth 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 finds in the approximate amount
of $7,500-$10,000 to partially reimburse the County for the purchase ofthe 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.
r. 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.
Agreement - North Gateway Buffer Property
Jefferson County - City of Port Townsend - Jefferson Land 'Frust
C. The prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to reasonable
attorneys' fees.
d. The venue of any action shall be Jefferson County, Washington, or
otherwise as provided by the laws of the State of Washington.
C. 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 O,F,�ORT T0,4VNSEND
BY
David Timnioix, City Manager
181 Quincy Street, #201
Port Townsend, WA 98368
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF,CO l I I . RS
By
Glen untingford, C rman
P. O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BY ,� B �<
i
John Watts, City Attorney RR Juelie Dalzell, Prosecuting A
ATTEST:
BY
Pam Kolacy, CMC, City Cle
JEFFERSON LAND TRUST,
a Washington non-profit corporation
Y
And
By
*cm-Kxyf, f. President
Ellen Crockett, Secretary
P. O. Box 1610
Port Townsend, WA 98368
ATTEST:
By
Lorna Delaney, Clerk ofthe Board "
Agreement - North Gateway Buffer Property
Jefferson County - City of Port Townsend - Jefferson Land Trust
Map Output Pa -0e I of I
LINK NO
Legend
Cr
Tovvis
Y
C3
C-1 17 ;--a, r. -t S"I
Road SvsIon,
�vv -
Boulidams
El
ar
vy
j I
FLORENCE ST
GLEt,. Cl,vE FD
Maps 0Y ccuilly Caifl.,a) GIS Q 6 • CK., 3
:OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY-
lefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respec
;orrectness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Fri Aug (
littp:llgisserverlsei-vlcticoiii.esri.esriniap.Esrimap?ServiceNaiiie=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.0... 8/6/2004
ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map
�.K�l (V-6
49
-2* Z I
LUPH�F
ST
WAY
LINK NO
Legend
Cr
Tovvis
Y
C3
C-1 17 ;--a, r. -t S"I
Road SvsIon,
�vv -
Boulidams
El
ar
vy
j I
FLORENCE ST
GLEt,. Cl,vE FD
Maps 0Y ccuilly Caifl.,a) GIS Q 6 • CK., 3
:OR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY-
lefferson County does not attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and makes no warranty with respec
;orrectness or validity. Data contained in this map is limited by the method and accuracy of its collection. Fri Aug (
littp:llgisserverlsei-vlcticoiii.esri.esriniap.Esrimap?ServiceNaiiie=ovmap&ClientVersion=4.0... 8/6/2004
Form No. 1402.92
(10/17/92)
ALTA Owner's Policy
111iff MCI -su:11;
-1
1�
ISStjED By
First American Title Insurance Company
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
corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage,
not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:
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;
3. Unmarieetability of the title;
4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land.
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys, fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but
only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
First American Title Insurance Company
B Y„PRESIDENT
J.. 9 4 9 9 3 6 ATI F.ST _ / SECRETARY
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
DEFINITION OF TERMS.
The following terms when used in this policy mean:
(a) "insured": the insured named in Schedule A, and,
subject to any rights or defenses the Company would have
had against the named insured, those who succeed to the
interest of the named insured by operation of law as
distinguished from purchase including, but not limited to,
heirs, distributees, devisees, survivors, personal representa-
tives, next of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors.
(b) "insured claimant": an insured claiming loss or
damage.
(c) "knowledge" or "known": actual knowledge, not
constructive knowledge or notice which may be imputed to
an insured by reason of the public records as defined in this
policy or any other records which impart constructive notice
of matters affecting the land.
(d) "land": the land described or referred to in
Schedule (A), and improvements affixed thereto which by law
constitute real properly. The term "land" does not include any
property beyond the lines of the area described or referred
to in Schedule (A), nor any right, title, interest, estate or
easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes,
ways or waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit
the extent to which aright of access to and from the land is
insured by this policy.
(e) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed,
or other security instrument.
(f) "public records": records established under state
statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting
constructive notice of matters relating to real property to
purchasers for value and without knowledge. With respect to
Section t(a)(N) of the Exclusions From Coverage, "public
records" shall also incude environmental protection gens filed
in the records of the clerk of the United States district court
for the district in which the land is located.
(g) "unmarketability of the title": an alleged or
apparent matter affecting the title to the land, not excluded or
excepted from coverage, which would entitle a purchaser of
the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be released
from the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual
condition requiring the delivery of marketable title.
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER
. CONVEYANCE OF TiTLE.
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as
of Date of policy in favor of an insured only so long as the
insured retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an
indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given
by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage
and shall stale, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating
the amount of the loss or damage. tt the Company is
prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to provide the
required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligations
to the insured under the policy shag terminate, including any
liability or obligation to defend, prosecute. or continue any
litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such
proof of loss or damage.
In addition, the insured claimant may reasonably be
required to submit to examination under oath by any
authorized representative of the Company and shall produce
for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable
times and places as may be designated by any authorized
representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers,
checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a
date before or after Date of Policy, which reasonably pertain
to the toss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized
representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall
grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized rep-
resentative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all
records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and mem-
oranda in the custody or control of a third party, which
reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. AN information
designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided
to the Company pursuant to this Section shag not be
disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the
Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim.
Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination
under oath, produce other reasonably requested information
or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary informa-
tion from third parties as required in this paragraph, unless
prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shag terminate
any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim.
6, OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS;
TERMINATION OF LIABILITY.
In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall
have the following additional options:
(a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of
Insurance.
To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance
under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which were
authorized by the Company, up to the time of payment or
tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to
pay.
Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all
liability and obligations to the insured under this policy, other
than to make the payment required, shall terminate, including
anv liahiliry nr nhlinatinn to &fund nrncnrirtP nr enntinna
for any loss or damage caused thereby.
(b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by
the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company
shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been
a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction,
and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title
as insured.
(c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or
damage to any insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the
insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written
consent of the Company.
10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR
TERMINATION OF LIABILITY.
All payments under this policy, except payments made
for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the
amount of the insurance pro tanto.
11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE.
it is expressly understood that the Amount of In-
surance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the
Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to
which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the
insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is
hereafter executed by an insured and which is a charge or
lien on the estate or interest described or referred to In
Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a
payment under this policy to the insured owner.
12. PAYMENT OF LOSS.
(a) No payment shall be made without producing this
policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has
been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or
destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the
Company.
(b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has
been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and
Stipulations, the loss or damage shag be payable within 30
days thereafter.
13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT
OR SETTLEMENT.
(a) The Company's R19M of Subfegatlon.
Whenever the Company shall have settied and paid a
claim under this policy, all right of subrogation shag vest in
the Company unaffected by any act of the insed claimAnt,
The Company shall be subrogated to and beIntitled to all
estate or Interest This policy shall not continue in force in
favor of any purchager from the insured of either (i) an estate
or interest in the land,•or (ii) an indebtedness secured by a
purchase motley mortgage given to the insured.
3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY
INSURED CLAIMANT.
The insured shall notify the Company promptly in
writing () in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a)
beloyv, (ii) in case knowledge shag come to an insured
hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to
the title to the estate or interest, as insured, and which might
cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable
by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if title to the estate or interest
as insured, is rejected as unmarketable. If prompt notice shali
not be given to the Company, then as to the insured all liability
of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or
matters for which prompt notice is required; provided,
however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case
prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless
the Company shag be prejudiced by the failure and then only
to the extent of the prejudice.
4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS;
DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE.
(a) Upon written request by the insured and subject to
the options contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and
Stipulations, the Company, at its own cost and without
unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of an
insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim
adverse to the title or interest as insured, but only as to those
stated causes of action alleging a defect, lien or en-
cumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy. The
Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice
(subject to the right of the insured to object for reasonable
cause) to represent the insured as to those stated causes of
action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of
any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs
or expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those
causes of action which allege matters not insured against by
this policy.
(b) The Company shall have the right, at its own cost,
to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do
any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or
desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest, as
insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the
insured. The Company may take any appropriate action under
the terms of this policy, whether or not it shag be liable
hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive
any provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its
rights under this paragraph, it shall do so dgigently.
(c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an
action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by the
provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any
litigation to final determination by a court of competent
jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole
discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or order.
(d) In all cases where this policy permits or requires
the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any
action or proceeding, the insured shall secure to the
Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the
action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the
Company to use, at its option, the name of the Insured for this
purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the insured,
at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all
reasonable aid (1) in any action or proceeding, securing
evidence, obtaining witnesses,.prosecuting or defending the
action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (f) in any
other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be
necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or
interest as insured. K the Company is prejudiced by the failure
of the insured to fumish the required cooperation, the
Company's obligations to the Insured under the policy shall
terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend,
prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter
or matters requiring such cooperation.
5. PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE.
in addition to and after the notices required under
Section 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been
provided the Company, a proof of loss or damage signed and
sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the
Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall
ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage. The
proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect in, or lien
or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured against
(b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than
the Insured or With the Insured Claimant.
(i) to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for
or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured
against under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys'
fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which
were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment
and which the Company Is obligated to pay; or
(ii) to pay or otherwise settle with the insured
claimant the loss or damage provided for under this policy,
together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the
Company up to the time of payment and which the Company
is obligated to pay.
Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the
options provided for in paragraphs (b)(i) or (ii), the Com-
pany's obligations to the insured under this policy for the
claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to
be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation
to defend, prosecute or continue any litigation.
7. DETERMINATION, EXTENT OF LIABILITY
AND COINSURANCE.
This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual
monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the
insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason
of matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent
herein described.
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall
not exceed the least of:
(i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A;
or
(ii) the difference between the value of the insured
estate or interest as insured and thevalue of the insured estate
or interest subject to the detect, lien or encumbrance insured
against by this policy.
(b) in the event the Amount of Insurance stated in
Schedule A at the Date of Policy is less than 80 percent of
the value of the insured estate or interest or the full
consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if
subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected
on the land which increases the value of the insured estate
or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of
Insurance stated in Schedule A, then this Policy is subject to
the following:
(I) where no subsequent improvement has been
made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the
loss pro rata in the proportion that the Amount of Insurance
at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured estate
or interest at Date of Policy; or (u) where a subsequent
Improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the
Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that
120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule
A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in
Schedule A and the amount expended for the improvement.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to
costs, attomeys' fees and expenses for which the Company
is liable under this policy, and shall only apply to that portion
of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent of
the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A.
(c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys'
fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of
Use Conditions and Stipulations.
B. APPORTIONMENT.
If the land described in Schedule (A)(C) consists of two
or more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss
is established affecting one or mon; of the parcels but not all,
the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as
if the Amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro
rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel
to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made sub-
sequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has
otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the
Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this
policy and shown by an express statement or by an
endorsement attached to this policy.
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY!
(a) K the Company establishes the title, or removes the
alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a
right of access to or from the land, or cures the claim of
unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent
manner by any method, including litigation and the comple-
tion of any appeals therefrom, it shag have fully performed its
obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable
w Nv,,.., o . v we—, - 1.4-1w v, u,c v..—p—p
the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights
and remedies against any person or property' niic8sarq in
order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured
claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or
settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the name
of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation
Involving these rights or remedies.
if a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover
the loss of the insured claimant, the Company shall be
subrogated to these rights and remedies in the proportion
which the Company's payment bears to the whole amount
of the loss.
If loss should result from any act of the insured
claimant, as stated above, that act shall not void this policy,
but the Company, in that event, shall be required to pay only
that part of any losses insured against by this policy which
shall exceed the amount, 9 any, lost to the Company by
reason of the Impairment by the insured claimant of the
Company's right of subrogation.
(b) The Company's Rights Against non -Insured
Obligors.
The Company's right of subrogation against non-
insured obligors shag exist and shall include, without
limitation, the rights of the insured to indemnities, guaranties,
other policies of insurance or bonds, notwithstanding any
terms or conditions contained in those instruments which
provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy.
14. ARBITRATION.
Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Com-
pany or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the
Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not
limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company
and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any
service of the Company in connection with its issuance or
the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All
arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is
$1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either
the Company or the insured_ All arbitrable matters when the
Amount of Insurance is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be
arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the
insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the
Rules in effect on the date the demand for arbitration is made
or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Date of
Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may
include attorneys' fees only K the laws of the state in which
the land is located permit a court to award attorneys' fees to
a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the
Arbitrator(s) may be a ;tared in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an
arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules.
A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the
Company upon request.
15. LIABILffY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY;
POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT.
(a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any,
attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and
contract between the insured and the Company. In interpret-
ing any provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed
as a whole.
(b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not
based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of
the title to the estate or interest covered hereby or by any
action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this policy.
(c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy
can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached
hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the
Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or
authorized signatory of the Company.
16, SEVERABILITY.
In the event arty provision of the policy is held invalid
or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be
deemed not to include that provision and all other provisions
shall remain in full force and effect.
17. NOTICES, WHERE SENT
AI notices MgUWW to Oe given the Company arW any statement
in writirp required b be famished the Company shag k dude the
number of this porcy and stral be addressed io the Company at
1 First Mwican way, Santa Ma, CaRomia 92707, or b the office
wtkh lssued this policy.
42t.
SCHEDULE A
AMOUNT OF INSURANCE: $50,375.00
PREMIUM: 296.00
DATE OF POLICY: July 23, 2004 at 12:10 PM
1. NAME OF INSURED:
JEFFERSON COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation
POLICY NO. 1949936
Order No. 64566-P
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:
Countersigned:
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
9
SCHEDULE A-4
Policy No. 1949936
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
59
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.
Since.r-e l y,
R
L�etliany -.Smith
Final Policy Dept
enclosures
JEFFERSON COUNTY TREASURER
P.O. Box 571 - Port rownsend, uvvastiington 98368
Ernail: jrnorri5 �co.je ffor5c n.vti a.us
wvvv. r:o.��f'r2iSOil.w��.us
Yudith E. Morris — Treasurer (360) :385-9154
5anetA. Holbroo) ,- Chief Deputy (360) 385-9151
December 8, 2004
Jefferson Land Trust
P 0 Box 1610
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: North Gateway Buffer Property Payment
President, Mark Demsbro
JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE
PORT TOWNSEND. WASHINGTON
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.
c—
...
Judi Morris, Treasurer
CC: John Fischbach, County Administrator; Juelie Dalzell, Prosecuting Attorney.
General Tax
Accounting Won -nation Foreclosure
(360) 385-''152 '(360) 38.5-9150 (36(1) 385-9352
Fax
(360)385-9149
0
•
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 thein prior to the meeting.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
Att t:
Pamela Kolacy, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Business Meeting Page 12
July 6, 2004
DRAFT
ArclMS HTML Viewer Ma
37801101991000401 9X30St
_
9970W02 �
001083012 rW,U 001094W5
�9TOW6U=___1I1_499r7W000su1�c0>t cxJ�ca�aWa
W10930L1001043023 00100006I W1093WT 001094r07 00109400A
Wt093005 001093022 01093024
{ �°� -_
Cupola St ` _::. { - 001093008 Way.
r
550?JU4Ut i 1 95074202 950?4109 S
J7W40fi '
41083011 950?WWI 9�+}T002U1, i }':55UTWtUtf j
{ 950700A05 ----x 95014305 ._ 950?00207_.. L .. 4,09402,
950'14102
9 50700403 cx' 0700501 i ' 950700601 0 1
95014?UL _�...1.,, 950?W8029507008U1
.41093015 t) 001093011 001093003 4,091009'.; rJU1v94Wb
OOI 3018 `
Legend
Selected F6atures
(� Wt093ot7 001093020
Guo pub Rd _ 001093016 __.
I , . �.-... __ . _..
963300102
963302601 +62013
963,W24U1 ! �9i}330t50t 96334101 W 4 i
;' g 963301401001162014 +� Wt161rJ02
Towns
{ - lri
�., CauniySmt
�0
(}011T14t0 41162022 -
"9ii334x60x 9633CY}201 0011,61004
RuralCattars
;._
f
*
96330x301`
4311'11011 _.. .._.: `. tr WttEi2001 �,,
,. JC_Roads
' r ..._ _.
,:,
Wti?1031 963iUt?01 f 41162016 W1161Cti2
Parcels ti
%S3012.01 .
1 1I R
931100601 41162019
W1162024 96.139110# - 001162013
933
,
1tOG12 11 00116202131 963301803 96.iif5(bA01 :: 621 0 :_: j....... W11fi+001 •.
931 001162018 �+ 1 411620x0
a ; ! 0f.1162004 001,162002
� t
1
Arcadia West '" - „•� 9633LX)41 {0011620 5 O(?1162W 1
41,1101? j Q$9bd30100 41x6247 9924WI01 W1161W1 .'
n --d
W 09 1710W11fi2009 11 _.. ( (N ._._ 001tfi2(YJ6
9633020011 1 963300601 ; y - ! 99140(401 001 162W
. -
0011110,12 , :. ' ....-- g ` : "�""" 00/16143
W19fitW3
(49633U2t4t9631UG1603
9•tTx�tU0A8oren Av
y
963301105 ,*
9633U2y(?t 1.
t a r 9471Ut?5U24 94T=GY7EiS}�, i
963302201, 96330080-19633470{{t 94714402 94710052q 100601 c
.94
.. 963302505 _._.. 963302x05 %nW703 i = Denny Av f __._.- -! w
4 -- = Florence St : , 963300806 917+0090, 9A7100802 947100101t cn ._ ...
941100001 Glen Cave Rti °'"•
963:302802 AM?=k1 9867W302 9867X403 i 7��}1 986700702. '•1 9"1314 101,
9wiolzo9531420'
1i�a anckdtry' e1bs��CaxryCesmy3cr o�ttt_5386?0110". ;t 9867W9{kt' *60-M. 1 9S3100102 (•,
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
Owner Mailing Address:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
COURTHOUSE
PO BOX 1220
PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368-0920
Site Address:
98368-0920
Section:
Qtr Section:
Township:
Ran(
Plann
Sub
Lanc
9836
Prop+
S16
08/15/2014
16 School District: Port Townsend (50)
N W 1/4 Fre Dist: Chimacum (1)
30N Tax Status: COUNTY
�v0
O� Q��-.,
$ C
t� 1
District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers
County Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Loma Delaney
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 y
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 Tittemess 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 Tittemess
moved to delete Item 46 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, CZM310; 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 V
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 Tittemess 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 Tittemess 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 Tittemess 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 Tittemess 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 Tittemess 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
Tittemess 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 SRI 04
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 SRI 04 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 Tittemess 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 Mfor 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 EISprocess 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 }
y�
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, includingpotential 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(l 0) 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 V
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 414 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 ADJOW.Q -.. JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONER
SEAL:
v ,
GeAHuniin f rd, C
ATTEST:��-
1 (tet '} jCitx,� C'�+� L. Dan Titterness, Member
,lie Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Patrick M. Rodgers, Member
Page 12
District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness
District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No. 3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers
County Administrator: John F. Fischbach
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
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, Department 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
Minutes: Week of Jul
12, 2004
DI
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
4•
Plan; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Washington State Department of Ecology
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 VC -1
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 AWO> ED
SEAL:
ATTEST:
Ji lie Matthes, CMC
Deputy Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Patrick M. Rodgers, Member
Page 3
1IN NII1111111IlliSIIIIIA1111NI1111111X1148'2'0
07l23/26e4 12:18P
Jefferson County, Np JEffEMN TITLE 00 I $10 20.00
Filed at the request of. Jefferson County Excise Tax
and when recorded return to:
Aff # 100881_Date -o --d CIOP. O. Box 1449
Pacific Funding Corporation 'Tax $ Salea Ami $
Edmonds, WA 98020 By 9 Deputy Treasurer
R— 6 4 5 6 b SPECIAL. WARRANTY DEED
Grantor(s): Pacific Funding Corporation and Twin Cedars Associates �_ �• \�
Grantee(s): Jefferson County z
Abbreviated Legal: Portion of NW 1/4 of Section 16, Township 30 North, Range 1 West, W.M., Jef e{^gr otrGounty,'Washington.
Additional Legal(s) on page: 2
Assessors Tax Parcel Number(s): 001-162-016
THE GRANTORS, Pacific Funding Corporation (a Washington corporation) acid Twin ,Cedars Associates (a
Washington partnership), each as to an undivided 1/2 interest as tenants in common, for and "nsidedtion of TEN DOLLARS
AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION in hand paid, grant, bargain; ' cTmYey a`ttd wnfirm to Jefferson
County, a Washington municipal corporation, the following described real estate st�eated�l1 ffersoh•�6unty, Washington:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated hereii(by�tbjs �pLr,I C.
Ptn NW 16-30-1W
Subject to: Right to make necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon th andhetein descrt'6ed as granted to Jefferson County, State
of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 239669.
The Grantors, for themselves and for their successors in interest d�by ese prese is gxpressly limit the covenants of the deed
to those herein expressed, and exclude all covenants arising or to ari$eby sistuto or,&her implication, and do hereby covenant
that against all persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim by, through orAnder said Grantors and not otherwise, they
will forever warrant and defend the said described Teal estate.
Dated this 21st day of July, 2004.
Pacific Funding Corporation, a Washington corporation vtinrfates ashington partnership
By
Its Se-6etary/Treasurer I > ' Its Managing General Partner
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)ss. �.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
On this 21st day of July, 2004, e�Qre me; theundersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly
commissioned and sworn persogal)y appe re arks tiger, to me known to be the Secretary/Treasurer of Pacific Funding
Corporation, the co_ N�th}t ektted a in
instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act ate''.• ation, ?or the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was
authorized to =iceQd[pQq l Bye gas aru�thq the seal affixed is the corporate seat of said corporation.
miy a sBaLhefeto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written.
3a �� ROTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at
' • Ofi Bellevue. My commission expires 04/30/2006.
j?Sl= 2'���-✓
STATE OFWASliAJ�TO)i:' ,� )
ss.
COUNTY CJfi `=,•i,�s.G )
'.
Ulth itis 21" dyc �L personally appeared before me Eric Evans, known to me to be the Managing General
Partner bf Twin GEd3rs S.�ej ship that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument
to befre�d a�yo1�d4�SfitD�bcr 1}id partnership for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
th6at.he w 3,anthtio&w e ment.
�WITNI' S ttly�anda � $ereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written.
La\ �'�� / , jf r' '9a•.•y �6 fffTTTttt �.-•�•s��
'N •••••i_ ` No Public in and for the State of Washington residing at
�� Aeo . My commission expires:.
I�IIIIiIIIIII IN IIIIIIHIllil1111111111148'2t 1
87123 x'0 6P
Jefforton CtwntY. WA JEFFERSON TITLE CO I SW 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; �,,'�S�CEPT that
portion lying Easterly of State Highway S.R.20; __ V11
ALSO EXCEPT a strip of land conveyed to Jefferson CButi�iL-ty-_fpJ'county
road by deed dated January 21, 1977 and recorded,-un23 r �yu�litor; s
File No. 239669, records of said county; r l i
ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of Discovery )=Qad right-of-
way;
ALSO EXCEPT the North 200 feet ther�f l�ii!!"etween Discovery
Road right-of-way and State Highway /2p -
ALSO EXCEPT that portion lying So''it�ier1yf Jacob Miller Road
right-of-way.
Situate in the County of Jeffe�bn, State of Washington.
y
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
City Council Meeting Date: July 19, 2004
_X_Regular Business Meeting
Study Session
Other: (specify)
Department: Legal
Contact: John Watts
Agenda Bill: AB04-129.A
Agenda Item: V.0
Date Submitted: July 12, 2004
Phone: #385-5991
.....................................................................................................................
SUBJECT: - Revision - Gateway Buffer Agreement with Jefferson County and Jefferson
Land Trust
CATEGORY:
X_Consent Resolution
Ordinance Staff Report
Business Proclamation
*Contract Approval FYI
Other
Public Hearing (see note below)
Legislative
_Quasi-judicial open record
BUDGET IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: $.
Expenditure Amt: $
Contingency Req'd: $.
Supplemental Req'd. _
Quasi-judicial closed 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: 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 aportion) or a
sum eaual 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.
..........................................................................................0..........................
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: I COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Resolution No. Continued to
Ordinance No. Referred to
Department Director or
Name of Council Committee & Date of Motion Approved
Other
City Manager
City Attorney
Failed
DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
City Council Meeting Date: July 6, 2004
–X—Regular Business Meeting
Study Session
Other: (specify)
Agenda Bill: AB04-117
Agenda Item: V.H
Date Submitted: June 29, 2004
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
Ordinance Staff Report
Business Proclamation
X_Contract Approval FYI
Other
Public Hearing (see note below)
Legislative _
_Quasi-judicial open record
Amount Budgeted: $.
Expenditure Amt: $
Contingency Req'd: $
Supplemental Req'd. .
Quasi-judicial closed 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: 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: I COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN
Resolution No. Continued to
Ordinance No. Referred to
Department Director or
Name of Council Committee & Date of Motion Approved
Other
City Manager
City Attorney
Failed
DISTRIBUTION AFTER COUNCIL ACTION
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 201h 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 ug alitX 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 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 tcchniquc.
(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.
I Icrbicides 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.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrat
FROM: Mark McCauley, Central Se irec r
DATE: November 11, 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:
Orley, Co drain trator Date