Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM050195 c7="-Ä~ fJ.~ c-~ ~¿,~ ~~ v MINUTES WEEK OF MAY 1, 1995 The meeting was called to order by Chainnan Glen Huntingford. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Richard W ojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of April 24, 1995 as submitted. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Harold Schmidt re: Proclamation for National Maritime Day; Mr. Schmidt reported that 250,000 civilians served in World War II as merchant marines. Due to the draft into the service, there was a shortage of merchant mariners during the war. The Merchant Marines provided delivery services for the military and domestic functions. They enlisted men from 15 to 18 and 30 to 70 years of age. Merchant Mariners have finally, after many years, been recognized as veterans (1991 in Washington State). The US Merchant Mariners was formed in 1521 as mariners of the colonies. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the proclamation for National Maritime Day as read. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mr. Schmidt reported that on May 28, 1995 at 11:30 a.m. on KCTS there will be a one hour documentary regarding the merchant marines called "The Men Who Sailed the Liberty Ships." GMA Update: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported on the meetings scheduled this week including the Forest Resource Lands ordinance hearing tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Chimacum High School Auditorium, and the workshop scheduled for next Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers to review comments on the amendments to the critical aquifer recharge areas ordinance. The Board concurred that comments will be accepted on the Forest Resource Lands ordinance until Friday May 5, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: Fire District No.1 's (Chimacum) plans to take over the emergency medical services on Marrowstone VOL Pi 48·~ .>' , A."..... (..¡ í tJ~; '.. . ... i. .':':':':':':':':':':':': ..:{frz,::':::::::::::::J .......... ....... ..:::::=::::::::;:;r: :::::::::::;;;: ...................... ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ........................ ................................................. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Island from a local non-profit group; the newsletter to be sent to all citizens about the commu- nity planning process and GMA issues; a petition from property owners in the Kala Point area supporting adoption of the aquifer recharge section of the Critical Areas Ordinance and the letter from Kala Point Property Owners Association asking to be exempted from the aquifer recharge sections of that ordinance; concerns regarding the request from CAC for the donation of land for a Community Resource Center; and whether Total Quality Management is working for the County. PR ND AD PTI F THE NSEN DA· After discussion of few items, Commissioner W ojt moved to delete item 11 and approve and adopt the balance 0 the items as submitted. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion carried by a unanimous v te. 1. CAL FOR BIDS re: One (1) New Self Propelled Compacting Roller; Bid Ope' g, Monday, May 15, 1995 at 11:15 a.m. 2. AG EMENT re: Rural Arterial Program Projects #1695-01 & #1689-01; To Recon truct Paradise Bay Road, CR1148 and Beaver Valley Road (SRI9), CR0811; State County Road Administration Board 3. Projec Application re: Hazard Elimination Program for Projects Having High Accid nt Potential (Group II); Install a Retaining Wall and Guardrail; Road No. 25000 , Dosewallips Road 4. Projec Applications re: Hazard Elimination Program for Projects Having High Accid t Potential (Group II); Retrofit and Install Bridge Rails: 1) letcher Bridge; Road No. 911607; Quinault-South Shore Road 2) derson Bridge; Road No. 134309; Oil City Road 3) inger Longer Bridge; Road No. 301309; Linger Longer Road 4) owns Creek Bridge; Road No. 146809; South Bogachiel Road 5. Appo' t Voting Members to the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC); 'chard Wojt, Jefferson County ary Rowe, Jefferson County Planning arry Fay, Jefferson County Health Department arry Smith, Ludlow Water Company ichael Langley, Kala Point Utility Co. ranz Gruber, Jefferson County Water District #1 ark McKibbin, Olympus Beach Tracts Inc. y Heffernan, Jefferson County Water District #3 ay Butler, Fort Worden State Park ene Seton, Discovery Bay NACO West 6. Final S bdivision Approval, Irene's Short Plat #SUB94-0045; Divide 7.91 Acres into T 0 Lots; Located off of Wild Wood Road, Quilcene; Frank Hyde 7. AG EMENT re: 1995 Community Services Grant Funding; Clallam/Jefferson Comm 'ty Action Council (CAC) 8. Applic tion for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; American Legion Post #26 fo $500.00 9. Appro e Payment from Housing Rehabilitation Trust Fund; Two (2) Rehabilita- tion L ans, $16,086.50; City of Port Angeles 10. Accept Recommendation to Reject Claim #C-5-95, $1,030; Loss of Timber; Kirk Salvat re 11. DELE E Accept Recommendation to Approve Claim #C-4-95, $377.65; Water Damage to Office Furniture William E. Howard 12. Reapp int Member to Serve Another Two Year Term on the Jefferson County Parks dvisory Board; Term Expires OS/21/97; Kate Spear ~VOL 21 rAC~ 482 ..::::¡jjj¡j¡j~ ..;:::::::::::;:;:;: ..·..·12.....· ....... . ...... ..::::~:¡:¡:;:~:¡:;:::... .::~:~:¡:~:¡:~ ..................... ...................... ...................... .,::::::::::::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May I, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 13. Accept Resignations and Appoint New Members to Serve Unexpired Terms on the Jefferson County Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board; Each Term will Expire on 09/19/96; RESIGNED MEMBERS Judy Harder Lorna Schoeneman Joy Marrs Ed Sasser 14. NEW MEMBERS Sheila Westerman Jeanne Paddock Koester Marie Smith Carolyn Major Robert McCaughin Final Subdivision Approval #SUB94-0043; Divide 2.5 Acres into 5 Lots; Located off of Masonic Hall Road; Marion L. Olson HEARING NOTICE re: Conditional Use Application; Construct a Cellular Communications Facility; Steel Tower and Building; Located off of Camelot Road, Quilcene; U.S. West New Vector Group Inc.; Hearing Set for Monday, May 15, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. HEARING NOTICE re: Fee Schedule in Ordinance No. 13-0926-94, Develop- ment Review Division of the Permit Center; Hearing Set for Monday, May 22, 1995 at 10:35 a.m. 15. 16. Appoint Additional Voting Members to the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC): Commissioner W ojt moved to appoint the following as voting members of the Water Utility Coordinating Committee, in addition to the members appointed previously (see Consent Agenda item.) Ted Shoulberg, Port Townsend Water System; Jim Parker, Jefferson County PUD; Gerald E. Taylor, Cape George Colony; David Mathis, Bridgehaven Water Works; Clarence Shelton, Pleasant Tides Water Co-op; Gary Winberg, Snow Creek Ranch; and Harry Louch, Dosewallips State Park. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Chet Dalgleish re: Variance Request: Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that in 1994 the Brinnon Beach Estates plat was approved and all of the lots were planned to meet the setback standards in effect at that time. At the time of plat approval the setback for one lot was 20 feet from the right-of-way of Never Give Up Road and 20 feet from Highway 101. Since then the Zoning Code was changed to require a setback of 50 feet from an arterial (Highway 101.) This increased setback requirement along Highway 101 makes this lot unbuildable. Mr. Dalgleish can apply for a variance with an application fee of $246, but he feels that he shouldn't have to because his plat met all of the requirements when it was approved. David Goldsmith noted that Mr. Dalgleish could apply for the variance, but then there is the issue of the fee. Another alternative would be to have the Board established a specific setback for the one lot on this plat with the problem, because it was designed under the standards in effect at the time of approval and only required a 20 foot setback from Highway 101. Chet Dalgleish agreed to look at how his lot will be impacted by the approval of a 20 foot setback from Highway 101. The Board advised that if Mr. Dalgleish wants an additional setback l VOL 21 rAG~ 483 ..::::~l:::::iilllllll::1111111 ..::::¡:~¡:¡:¡:i:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:¡:;:~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . variance from Never Give Up Road he will have to make a variance application, pay the fee, and have a hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Board members met after lunch to interview a person interested in serving on the Shoreline Management Advisory Commission, Commissioner District #2. Appointment of Member of the Shoreline Commission: Commissioner Hinton moved to appoint Leonard Palmer to an unexpired term on the Shoreline Commission representing Commissioner District #2. His term will expire March 1, 1996. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed for the balance of the afternoon and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. at the Chima cum High School Auditorium for the following hearing. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Interim Resource Lands Ordinance: Chainnan Huntingford explained the hearing procedures and introduced Senior Planner James Holland who gave an overview of the draft ordinance and thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work on drafting this ordinance. The Chainnan then opened the public hearing. Jeny Gorsline, noted that Section 2.05 states that the commercial forest element in the Comprehensive Plan must bear a substantial relationship to this ordinance. He agrees and noted that is why he is concerned that the ordinance be done right. Essentially, this will be the fmal designation. The GMA requires both designation and protection. This ordinance goes a good way toward adequate designation, but the protection side is a failure. The map which accompa- nies this proposal gives the appearance that it succeeds in meeting the GMA goal for Counties to conserve large parcels of productive forest land for future generations. This is not the case. Development standards in combination with a provision to allow a minimum designation, contained in Section 6.00 would lead to the continued loss of forest lands. For example, an indeterminate amount of commercial forest will be converted to rural forest lands. 30% to 40% of rural forest lands can be converted from resource production to residential development. An indeterminate amount of rural forest land can be converted to rural lands and removed entirely from the resource base. Application of the net yield criteria will cause this conversion to occur in a random pattern based on non-contiguous soil types contained within the broad land grade units. This will fÌ'agment and disintegrate the large commercial blocks. Rural forest development standards will lead to incompatible development, both within and adjacent to commercial forest blocks. The map does not reflect these factors. The provision to amend designation will operate in such a random and unpredictable way that its effects cannot be mapped or measured. This is unacceptable. The public must have a map or other measure- ment that clearly displays the consequences of any proposal before it can fairly evaluate it. The map needs to exactly reflect the limitation of the criteria. And both landowners and the public need an approach that will provide stability and predictability. Regarding development standards, Mr. Gorsline believes a multi-tier approach works well for Jefferson County and he supports the effort to give landowners the flexibility to develop a portion of their rural forest land parcels, but that development should occur in densities and physical patterns that are compatible with forest management. He recommends densities of one per eighty for commercial forests and one per forty for rural forests. Development should be tVOL 21 rAG~ 484. ~ - Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . concentrated on the perimeter of resource blocks. This could be accomplished by creating a third tier made up of parcels that are adjacent to rural lands. This Rural Forest 2 density could be one per ten with clustering used to conserve and buffer resource lands when receiving transferrable development rights from commercial forest and Rural Forest 1. Section 8.04 allows agriculture and animal husbandry as a permitted use. Both of these land uses clearly have the potential of being incompatible with forestry. They should be conditional uses, and clearly limited on a case by case basis. In conclusion, Mr. Gorsline said that it is his view that this proposal as it stands, fails to adequately conserve forest resource lands and protect them from incompatible development. Sandra Smith said that she would like to see the density reduced in the commercial forest land to one per eighty in most of the areas that are large blocks and then go to one per forty in other areas, that are developed already. According to the way the ordinance is written now, if someone wants to quarrel with whether or not their land should be designated commercial forest, they can go to a hearing and bring the testimony of a professional forester. Can someone else go to that hearing with the opinion of another professional forester and argue the opposite? Chainnan Huntingford indicated that he doesn't know if that is true or not. Sandra Smith noted that if that isn't allowed, the County will be relying on the testimony of someone who is paid by the landowner to change the countywide designation. If another opinion is allowed, what will the County do about two professional, qualified foresters who give different opinions? She can only see one alternative which would be for the County to hire a third forester that the County will pay to decide this issue. This could get expensive and she questioned the outcome if you go by productivity yields. Martha Hurd, representing the State Department of Natural Resources, submitted and read her statement. (See microfilm record.) Chairman Huntingford said that the Planning Commission has done a lot of work on coming up with the net yield of 25,000 board feet. He asked what the DNR can present to show that 17,000 is profitable? Martha Hurd answered that the DNR provided information on yields over a series of different intensive management regimes that would be used by industrial forest land owners. This information showed net yields of 17,000 to about 20,000 on land grade 4 lands. Going back through the same information that the Planning Commission and Planning staff put together, using a number of different criterion and estimates, the numbers that came up ranged from 4% to 8% based on different assumptions used. Chairman Huntingford then asked if the DNR has a recommendation regarding replanting, since it was pointed out in her testimony that the County Ordinance is more restrictive on replanting than the State Forest Practices Act? Martha Hurd answered that she feels it would be unclear to a small forest land owner which regulation would apply. She feels this portion needs to be written better. Doug Reeves, Quilcene, said that he is a logger, developer, mechanic, welder, etc. He would like to see logging and development go on in this community. Property taxes have gone up so much that land lowers are taking the timber off their land to pay their taxes. These are very small parcels. 10 to 15 or 20 people in Quilcene run small businesses and log and the money stays in the community. He likes to see that. In most of the big State timber sales, there are usually an out of County or out of State buyers. These people come in, take our wood, and spend the money somewhere else. He would like to see our money stay in the community. Steve Hayden, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, reviewed the following points: 1) Clustering provisions in the second tier of the forest zone: The way this Ordinance is written it would allow clustering up to one unit per five acres on 40% of a parcel , VOL 21 rAG~485 ..:::t:::::::¡¡I:II/:I::i: ......:1::...... ..::::~~fj¡I¡~II¡j¡jjjj¡il¡¡¡¡jijj¡1¡ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May I, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in the rural forest designation. That may not be bad, but it depends entirely on where the development is located within a block of forestry. If there's one thing that we've heard consistently for the last two years from foresters, it's that residential intrusion into blocks of forest land is the biggest problem they have to deal with and the biggest impediment to practicing good forestry. He suggested that the clustering option be allowed only along the perimeter of large commercial blocks and not anywhere within the block that happens to be rural forest. 2) Transferable Development Rights: This is a good start, but the way it's written it will make the problem with clustering even worse. It's not clear in the ordinance whether transferrable development rights into a clustered zone is an addition to the allowed cluster or if has to be part of it. Again, he feels that the transfer of development rights should be exclusively to the perimeter parcels of large blocks. TDR's are a powerful tool, but there needs to be a lot of thought about the impact on receiving and sending properties. 3) Basing the criteria for designation on an economic model that purports to project net income off a given yield: This is a bogus model because: ¡ when the criteria and assumptions were developed every one of the assump- tions about cost were conservative in favor of the property owner (costs were high), and everything on the income side was conservative in the favor of the property owner also (income was low). The whole thing from the outset is slanted to favor the property owner as represented by the Planning Commission. The intent in the Planning Commission was to show that there was a minimal income available from Class 4 lands in particular. This has a built in bias. ¡ There are a number of significant factors left out of the economic model. One factor that was left out is that there is no reference to the deferred land taxes under the timber tax program in the economic model. In the Timber Tax program a large amount of the tax on the property (assessed at highest and best use) is deferred as long as that land is kept in the timber des- ignation. For example a property in the timber designation taxed at highest and best use of $3,500 per acre, could have a tax status of $250 per acre. This is a savings of about $40 per year per acre in deferred taxes. This lowers the operating costs for a timber grower, and that money is also available for reinvestment. If this is factored into the economic model the profit picture on forestry in Jefferson County looks radically different. ¡ U sing the specific yield measurements to decide if a property is in or out of the classification, and allowing individuals to contest on the basis of specific numbers will be a nightmare administratively. There is no one on County staff that is knowledgeable about forest land grades and without that, the public interest part of the equation will always come up short. The hard part of this process, Steve Hayden concluded, is balancing private and public interests. This draft ordinance is moving in that direction, trying to get real specific with an economic model that is flawed, will not hold water. Chainnan Huntingford asked Mr. Hayden, with regard to the timber tax program, if he would rather not allow people to have the tax break to keep their parcels in forestry? Mr. Hayden answered that he is in favor of the timber tax program, but he feels that it must be a factor used in the economic modeling. Janet Welch, said that in large part she feels that this is a pretty good document. She feels there are some major glitches in the classification and designation scheme. The net yield inclusion is inappropriate, inaccurate, and unworkable, for all the reasons previously mentioned. She stated : VOL 21 rA.G~48ß ,,:.:.:.:.:.;.:. .'::::::::::;:;:;:;:; ·······6····.. ........ ...... ................ ............. ......... ...... ..::::tf¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡r¡j:i;j¡~¡¡¡¡¡¡~¡j . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that she is also concerned about the requirement that any parcel within a half a mile of rural or suburban land is automatically excluded. Lines were drawn on a zoning map to distinguish between resource lands and rural lands. To automatically pull the resource boundary back a half mile simply because that line exists, makes no sense, whatsoever. At the very least those should be rural forest zones. Potentially many of those areas could be commercial forest zones. It's appropriate to have large blocks of land designated as commercial forest lands, but people have been taking advantage of a window of opportunity to break commercial forest land into twenty acre parcels to avoid laws such as these. Where commercial forest lands have been broken into twenty acre parcels, but are still under all the other considerations in this designation scheme, it would be appropriate for those to be rural forestry as well. Just because someone segregated 500 acres into 20 acre parcels, doesn't automatically mean they should no longer be rural forestry. She suggested that rural forestry be a nominal 20 acres or greater in size. Randy Johnson, Managing Director ofMRGC Company and the President of Green Crow Company, stated that they own approximately 5,000 acres equally split between the east and west side of the County. When looking at the long term economic returns from forest lands, Mr. Johnson agreed that the yield must be looked at. He totally agrees with using the yield criteria in this ordinance, because he feels it is the type of economic criteria that is mandated by the Growth Management Act. He also appreciates that there is a tier 2 timberland. There are some modifications needed, but he will address that in his written comments. Commissioner Wojt asked Mr. Johnson about the determination of productivity if there is a challenge with one forester saying one thing and another forester saying something else? Mr. Johnson stated that its been his experience with the consulting foresters he has used, that they usually come up with determinations which are not that different Dick Broders, Discovery Bay, read information from the DCD which says "Cities and counties are each required to determine which private forest land grade levels they will consider as forest lands of long term commercial significance. Forest lands of long term commercial significance will include land classified in the high levels of the private forest land grade classification system." From a document called Future Prospects for Western Washington's Timber Supply the land grades (productivity classes) are listed for Western Hemlock (essentially land in the western portions of Jefferson County) land grade 1 is superb; land grade 2 is very high; land grade 3 is high; land grade 4 is medium and land grade 5 is low. On the table for the productiv- ity classes for Douglas Fir sites, which is essentially the land in east Jefferson County, it says land grade 1 is very high; grade 2 is high; grade 3 is medium and grade 4 is low and grade 5 is very low. This only allows five land grades with land grade 4 being called low. If the County is to designate the higher land grades, and you include grade 4, then low will have to equal high. Most jurisdictions have not included land grade 4. Foresters have said that generally the lands in east Jefferson County is even less productive than many other areas of the State. He feels only including through land grade 3 is consistent with the 25,000 board feet. Regarding the model which says 7.75% and 25,000 board feet, he has noticed that his logging and land maintenance costs in general are considerably higher than those that the Planning Commission used. He doesn't feel that the costs that were used in the model can be characterized as high and the value of the product as low. As far as the 7.75% rate of return over 50 years, he would invest his money, if he didn't enjoy doing forestry, in stock which has larger dividends, and can be liquidated with a phone call. Wendy Wrinkle, representing the Shine Community Action Council, stated that she has been watching these maps change over the years. There is a large section of property owned by Pope Resources near the property owned by her family. Over the last few years Pope Resources has had a lot of that land still in timber tax designation as they de-forested it, and still in timber tax lVOL 21 rAC~ 487 ..::;::{::::::!::·.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as it sat for the last three years in the plat processes (Shine Canyon, Teal Vista I and II.) She hopes that the Commissioners will keep in mind, during this process, the interaction between Interim Urban Growth Boundaries, aquifer recharge protection for those boundaries and urban growth areas, and the violation the County has already incurred as well as the emergency types of situations that can be produced when you start needing water systems to serve those forest lands. She feels that the County needs to look at the areas that are vulnerable to being swapped by DNR or are lik~ly to be converted. Gat)' Phillips, Quilcene, stated that he feels its interesting that the only map at this hearing is of eastern Jefferson County. There is approximately 250,000 acres in western Jefferson County that will need to be mapped as well as the only lumber mill in the County of any consequence. They (the Planning Commission) did use a 7.75% return in the economic analysis, which was approximately 3~% less than the two private foresters recommended. When you look at 7.75% return you need to realize the consequences of this in relation to timber growing: 1) you have a negative cash flow for 45 years, 2) lack of liquidity, and 3) lack of ability to deal with inheri- tance tax issues. In the economic analysis no land value was used which may not be the proper way of doing this because people paid for that land and the use of that money is also something that should be considered. In the Planning Commission report the majority of the Commission recommended a map quite different than the one presented. Their map had a lot more emphasis on rural forest lands. This ordinance is about growing trees for profit for a long time and how that effects our community. On the east side its extremely difficult with the soils and the rainfall to do that. The rural forest allows the landowner the flexibility to grow timber on part of their land, and to have some development potential on part of their land. The timber sales on long term timber land, are primarily done by out of county loggers due to the capital intensity of the logging operations. Almost all of that money leaves the County. In Brinnon there are an estimated 30 to 40 timber landowners, and in Quilcene 50 to 60, who work on tracts of less than 20 acres. There's a lot more money that stays in the community from these operations. The per thousand value to timber owners logging on small tracts is two or three times what it is on the industrial tracts, that stumpage money stays in the County. If you look at what's best for the county and the timber communities in the County, it's that the rural forest continues to provide more jobs. One of the fears of having a large amounts of long term timber is the consolidation of ownership. Over a period of time the ownerships will become more consolidated because the larger companies will end up owning more and more of the land. He doesn't feel this is a good thing for the County or the landowners. Gary Phillips continued by noting that the North Port Ludlow Community Plan recommends a 100 foot setback on well zones from long term forestry. He feels this is a good idea. The recommendation given to the Board by the Planning Commission was the right one for the County. Guy Rudolph said that he isn't clear on how this ordinance will work or whether there will be any forest resource lands after 50 years. He asked the following questions: ,/ Is clustering in conflict with the Forest Management Practices? ,/ Will forests be replanted after they are harvested? ,/ Will the transfer of development rights encourage long term forestry? ,/ With regard to land grades, grades 3 and 4 or mixed in this County and he asked how they can be separated into large enough parcels to be considered long term forestry? ~ VOL 21 rAC~ 488 ..::::~f@f .,::;:;::::::::::::=:::: ..::tt:::::i:III~:I:I~IIII~llilll~1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chainnan Huntingford stated that he feels clustering is likely to happen around the perimeter of large blocks because of the way power lines and services are provided now. Guy Rudolph stated that isn't the way the ordinance is written. Craig Jones, Attorney representing Pope Resources, submitted and read his statement. (See attached microfilm record.) Janeen H~yden, Port Townsend, stated that she feels the people who are here today have strong stomachs. The people who have made it through this process have seen the long term vision of GMA trashed. The resource protection and conservation standards that it (GMA) envisioned, have been totally ignored. The advisory boards such as the Planning Commission have been turned from representative boards into bodies where self interest is the supreme principle. It is clear from the work the Planning Commission has done on this ordinance that there are individuals on that Board who are using their position not to further the public interest, but to make sure that things work for them. She doesn't feel this is the purpose of these Boards and she doesn't feel they are representative of the interests of this County. The public involvement process is confused and wasteful and no one will participate in it unless they have a stake in it. She feels the suffering of the people in the timber industry has been exploited to the maximum. This ordinance is not in their best interest. She feels those people are being preyed on and that the processes that have gone on in the County have aided and abetted that. This is not in the interest of the timber industry or of the rest of the citizens. This ordinance does not protect enough of our forest lands. She doesn't feel the ordinance will protect the potential for our future resource based jobs. The people in our community have said that they want economic base in resource based industries. The ordinance needs to be re-written to serve the interests of all of the citizens of Jefferson County. Growing timber is a long term economic prospect. Peter Bahls, representing the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, read a portion of and submitted a comment letter. (See microfilm record.) Tom Jay, Box 295 Chima cum, stated that his main problem with this forest lands ordinance is that its redeftning forest land in commercial terms rather than terms the Commissioners are charged to act under, which is basically to protect the public health. Healthy watersheds are an essential part of protecting the public health. If there was a timber plan based on all the values that forests provide the public, then the ordinance might have some validity. From the beginning the ordinance has been looked at from a very narrow point of view. It needs to be rewritten to include water values and values of ftsh and wildlife. Allowing the land to be slowly parceled out and portioned along real estate lines, will be a disruption of a whole system. These forest lands need to be looked at in terms of a whole system approach. That's not being done in this ordinance. Sandra Smith said that the 7.7% yield is an effective yield of about 9% because of the tax advantage that accrues to commercial forestry. The large timber land owners can take advantage of the tax breaks and get the higher yield. She asked how much of the commercial forest designation is in small parcel ownership? Senior Planner James Holland reported that there are less than 30 landowners in that designation. She questioned whether timber harvesting will ever occur if clustering is allowed anywhere except on the perimeter. It's the small landowners that are bringing money into the County through their timber harvests. She would strongly support the County looking into ways to deal with the economic viability of logging. Maybe there is a way for the County to assure that it is the local people who are more likely to get the timber sales receipts. ! VOL 21 fAG~489 .-::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..:::=::¡Ji::jijijjjjjjjjliiiiijjjjjj· Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of May 1, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doug Reeves noted that many people in this room have been saying" our timber lands." The timber lands belongs to the people paying the taxes on that land and they have been managing this land for years. We should be thanking them for keeping these big chunks of land. Private timber owners can export the wood and its getting to the point where its cost effective to grow timber. These people aren't going to take a good piece of land that's growing timber and put houses on it. Give these people credit for what they've been doing. Chainnan Huntingford asked if the Planning Commission addressed the inheritance tax issue? Dick Broders, member of the Planning Commission, reported that they discussed this a lot, but couldn't come up with a defInitive answer except to allow some kind of flexibility. This is a problem for all timber land owners. Chairman Huntingford closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for coming. He explained that written comments on the draft ordinance will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. Friday May 5, 1995. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~'Oú ~ 'I'/~ . I 'Ì" 'v I? #- . .r" ~ XI ~ <A Lorna Delaney, CMC Clerk of the Board LVOL 21 rAG~ 498 ,·:::::::::æ··:::o.:::::::' ....... . . .... ........... .... ........ . ..... ..::::¡~¡tt¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡:~:¡:¡¡!¡¡:j:~~ffj