Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM031494 , c..t~ "7' :::::..ò~ ~,~ ~ Q' MINUTES I!',P WEEK OF MARCH 14, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton in the presence of Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of January 24, 1994 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Al Boucher re: Report on Water in the Tri Area: AI Boucher presented a report to the Board on the status of the water systems in the Tri Area. He reported he will be providing a copy of his report to the City and to the PUD. '~ . GMA Update: Community Services Director David Goldsmith introduced Steve Ladd who has been hired as the GMA Project Manager. Steve Ladd thanked the Board for hiring him and noted that he was born and raised in Bremerton and has worked in Island and Snohomish counties. He then outlined what he sees as his mission as a comprehensive planner for Jefferson County. David Goldsmith reported that consultant selection and interviews will be held Wednesday and Thursday of next week for the land use, rural and Tri Area elements of the Com- '~rehensive Plan update. A member of the Planning Commission and the Tri Area Planning Committee will be serving on thë selection committees. Senior Planner James Holland reported that the hearing on the two proposals for the Forest Lands designation is scheduled for tomorrow evening (March 15, 1994) at 7:00 p.m. in the Chimacum High School Auditorium. He added that he will be presenting a draft mineral lands designation within two weeks. Gary Rowe reported that there was a well attended meeting last week with the consultants for the capital facilities element. Associate Planner Lesa Barnes reported that the Planning Commission had a meeting last week with Robin McClelland regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission member Janet Welch asked who will be the Planning Commission's staff support? Steve Ladd reported that he will be attending the Planning Commission meetings and will assign staff to support the Planning Commission. Commissioner Huntingford reported on the meeting of the Chairmen of the various Planning Committees. .' t.: 'í.~"· .' ".~"~~ ~''''~'- , 20 tAG! 288 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janet Welch asked about the hearing on forest lands? Commissioner Wojt explained that it is a public hearing and comment will be taken on the two proposals. The public comment period will probably be left open until Friday at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford stated that once the hearing is concluded then the Board will determine which proposal will be used and a public hearing will be held on the final proposal. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following matters were discussed: A member of the County Library Board asked that the current member whose term is expiring be reappointed to another term, the cost of reviewing the Critical Areas Ordinance again, and what authority the Community Planning groups have. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to adopt and approve the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CONTRACT, Amendment re: Provision of Health Services; Supplemental Funding of $9,363 for 1994; City of Port Townsend 2. RESOLUTION NO. 24-94 re: Re-establishing for 1994 the Jefferson County Cash Drawer Amounts and Petty Cash Accounts; Various County Departments 3. Approve Amended Findings and Conclusions; Zone Change #ZCP 3-93; From General Use to General Commercial Use; Three (3) Properties Located at the Northwest and Southeast Quadrants of the Intersection of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road in Port Ludlow; Mark V. & Carol Moriarty, Kathleen Hilbert and Albert Loomis, Ap- plicants 4. AGREEMENT, Intergovernmental; GMA Funding July 1993 to December 1994 5. Approve Purchase Requisition; One (1) 1994 Chevrolet HD3500 4 x 2 Cab and Chassis; State Department of General Administration Workin2 with the City on Cable Franchise Issues: After discussing the City's franchise negotiations with Summit Cablevision and the need for the interests of County residents to be represented, Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the payment of $1,000 as the County's portion of the consultant fee to review cable television franchise service issues in conjunction with the City of Port Townsend. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Report from Plannin2 Commission on the Zonin2 Ordinance: Assistant Planner Lesa Barnes reported that the Planning Commission has submitted their report on the Zoning Code and maps for the Board's review. The Board concurred that a workshop to review the report be scheduled for March 29, 1994 at 1 :00 p.m. Reschedulin2 a Public Hearin2 re: Hansen Rezone: Commissioner Hun- tingford moved to reschedule the public hearing on the Hansen rezone for March 28, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. =- 20 fAG! 289 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appointment and Reappointments to the Jefferson-Port Townsend Shoreline Commission: Commissioner Huntingford moved to reappoint C. E. Lindsay and Judith Walls to each serve another three year term (their terms will expire 03/25/97), and to appoint Patti Sullivan to a new three year term (her term will expire 03/24/97.) Commis- sioner Wojt seconded which carried by a unanimous vote. Reappointment to the Jefferson County Library District Board of Trustees: Commissioner Wojt moved to reappoint Margaret Kint to second five year term on the Library District Board of Trustees. Her term will expire 04/01/99. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Discussion of Request by the Rhododendron Festival Association; Use of Memorial Field by Carnival: Bob Henderson, Treasurer of the Rhododendron Festival Association, explained this request to operate the entire carnival inside Memorial Field. The Carnival is limited to the size of rides it can bring to Port Townsend because of the confined space on the streets where the carnival has been located in the past. He suggested that a controlled walkway could be placed on the field if necessary. Placing the carnival in Memorial Field would allow more rides which means more money, the entrance and exit would be controlled and the use of Memorial Field would improve the traffic safety in the area of the carnival. The carnival representative has agreed that if there is any damage to Memorial Field as a result of this, the Carnival would pay for it. Chairman Hinton reported that he has worked with the Carnival for many years and they have been reasonable to work with. Facilities Manager Warren Steurer noted that the impact of the numbers of people that would be on the field walking around is a concern. If it was rainy it would cause problems because the field can be pretty soft when wet. He understands that the City and the Rhody Festival benefit from having the carnival, but the County Recreation Department staff also contribute time and energy to this effort. Possibly there should be a fee paid to the County, if this use is approved. Chairman Hinton asked what fair compensation would be for this use? Warren Steurer reported that it would have to be made clear that any damage would be repaired. If there was oil or diesel damage to the field, that area would be lost for a few months. Also if there was damage from a truck getting stuck, that would have to be repaired immediately. He reported that the County uses about $1,000 of extra staff time during the carnival and then with wear and tear on the field, he suggested that a fee of up to $3,000 be con- sidered. Tim Black, Assistant Director of Recreation, reported that there is nothing worse on a grass field than people. Foot traffic is the issue. If there is rain, the field turns into a mud pit. If the athletic field is ruined it will cost thousands and thousands of dollars to get it back into shape. Warren Steurer added that this year Memorial Field is still used as a major place for youth and adult sports in the County. In the future when more fields are ready for use, it may be a different matter. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he is concerned about the possibility of rain and the heavy foot traffic which can cause a great deal of damage. He moved that Memorial Field not be used for the carnival in 1994, but that use in 1995 would be considered. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. ':,-,. 20 uc~ 290 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Wojt voted for the motion. Chairman Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. Discussion of Revisine the County Campine and Park Lands Ordinance No. 3-83: Warren Steurer reported that the County Parks staff and Advisory Board has reviewed the Camping and Park Lands Ordinance (No. 3-83). He then reviewed some suggested changes to the ordinance. He noted that the fees do not include any reduction consideration for County residents or seniors citizens. The fees are used to maintain the parks. The Board will review the suggested changes further and then discuss it again next week. The Board then interviewed Daryl Moegling, and Dick Broders who are interested in serving on the Parks Advisory Board. Lee Tickell. Executive Director. Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council re: Reactivatine the Jefferson County Housine Authority Board: Lee TickeIl, Executive Director of Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council, reported that he has developed a handout which provides answers to some of the commonly asked questions about Housing Authorities. He explained that bonds can only be issued by a Housing Authority that are secured by the incomes, revenues and assets of the housing to be developed. There are a number of checks and balances for a Housing Authority when one is established. The Authority should reflect the values of the area they serve. Curt Creager, Executive Director of the Vancouver (Washington) Housing Authority and President of the State Association of Housing Authorities, was then introduced to answer questions about Housing Authorities. He reported that this same issue is being discussed in counties around the State because of the decision of the State Department of Com- munity Development to divest itself of the Section 8 housing program. He then reviewed the Clark CountyNancouver Housing Authority. He noted that the draft resolution re- activating this Housing Authority has more specific direction than he has seen given to other authorities, which is good. If the County is considering having an adjacent County's Housing Authority handle this program, he cautioned that they would have their first al- legiance to their own County when projects and staff time are allocated. Commissioner Wojt asked about the affect of a Housing Authority on local building contractors? Mr. Creager reported that in Vancouver many of the programs of the Housing Authority are handled by local contractors. The standard bidding process is used, and no special consideration can be given to local contractors. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there are any pitfalls in this process? Mr. Creager answered that the Housing Authority is a separate special purpose district in the County that can issue revenue bonds and that will not effect the bond rating of the County. Dave Clevenger, Vice President of the Jefferson County Home Builders Association, stated that they feel it is hard to justify the establishment of a Housing Authority in this small a County. The Home Builders have worked to provide low income housing in the County and they cannot compete with contractors who can purchase materials outside this area at a lower rate. It would be very hard to be competitive in the bidding process because they are small local contractors who purchase their goods locally. He suggested that the Housing Authority functions be handled by either the Clallam County or Kitsap County Housing Authorities. =- 20 UG~291 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chip Barker, Community Counselling, reported that they are just about to close on their second acquisition and rehabilitation project and in both cases they have used local contractors because they were the low bidders. These project were funded by Federal and State funds. He is concerned about the younger people who can't get into housing and end up leaving the County. Julia Cochran, a Section 8 tenant in the County and advocate for low income people, stated that there are 100 families on the waiting list for Section 8 housing. One issue that low income people express statewide is the treatment they get by people providing service. She stated this isn't an issue in Port Townsend because the people here treat low income people with respect. She stated that she is advocating local control through a Housing Authority here in Jefferson County. Commissioner Wojt asked if the Home Builders Association would feel more comfortable if they had a member on the Housing Authority Board? Mr. Clevenger explained that he would feel better about it if he knew that the County Commissioners had a hand in, and knowledge of, the projects that would be taking place. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the people applying for the Section 8 Housing program have to be residents of the County at the time they apply? Lee Tickell reported that if a person who has been issued a Section 8 certificate couldn't find housing here they could take their certificate to another County. Doug Long, Section 8 Program Manager for CAC, explained that anyone can apply for the Section 8 Housing program even if they don't live here. He reported that the administrative rules can be changed to provide a preference for local residents. The discussion continued regarding the way the Section 8 program works and is funded. Commissioner Huntingford noted that some of his questions were answered today, but he wondered if CAC would like to have a group of community citizens meet and review the fears that have been expressed. Lee Tickell reported that he would be happy to sit down and discuss these fears and concerns with any group. He noted that the CAC is on a tight time frame to convert the Section 8 Housing program in the County. July 1 is when the DCD is going to turn these certificates over to another program. Chairman Hinton suggested that CAC explain the program at the next Home Builders meeting. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 25-94 re-activating the Jefferson County Housing Authority. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner W ojt and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. Meetin2 with City Council Members. Tourism Coordinatin2 Council Members. and Representatives of the County Chambers of Commerce re: Fundin2 from the Hotel/Motel Fund: Community Service Director David Goldsmith submitted a budget breakdown for the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund from 1984 to 1994 prepared by the Budget Manager. Adean Hawkins, Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce reported that at a previous meeting the Board directed that the Port Ludlow, Port Hadlock and Quilcene Chambers of Com- merce prepare and submit a budget for the use of the County's Hotel/Motel Tax Funds. She reported that the budget is based on $37,000 in County funding. She asked that the Board form a County committee to oversee the County funds and that the TCC be disband. -- 20 Utf 292 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Huntingford asked if the County representatives had considered restructuring the TCC membership? Adean Hawkins stated that they feel that the County having its' own committee is the best way to proceed. If the TCC was to be continued they feel that three members from the County and three from the City would provide better representa- tion. Bob Huelsdonk stated that the West End feels that a County organization would be the best way to proceed. Joy Goodrich from the Port Hadlock Chamber stated that she agrees that the County should form its own organization. Jill Buhler, President of the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce, stated that if the County organizations feel this is what they want that is fine. They worked very hard to work with the TCC, but if it doesn't work, they are not opposed to the County having their own organization. Julie McCullough, City Council Member, stated that they are here to listen to the proposal, not to oppose it. She explained that she has heard other City Council members say that they would not be willing to change the membership of the TCe. Joe Wheeler, former member of the TCC, stated that he felt the TCC was a good idea and that there was compromise from the City on the formation of this organization. The discussion continued regarding the original formation and working of the TCC, the ways the funding is distributed and used and the best way to proceed now. Joy Goodrich reported that the County organization would be made up of equal representa- tion from the Port Ludlow, Port Hadlock, Quilcene and the West End under the ad- ministration of the North Olympic Peninsula Visitor Bureau. Chairman Hinton noted that if there is a split it does not preclude the City and the County groups from working together on joint ventures. Commissioner Huntingford moved to split the County from the TCC and instruct the County members to work toward developing their own committee. Commissioner Wojt stated that he would like direction given to the County TCC to include members on the Committee that represent interests other than business. Adean Hawkins reported that they had discussed having three representatives from the Port Hadlock, Port Ludlow, Quilcene and West End area. Chairman Hinton explained that the motion is to dissolve the TCC. Commissioner Wojt asked if the proposed County TCC budget can be met? Budget Manager Gary Rowe reported that the $37,200 budget submitted can be funded by the County. Commissioner Wojt asked how long it will take for the County Board to be formed so they can take action on any funding requests? Joy Goodrich reported that the organization can be formed and operating in about a week. David Goldsmith reported that there were several emergency appropriations which were unanticipated at the beginning of the budget last year and he cautioned that the new County organization take that into consideration when they consider their budget. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion and called for a vote. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Hinton voted for the motion. Commissioner Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Huntingford clarified that the County organization has to present a proposal for the makeup of the Committee within the next couple of weeks. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. They began their meeting by interviewing Tom Madsen who is interested in serving on the Parks Advisory Board. ~VDl 20 fAG~293 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion re: Forest Practice Conversion Policv: Valle v View Loni! Plat LP06-93: 40 Acres in Center: Philip Bolini!. Applicant: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported on the County's policy on conversion of forest lands. He explained that there were some alleged violations of forest practice permit regulations on Mr. Boling's property which have been resolved. Mr. Boling has submitted an application for a 13 lot sub- division for this property after submitting a Forest Practice Permit application which indicated that he was not going to convert the property from forest uses. The Board needs to determine how to handle this type of issue. Chairman Hinton noted that there is no evidence that Mr. Boling was trying to by-pass any regulations. Jim Pearson reported that in Mr. Boling's case the original Forest Practice Permit indicated, on question 17, that he does not intend to convert the property. He reported that the timber conversion policy says that a property found in violation would have to be reforested by planting. Mr. Boling indicated on his FP A that the reforesting would be by seed producing trees rather than by re-planting. Chairman Hinton asked why a moratorium is imposed if there is a violation of the FP A? Jim Pearson answered that when timber lands are converted to another use, State law provides the County with the authority to review that conversion to avoid the kinds of impacts that occur during that process. The problem is assuring that people make their intentions known to the State and County so that the review process can be started. The discussion continued regarding the FP A process and the options available to a property owner. Chairman Hinton noted that since he has had time to review the County's Forest Land Conversion Policy, he feels that there are a number of problems with it and that it should be reviewed and revised. He noted that the Board needs to make a determination about whether there is any evidence that Mr. Boling purposely circumvented the regulations. Commissioner Wojt asked how long it has been since replanting was done on this site? Jim Pearson reported that it hasn't been done for almost two years. Chairman Hinton pointed out that the property owner is allowed to use a natural re-seeding process and has up to three years to do the replanting. The County policy allows for payment of a fee in lieu of re-planting. Stan Johnston, representing Mr. Boling, reported on the circumstances that Mr. Boling was faced with in regard to logging this property. He explained that Mr. Boling is willing to deal with the County's Policy on forest land conversion. He felt he didn't have a choice after reviewing the State's process and the time that it takes for that process. Commissioner Wojt asked what the going rate is for replanting? Jim Pearson reported it is approximately $125 to $150 per acre. Jim Pearson reported that when the County adopted its policy, the State Forest Practice regulations were different and didn't allow the property owners the option of a conversion forest harvest plan that they have now. The County now regulates the subdivision of five acre tracts which was not the case when the policy was adopted. The discussion continued regarding the County's policy, the State FP A regulations and the actions Mr. Boling has taken on his property and his discussions with the staff at the Planning Department. Jim Pearson reported that the County's policy calls for the preparation of a conversion harvest plan. He noted that this plan can be used as a way to lift a moratorium imposed under the policy. This policy was developed at a time when the County had no review (SEP A or subdivision) of subdivisions into five acre lots. Now subdivision of a property into five acre lots requires subdivision and SEPA review. .... 20 UG~ 294 ß Æ:~ ,,:::{~:¡ h'lØ:fJIII .....:::w::-:t..::;:.:....;:;:ΕΎ:;:t":::;~ ......v........·.-.-.................... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner Wojt stated that in other instances in the past the County has either imposed the six year moratorium or the property owner has paid the fee in lieu of replanting and gone on with their project. Jim Pearson reported that in some of those instances the re- planting was already completed on the property. Commissioner Wojt moved to require Mr. Boling to replant or pay the fee in lieu of replanting and that no moratorium will be imposed on the subdivision of his property. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appointment to GMA Steerine Committee; Representative from the Port Ludlow Community Plannine Committee: Commissioner Huntingford moved to appoint Arnie Koch as representative and David Cunningham as the alternate from Port Ludlow Community Planning Committee on the GMA Steering Committee. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Two (2) Proposals for Forest Land Desienation; at the Chima cum Hieh School Auditorium: Chairman Hinton explained the hearing procedure to the 70+ county residents in attendance. Steve Hayden gave a presentation on the proposal prepared by a group that included Jerry Gorsline, Robert Greenway, Tom Jay, and himself. He said that the group consulted with several groups concerned about timber issues. He provided some background information on the consequences of residential development on the practice of forestry. He spoke about the Growth Management Act requirements for implementing ordinances to conserve the natural resource base of the counties. He said that both proposals agreed that long- term commercial forestry was viable in West Jefferson County and should be conserved. There were profound differences between the two proposals for East Jefferson County. He referred to an earlier proposal (July, 1992) prepared by an ad hoc group, including David Cunningham and other foresters, which recommended designations similar to the current proposal of Jerry Gorsline, et al. He displayed a map of the proposal designating two classes of forest land for East Jefferson County and explained the criteria used for the designations. He explained the residential allowances for the designated areas. He said that a significant difference between the two current proposals was that the Gorsline, et aI, proposal attempts to conserve the timber industry in the eastern and western portions of the County, while the other proposal abandoned the timber industry in East Jefferson County through the residential densities proposed. Gary Phillips and Paul Constantine gave a presentation on the proposal prepared by a group of forest landowner representatives. Gary Phillips said that the proposal was not presented as an interim document, but one that could be put into the Comprehensive Plan revision to be completed by year's end. He provided background on the process used by the group in arriving at their proposal. He emphasized the term "commercial" used in the Act, as well as the term "long term commercial significance". He read from the Depart- ment of Community Development's guidelines for designation of resource lands. Paul Constantine provided statistics under the category of public services and facilities conducive to the conversion of forest lands in East Jefferson County. They were: 363 miles of County roads, 87 miles of State roads, 15 fire stations in 6 fire districts, 10 schools in 4 districts, 7 Post Offices, a solid waste transfer station and four drop boxes, 150 public water systems, in excess of 14,000 electrical hookups, 10,000 residential telephone connections, 95% of the total county population, 18 urban and suburban and rural settlements, 26,309 tax parcels owned by 18,110 owners. In the last 5 years there were 1,253 single family building permits issued and 615 mobile home permits. He provided similar statistics for the West End of the county which showed a significantly .vtL 20 tAG~ 295 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . smaller degree of development, with the West End holding 4.2% of the total county population, no single family building permits issued and only 9 mobile home permits issued. He said that the intent of the Act was to acknowledge growth where it occurs and not to stifle it through designation of forest lands of long-term commercial significance. He pointed out on a map the types of public services discussed and said it indicated the possibility of more intense uses of land in East Jefferson County. In addition, the rising land values exceeded those appropriate for forest lands. Gary Phillips said the mapping did not address local conditions which affect the ability to manage timberlands for long-term commercial significance, such as soil conditions and land values. He said that this proposal recommends approximately 260,000 acres be designated as commercial forestland in West Jefferson County. He provided the proposed criteria for designation. The density for the proposed R-1 would be one dwelling unit per gross acre and the density may be grouped or clustered onto developable portions of the property providing no less than 50% of the entire tract is retained as a resource conservation area for which a management plan must be prepared. He spoke about the tree growing abilities of the West End versus the East side of the county. He said the DCD guidelines encouraged going beyond traditional zoning to incorporate innovative techniques to strike a compromise between protecting the land from development and maintaining a certain economic value in the land. He explained that the proposal would set aside 60,000 acres designated R-2, Rural Forest, on the East side which would encourage commercial forestry management for as long as feasible without prohibiting conversion to higher and better uses. He provided the mapping criteria used and the development requirements for R-2. He said the proposal tried to reach a compromise that would give the land owners relief from marginal timber growth rates, land prices paid for the land with expectation of other uses, and long-time residents who have invested heavily in land. Chairman Hinton opened the hearing to public testimony. Bob Huelsdonk. Chairman of the West Jefferson County Citizen's Committee, emphasized the differences between the West and East sides of the County. He said that significant growth was not expected in the West County over the next twenty years. Economics do not support growth. He said much of the West County is not developable due to steep grades, flood plains, and soil types. The West County encourages long-term, sustained yield forestry, tourism growth, resident population growth, home business growth, light industry growth, and continuance of the present life style. They favor more stringent regulation only when the West county population density at least doubles. Therefore, they favored the less stringent plan of the two presented (the Phillips' plan). However, both plans were less adaptable and more restrictive than the West county desired. Any ordinance should include transferrable development rights. They don't need additional regulation in the West county to control development or to protect forest lands. There- fore, the minimum allowable under GMA should be used and the community plan will reflect that. He commented that for the East side of the county, if the long term value of the land was for forestry but the short term value was for development, the citizens of the county should be willing to purchase the land to keep it in forestry. Robert Greenwav said it was unfortunate to describe the two proposals as representing two extreme viewpoints. The Phillips-Broders-Pope proposal advocates no protection for commercial forestry in East Jefferson County even though there are thousands of acres of timberland existing in large blocks under tax reduction benefit. It could be argued that the growth rates and soils are not adequate for forests of long-term commercial significance. Long-term commercial significance is undefinable. He spoke about regulations being developed for the public good even though some of those regulations restrict "personal freedom". He said that GMA is a tool to be used to deal with the growth. The interim ordinances are meant to be, in fact, interim and are essential for working out the more complex aspects of the GMA. The conversion of forest lands must be focused on the Wt. 20 fAG~ 296 h All Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . urban growth areas, and to do so would require the use of the GMA to designate a portion of the forestland now in timber production as forestland that, at least potentially, can remain in timber production. He said that the Gorsline, et aI, plan was based on a consensus of the ad hoc resource group comprised of forest industry and landowners, including David Cunningham and Dick Broders. He believes the Gorsline proposal was a compromise position and barely in compliance with the GMA, which he thought was supported by a majority of citizens. The Gorsline proposal would temporarily set aside a portion of the commercial timber land left in East Jefferson county to allow the economics to be worked out through the Comprehensive Plan revision process. Tom Jay, Box 295, Chima cum, said that two philosophies expressed during the drafting process were impatience with the time it was taking to evolve some regulations and the need to take the time to have a clear look at the resource lands and figure out the right way to manage them. He said that the Phillips' group proposal was a sketch for a Comprehensive Plan. The other proposal was definitely an interim proposal. As such, it would give time to inventory and look at the resource lands of East Jefferson County in a clear way. The Gorsline proposal includes clustering, transferring of development rights, and other planning devices that would protect the forest in the long run. The market (referring to the Phillips proposal) does not manage water or wildlife issues well. He advocated taking the time needed even if it requires an extension of deadlines. The interim proposal could sunset to put pressure on the County government and the citizens to come up with a working compromise. Dick Broders spoke about a definition of "commercial" from the dictionary which said financial profit was the primary aim. The intent of the GMA was to designate land where you could grow trees profitably. That was a major difference between the East and West County and the reason for the difference in how we designate timber lands in the East and West sides. The difference in rainfall made a significant difference in tree growth between the two sides of the county. His goal is to keep growing trees, as his family has done for generations, but options are needed in order to keep doing it. The landowners plan gives those options to do other things with their land. He displayed rounds of trees from both the East and West County. He spoke about the DCD minimum guidelines for designating commercial forest lands. He thought the landowners proposal took those guidelines into consideration while the environmentalist proposal did not. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, said that the Gorsline proposal was said to have been wrote by himself [Cunningham] some years ago. He said that he did participate in a group that wrote that plan, but when the plan came before a public hearing, Pope Resour- ces could not support it. Subsequently, both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners chose to ignore that plan because it was a bad plan. The current proposal is still a bad plan. There are very narrow guidelines for the designation of forest lands, and they did not have to do with protecting wildlife or open space. There were other aspects of the GMA to do that. The DNR guidelines presented are for use in internal review of comprehensive plans which counties propose and adopt. When timber is harvested there is a harvest tax which must be paid in addition to the property tax. At the same time timber land owners pay these taxes, they do not demand public services, but do provide public benefits, such as recreational uses. Property tax status is not a reason to lock up vast amounts of County timber land. He offered the opinion that there is no conversion of timber land crisis in the County. Bob Krutenat, Shine, spoke of the history of logging in East Jefferson County in which large diameter trees had been taken out. He urged the County to wait until the community plans are done in order to see what direction the communities wish to go. He urged the county to include, in an interim ordinance, a method whereby a property owner could remove his property from commercial forest designation if they wished. He advocated that, if an interim ordinance must be adopted, the Gorsline proposal be used until such . VII. 20 fA~~ 297 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . time as the County planning effort is complete and that the issue be re-visited at that time. Jim Olson. owner of Windemere Real Estate in Quilcene, said he supported the Phillips' plan and spoke about the profitability of commercial forestry in the East County. He pointed out that no one associated with commercial forestry supported the Gorsline plan. The value of land for development versus the value as strictly timber land. He said that many county people had invested heavily in land in the past as an investment for their future and to reduce the value of that land through timber designation would devastate the life savings of those people. It appears that we are playing with peoples' lives and that we are trying to stop growth. But it won't stop growth; it will just make it more costly. He advocated letting the professional timber growers tell us what is commercially profit- able and to design a program around that. Paula Mackrow, Olympic Environmental Council, spoke as a timberland owner in Eastern Washington. She said that the mill she is working with is envious of the land grade and classifications we have in East Jefferson County. She supports cutting timber for commer- cial harvest. The slow tree growth experienced in East Jefferson County is similar to the growth rate experienced on her property. It does not deter the timber company she works with from wanting to manage the land for timber production. She spoke about how to define "Rural" in the county and the implications to groundwater of the proliferation of small tracts (one to five acres.) The DNR will review the ordinance against their internal evaluation criteria to see if adequate protection of the land base for timber growing can be met. She supports the Gorsline proposal. She referred to a statement in the current Comprehensive Plan which said that we would protect our resource lands. Janet Welch spoke about the comparison of the growing capacity of forest land in East and West County. It is not justifiable to say that if there aren't the absolute best growing conditions, the forest lands are not worth protecting. The East side has viable timber, though not as good as the West side. If you ask people what they want without asking what they're willing to pay for it, you get a very skewed answer. You need to evaluate what the costs are having to do with land use decisions. Using the allowable densities, we would have a community of 400,000 people. That is not what the people want. But in telling the Commissioners what we want, we also have to say what we're willing to give up. Hollv Manke White, representing Manke Lumber Company, said that the criteria for Class II and III in the Gorsline, et aI, proposal are so conservative that they are unsupportable. If the Gorsline plan is adopted, we will remove our land from the timber tax classification and harvest the timber, and pay conversion tax in order to keep our flexibility. We do support a plan that restricts Growth Management Act lands of long term commercial significance only to those lands that lie west of Range 2W. A rural forest land designa- tion for lands easterly of Range 3W is appropriate because the potential for long term commercial significance does not exist there. Kitsap County has adopted a conservation easement and density transfer program that puts them ahead of the game as far as conserving forested areas in the rural environment. She urged the county to adopt something similar. Herb Beck. Quilcene, stated that he supports the Phillips' plan. Land owners need to have the options available to allow them to grow trees if they wish. Dana Roberts, Port Townsend, spoke about the criteria for conversion of forest land and the classification of forest land requirements in both plans. He supports the proposal of the forestland group. He advocates requiring reasonable justification for conversion showing why the land is not suitable for long term commercial timber use. Potable water will be the limiting factor for population increase in the county. The landowners right to use land should not be infringed upon. He suggested that if the County does not adopt VOl 20 ur;~298 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the resource land groups' plan, a middle ground approach might be that the county could adopt the classification of the Gorsline group but incorporate with it a reclassification approach. Chairman Hinton said that the public comment period would remain open until Friday~ March 25, at 5:00 p.m. Barbara Blowers, a real estate broker in Port Townsend, said the Phillips proposal would turn the county into something that looks like King County. However, the other proposal goes too far by setting aside and classifying too much land, particularly land that it makes sense to develop at some point. I don't want to see Jefferson County turn into something that people want to move away from. I suggest that the Commissioners go back to the table and come up with a plan that makes sense. Gene Seton said it was confusing that Gary Phillips said their plan sets aside 60,000 acres on the East side, but Robert Greenway said the Phillips' plan set aside nothing. The process of two extremes fighting each other needs to stop and we need to come down the middle. You can't stop growth. But if you want trees, the County should pass a rule that every time trees are cut the trees are planted back. Even allowing for some clearing for a house and buildings, 50% to 75% of the trees would be saved and grown. Martha Hurd, Department of Natural Resources, said the DNR manages 22,000 acres in East Jefferson County and 173,000 acres in West Jefferson County. Neither proposal designates commercial forest land or introduces development standards as well as the Ad Hoc plan of July, 1992. The Ad Hoc proposal received support from a broader group of interests than either of the two current proposals. Even though the Ad Hoc plan lost industry support at the eleventh hour, that designation scheme came closer to meeting the GMA requirements than either of the current proposals. She then reviewed the advantages of the mapping of the Ad Hoc plan. The Ad Hoc plan provided incentives for the small timber land owner. The Ad Hoc plan also provided incentives for the large, commercial forest land owners to retain their property in commercial forest. Included in the written testimony is information on site productivity and grades. It's the D.N.R.'s experience that the growth and yield tables underestimate site productivity in both East and West Jefferson County. The DNR's experience that a fully-stocked, 50 to 60 year old stand in East Jefferson County yields between 25,000 and 30,000 board feet per acre. Site production can be significantly increased through use of silvicultural practices. The DNR considers that East Jefferson County does have commercially significant timber lands. West Jefferson County does not need the strict standards of East Jefferson County because the development pressures are not there. The internal guidelines of the DNR were sent to the counties so they would be aware of the guidelines that they will use in reviewing the County Comprehensive Plans to see if they've met the goals of GMA. Dan Thompson, Quilcene~ spoke of monetary loss sustained in another county through GMA planning. He questioned the wisdom of the planning process. Trying to stop growth is a ridiculous attitude. If we have to impose restrictions, let's do it on the West side where there are no development pressures. This part of the county is more hospitable to growth, so why put so many restrictions on that you can't do anything with your land? He urged the County to go for less restrictions. George Brown asked Martha Hurd how much of the DNR managed land in Jefferson County belonged to the County. Martha Hurd said the D.N.R. manages trust lands of 13,000 acres in East Jefferson County. Most of the lands in the West County are common school trust lands. George Brown asked that the fact be noted on the D.N.R. report to the County Commissioners. VOL 20 fAr.; 29Q Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mari Phillips. Quilcene, said that her family is third generation timber growers. The Phillips' proposal comes from many different timber owners in the county. It appeared that it was a case of the "Have Nots" wanting what the "Haves" have, and it should not be allowed. Barbara Fisk. Quilcene, said that the best of the two proposals should be taken. Some advocates think the one proposal would tie in with fish habitat, but it would not help the fish because they're not there anymore. Many people purchased land with the intention of someday converting it to another use for economic reasons. Such people should be allowed to do so without imposing restrictions on the land owners. She spoke about materials other than timber being developed for construction purposes. John Brown said that regulation is not the answer. But if you must have regulations, the least amount would be the most beneficial. The land owners must send written testimony in to the County Commissioners expressing their wishes. Fred Tuso said that one point of the environmentalist proposal was that previously subdivided twenty acre timber parcels would not be affected. However, that was not written into the proposal, so he was skeptical. C. A. Bartlett said that while we all want our property rights, both proposals were too extreme and neither one is suitable. Mitchell Slade said he was present representing a friend. He read from The Sacred Hoop by Bill Broder. Chairman Hinton asked which option he preferred. Mr. Slade said he had no choice. Sandra Smith. Snow Creek Road, said that timber land has been good for Jefferson County. Privately owned timber is something that the County can do something about. Most of the lands in Jefferson County being discussed are owned by stockholder com- panies, not small, Ma and Pa owners. Such stockholder companies are interested in short term gain. Most of the timber land is not taken out of production for environmental reasons such as the spotted owl, but for land development purposes. We need to talk: about restricting our own ownership, not someone else coming in and restricting it for us. Chris Hertel. Lake Leland, said that since there are only two proposals on the table, he had to support the Gorsline proposal. Martha Hurd. DNR, said there are four points the County should consider incorporating into the final plan. There are major blocks of commercial forest land in both East and West Jefferson County. They meet G.M.A. requirements and minimum guidelines for conservation protection as forest resource lands. There is little encumbrance on those lands. There is little development in those lands at present. The DNR proposes that a density of one dwelling unit per 80 acres be used in the long term commercial forest, in order to encourage forest practices in the forest zones, to avoid rapid conversion and to provide flexibility and options for private land owners. The DNR encourages the county to provide incentives to land owners, including the right to practice forestry, the purchase of conservation easements, setback requirements for adjacent land owners, plat title notices to adjacent properties, cluster developments, transferrable development rights, and any other incentives to discourage development and to direct development to already populated areas first. The DNR encourages that the designation and protection standards for forest lands be enacted by the County as soon as possible in order to slow down the loss of these lands to development. 'Ol 20 ur,~.BOO Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paula Bartlett, Lake Leland, said that she is interested in keeping the quality of life she moved here for. Both plans are radical and extreme in different directions. If she had to choose between the two plans, it would have to be the Gorsline plan. Garv Phillips, Quilcene, said that a look at a Metskers map would show that the majority of the open space land is owned by individual families in the County. If you can do 2% to 3% on timber land in East Jefferson County, you're doing well. In figuring land value comparisons between the two plans, using $3,000 an acre versus $750 an acre, you're looking at a $180 million down zone. We need to work in a positive manner. If we want to protect this land, the County should buy the development rights. Paul Constantine asked who would be asked to pay for this? A family that owns a 100 acre parcel would have its net worth fall by $225,000. The family's net worth would disappear overnight. Over the last five years, $170 million worth of unplatted acreage was purchased in East Jefferson County. In many cases it would be an actual loss of invest- ment that is currently in the property. There's no question that this would be a taking. Carol Bernthal. Habitat Coordinator for the Point No Point Treaty Council, said her organization supports the Gorsline proposal. Since March, 1992, when the first deadline for enactment of a forest resource lands interim ordinance passed, 1,000 acres has been converted in this County. The Treaty Council is concerned about maintaining the forest lands because it is traditionally the area that has sustained fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources. You can see the decline of these resources when development occurs. There is viable forest land in both the East and West County. The major difference in productivity is lack of nitrogen in the East County and can be easily remedied through silvicultural practices. It's not a matter of productivity but a matter of managing growth. The timber tax criteria for designation is from the DCD guidelines. Her organization supports the use of an interim ordinance until such time as a fully informed decision is made through the Comprehensive Plan. Peter Bahls. Point No Point Treaty Council, noted a statement from the Growth Hearings Board which said, "It is not necessary that land yield a profit in keeping with the expectations of its owner in order to be designated as forest land of long term commercial significance." He said the 1,000 acres converted since 1992 mentioned earlier does not include some recent areas that have been converted. Bernice Philli{>s, Qui1cene, said it disturbs her that Jerry Gorsline, who helped author the proposal which is more restrictive, sold a forty acre parcel on Whitney Point which has been logged and subdivided. Mark Stevenson, a resident whose property is located near the SRl9/20 intersection, said he was looking into donating part of his small acreage to the Land Trust partially as a way to prevent himself from developing it in the future. Each land owner that changes his parcel in some way affects all the rest of the land in some small way. And everyday there are more of us, so you come to a point where you have to make group decisions. He said he believes we have already altered things in the County through the amount of logging that has occurred. We have more frequent floods and strong winds, as well as less fish. There are real costs to all of us in stripping off so many trees even though it's hard to measure in dollars and cents. I urge the Commissioners to consider these costs as well as the particulars of soil types, growth rates, etc. Also, the cost of lost timber jobs should be considered. It's in the interest of all of us to keep some areas of East Jefferson County in timber production. Roger Short, Chimacum, said that there has been frustration throughout this process. He said he found it ironic that the environmentalists tried to find any way possible to stop logging. These meetings are time consuming and costly. I have a landlord with me and , Vat. 20 u,,: 301 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . if he gets nervous, I may lose some land to farm. Landowners may decide to get out if their land is going to be devalued. Mark Beaufait, Attorney, stated that he is representing a small group of East Jefferson County land owners on the boundaries of current resource areas, whose concern is not so much directed at the forest lands. Their concern is that this is the appropriate vehicle for adding transferrable development rights and clustering proposals. Whatever is adopted by the County in UGA's, critical areas, and resource areas, needs flexibility and creativity to allow resource lands to continue in their uses. His clients submitted drafts of transferrable development rights proposals earlier. It's appropriate to consider, with regard to long term commercial significance, market forces, profitability, and local economic considerations. RCW 36.78.170 says that you should designate the lands that have long term significance, 20 years, for the commercial production of timber. That would be for permanent designa- tion. The wording about interim comes from the need for adjustments due to incom- patibility, etc. when the Comprehensive Plan is done. The County should do this now so that we don't have to go through this again with the Comprehensive Plan. He urged the Commissioners to make the decision now. Don't designate it as interim; make the designation now as required under the statute. A map can be adopted now with im- plementing regulations and findings. Gene Seton said this country is producing more timber now than it ever has. The issue is not about timber, it's about having trees to look at in the low lands. That's why he advocates replanting immediately after logging. The original forest committee, made up of about 25 people representing various views, reached a consensus, which was about down the middle of these two proposals. We ought to go back and look at that previous plan and we may get agreement from both sides. Sandra Smith said the concern seemed to be with the small land owners. How about if only the large, commercial parcels were designated on a permanent basis, and the small parcels not be included, in exchange for the right to practice forestry and other incentives and tax breaks, except the right to subdivide. Dan Thompson talked about the process leading to feudalism. He talked about supply and demand and how the marketplace works. Unless some other things displace trees, then the price of trees will go up and people will want to grow trees. Dick Broders gave some information on forest conversions pointing out that most of them occurring in the County are on small acreage, and not the large parcels people may think they are. Forest conversions in this County are a hoax. Gene Seton said that to go along with what Dick Broders said, the forest practice permits might be a conversion, but the owners are paying highest and best use tax on those lands as well as paying the harvest tax. He's taxed twice. ~Ol 20 ~~u 302 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 14, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman Hinton recessed the public testimony portion of the hearing and reiterated that written testimony can be submitted to the Commissioner's office until March 25. MEETING ADJOURNED JEFFERSON COUNTY BO D OF COMMISSIONERS SEAL: ATTEST: VOL 20 r~r:~ 103