Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM042594 MINUTES WEEK OF APRIL 25,1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt were both present. The Board began interviews of persons interested in serving on the Jefferson County Housing Authority. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of March 21 as corrected and the minutes of March 28, 1994 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd reported that a summary of this update is being done by Planning staff every week. It will be available to anyone who requests it. People can request to be on the mailing list for this information. The Public hearing on the forest and mineral resource lands ordinances is scheduled for tonight. There is a contract on the consent agenda with Olsen and Greaves to begin work on the Tri Area element of the Comprehensive Plan. May 5 will be the first meeting between the consultant and the Tri Area Planning Group. Sixty applications were received for the temporary planning positions. The final interviews of the four finalists will be done this week. The Planning Commission will be meeting with the community planning committees this Wednesday at the Lutheran Church in Chimacum, Lesa Barnes reported. Steve Ladd added that the County Planning Directors of the neighboring counties (Clallam, Kitsap, Grays Harbor and Jefferson) will be meeting on May 5 to discuss issues, and exchange information and ideas. Due to a question from AI Boucher regarding the Tri Area Planning Committee wanting to review a smaller or larger UGA area, the Board agreed that this community planning committee can review other boundaries for the UGA. Gary Rowe stated that whatever work is done by any of the planning groups or the consultants should not be done in a vacuum. Study area information should be shared. The discus- sion continued regarding the Coordinated Water Plan and how it dovetails with the work being done on analysis of infrastructure and the work being done by consultants on the capital facilities and Tri Area UGA. Gary Rowe asked again for population projections so that the consultant's work can proceed. . VOL 20 rAt~ 693 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Ladd asked the Board for direction on how to review the issue of population projections. Chairman Hinton stated that the Board has not questioned the Planning Department's population projections. Steve Ladd added that there has been no formal review process by the Board or the Planning Commission on these population projections. Commissioner Wojt stated that he felt that staff members from the County and City Planning departments were going to get together to discuss these population projections. Chairman Hinton asked if the PUD's groundwater study is done? Guy Rudolph reported that the study is still in draft form. Lesa Barnes asked about the production of the draft community plans - will the County be providing clerical assistance to get them produced and who will do the large production (numbers of copies) of these plans? Chairman Hinton asked for an estimate of costs to meet the needs? Gary Rowe offered to make a computer available for use by the com- munity groups. Steve Ladd reported that the Planning Department budget includes funds to run copies of the draft documents, if the Planning groups can provide the people to do the copying. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There was discussion of a section of the draft Forest land Ordinance and what it means, the Coast Oyster lands purchased by the State, and matter of City water being provided to the Tri Area. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chairman Hinton asked about the two letters of support on the consent agenda? Martin Rowe at CAC reported that these two housing projects are projects that CAC and Community Counselling have been working on independent of the Housing Authority. CAC and Community Counseling will own the building for which they are seeking funds. Commissioner W ojt moved to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CALL FOR BIDS re: One (1) AS/400 F35 for Latest AS/400 Model Computer Equipment; Bid opening set for 11:15 a.m. on May 16, 1994 2. RESOLUTION N0.49-94 re: Changing the Name of a County Road Vancouver Drive to Vancouver Lane 3. CONTRACT re: Purchase of one (1) New Wheel Tractor with Front Loader and Backhoe; Western Power and Equipment 4. Letter of Support re: Application for State Housing Trust Fund Loan to purchase a 6 unit apartment building to be used for mentally disabled consumers; Jefferson Com- munity Counseling Center 5. Letter of Support re: Application for State Housing Trust Fund Loan to Fund acquisition of a 18 unit apartment building to be used for mentally disabled and low income consumers; Jefferson-Clallam Community Action Council 6. AGREEMENT re: Consultant Services for the Tri-Area element of the Comprehen- sive Plan; Olsen and Greaves, Inc. 7. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Health DepartmentIPort Townsend High School Student Assistance Program; Michael Sanchez 8. RESOLUTION 50-94 re: Annexation of Certain Lands to Jefferson County Fire Protection District #3 9. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services; Administrative Duties for CDBG Grant; Clallam-Jefferson Community Action Council VOL 20 r~G~ô94 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Review Draft IB-Jefferson County Zonin2 Ordinance: Rick Sepler reviewed the Planning Commission's report on draft 1B of the Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance. He explained that most of the Planning Commission's concerns have been addressed. The concerns that were addressed were not because they were resolved in other areas of the Code, or they would be better addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Update and the community plans. There is a need to develop better purpose language, which was not done. He noted that replacing the Hearing Examiner with the Planning Commission, for reviewing variances, etc. was not done because the Planning Commission is very busy working on the requirements of GMA. He reported that he would be happy to make any changes the Board directs before the final hearing draft is produced. Commissioner Wojt asked why the Planning Commission wants the Hearing Examiner removed? Guy Rudolph, Planning Commission member, reported that some of the Planning Commission members felt that the Hearing Examiner cost too much and that the Planning Commission is given that authority in the Planning Enabling Act. Kent Ander- son, Development Review Supervisor, stated that he feels some of the Planning Commis- sion members wanted to personally review these items and that is why the Hearing Examiner issue was brought up. Chairman Hinton moved that this draft be prepared for public hearing including the Hearing Examiner section as proposed and that the public hearing be set for May 23, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Tri Area (location to be determined.) Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Rick Sepler reported that there are small corrections and clarifica- tions that need to be made and he asked if the Board will allow him to make these corrections before the ordinance is published for the public hearing? The Board concurred that the changes be made and that Rick Sepler prepare a summary of the ordinance for publication. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City of Port Townsend Special Event Permit Application: Rhody Rover Run: Commissioner Wojt moved to have the Chairman sign the City's special event permit for the Rhody Rover Run sponsored by Jefferson County Animal Services. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The interviews of persons interested serving on the Jefferson County Housing Authority Board continued: Charles Boulay, Julia B. Cochrane, Catherine McNabb. Discussion re: Emel1!ency Man32ement Disaster Pro2ram: Closure of Commercial Salmon Fishery in Washin2ton: Sheriff Mel Mefford reported that he received a letter from the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Develop- ment asking for a determination on the impact of the closure of the commercial salmon fishery would have on Jefferson County. He reported that testimony is needed from everyone who is affected by this closure. Community Services Director David Goldsmith explained that he and Commissioner Huntingford met with representatives from the State and Clallam County regarding this disaster and what type of information is needed to determine if there is truly a disaster in Jefferson County from this closure. Many of the commercial salmon fishing people have transitioned to bottom fishing for the last few years, but the closure will still impact them. There is one commercial salmon fishing boat registered in Jefferson County, but there are VOL 20 rAG~B95 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . other industries (sport tackle shops, bait, boat/small engine repair, fishing lure business, etc.) which will also be impacted. There is a long list of questions to answer in order to declare the disaster so that financial assistance can be provided. The information provided by businesses is considered confidential, since it is financial information. The closure is scheduled for May 6. The Governor will take all of the information from the counties impacted and submit it to the Federal government for their assessment and if it is deter- mined that there is a disaster the federal government declares it. Pam Botnen submitted information regarding the impacts to five specific businesses in Jefferson County. The information was complied and averaged for a five year period. She noted that lost payroll alone over the five year period amounts to over $200,000. David Goldsmith reported that he will prepare information and put together a disaster declaration for next weeks agenda. Bob Minty from the Emergency Management Depart- ment will be the contact person for businesses that feel they may be impacted by this closure. Dave Hammond, a Charter fisherman, reported on his discussions with the State Depart- ment of Community Trade and Economic Development and with Representative Norm Dicks office. He explained that this closure is like the final blow to the Charter fishing industry that it can't recover from. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. at the Chimacum School Auditorium. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Proposed Forest Land Desi2nations and Mineral Lands: Chimacum Hi2h School Auditorium: Chairman Hinton opened the hearing at Chima cum High School and explained the hearing procedure to approximately 30 County residents present. Rae Belkin. Port Ludlow, spoke on the draft Mineral Lands Ordinance and read a letter into the record concerning "the Mats Mats Quarry (see copy attached). Ms. Belkin referred to the draft Zoning Ordinance, saying that it had not yet gone to public hearing, but that the proposed zoning lists the Mats Mats quarry as a heavy industrial site. She said that ,the quarry operates solely as a surface mine under a surface mining permit. The heavy industrial zoning designation was inappropriate. Ms. Belkin encouraged the Board to adopt the Interim Mineral Lands Ordinance, to designate the Mats Mats Quarry under that ordinance which is the most appropriate designation, and to delete its designation as a heavy industrial zone under the Draft Zoning Ordinance. Martha Hurd. representing the Department of Natural Resources, submitted written comment. Ms. Hurd, referring to the Forest Lands Ordinance, asked why the definition of Forest lands found in RCW 36.70A was not included in Section 2? Under Section 3, the first criteria, she noted a concern about equity because spot zoning may occur. The DNR recommends using an 80 acre parcel and dwelling density in Criteria #2, rather than 40 acres, stating that, although there were variables, 80 acres appears to be the size parcel for reasonable economic return from forest management. She submitted a paper titled "Economics of Forest Tract Sizes." The DNR recommends adding Land Grade 4 to the criteria in #3, which can be productive forest lands especially when in association with other large unimproved tracts of forest lands. By not using Land Grade 4, it's the DNR's opinion that the proposal does not adequately protect those lands that meet GMA guide- lines for designation. She referred to the Ad Hoc map of 1992, a map developed by the Planning Commission, and a DNR/WFPA map from 1991 which shows large tracts under commercial forest management. Ms. Hurd suggested that Criteria #6 be rewritten to say that the entire parcel must lie outside of any community water system service area. The VOL 20 rAG~ 696 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . presence of community water generally indicates development which is incompatible with forest management activities, and such areas should not be designated as forest lands of long-term commercial significance. Regarding optional Section 8, Ms. Hurd said she had a difficult time understanding the purpose of the section. There were development standards in earlier drafts that are missing in this latest version and they are key to adequate protection for long-term forest zones. She recommended that they be made part of the ordinance. Regarding the Draft Mineral Lands Ordinance, Martha Hurd said the ordinance does not appear to insure a future supply of aggregate mineral resource material as suggested in WAC 365.190.070. She questioned whether only designating currently working mineral sites would meet the needs of the County over the next 20 to 50 years? She suggested a measure for determining the amount of aggregate needed, citing the Directory of Mining Operations, 1992. She asked about small parcels that would not require surface mining permits, which could be less than ten acres and could be easily accessible sources for the future, but would not be designated or protected under this ordinance? The ordinance also would not cover larger surface mining operations that reclaim as they go, keeping their operations under the three acre permit requirement. DNR recommends that the commer- cial forest zones be designated as part of the Mineral Lands Ordinance, with mineral extraction being an allowed use in the commercial forest zone. Regarding Section 4.3.a., the DNR suggests rewriting it as follows: "The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources: Current Mineral Resource Bulletin," since Bulletin #37 is out of date. The DNR questions whether other maps or information has been considered, since the DNR bibliography for the County is not noted in the current ordinance. Ms. Hurd suggested that mineral resources within 1/2 mile of UGA boundaries may be economically important due to their proximity to where they may be used, and such resources should not be arbitrarily dismissed from consideration for designation. Robert Greenwav. Port Townsend, said the GMA requires that we classify and designate forest resource lands of long-term commercial significance. In many of the earlier stages of this process, we showed what land was classified as commercial forest land, and out of that classification a portion of the land was designated. Mr. Greenway urged the Board to go back to the requirements of GMA which is to classify as well as to designate. Classification does not mean that it is regulated. He said that commercial foresters have said that, to varying degrees, the Land Grades are not important in telling where commer- cial forest land is. Using Land Grades in the designation criteria is fundamentally meaningless. Because of the criteria proposed, huge chunks of current commercial forest lands drop out and that doesn't seem sensible. There are maps with greater accuracy with regard to commercial forest land, referring to the Ad Hoc map of July, 1992, as well as the 1991 map referred to by Martha Hurd. Density is a concern, but of greater concern is the lot size. The regulations being implemented to manage growth is something we all must share. Gary Phillips. Quilcene, said the forest land ordinance has no benefit to the forest land owners. It's a public benefit issue if you designate anything in Eastern Jefferson County. It only creates problems for those who are trying to upgrade timber operations in the County. He cited an example of an inheritance tax on timber lands. Mr. Phillips said the Planning Commission recommendation on the ordinance was that it sunset after adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan, if the County can't compensate land owners for develop- ment rights. Mr. Phillips said, as a commercial forester, that Land Grades are important, but the complaint about Land Grades was that the maps were inaccurate. At least within this ordinance there's a remedy for that. The Ad Hoc map was parcel specific, but it did not consider what the map meant as far as density. Regarding Section 3.3, he said it could be common for a parcel to have over 50% low Land Grade 3 with the remainder VOL 20<UŒ 697 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . being something else, such as a wetland, but that it might only grow 6-8,000 feet per acre over fifty years and still be designated. That portion needs some work. Section 3, #8, should be expanded to include county roads. That would save developing more infrastruc- ture. Mr. Phillips said that Section 7, "Right to Practice Forestry," is worthless. The County can't help you much. He does not understand Section 8 and suggested that it be deleted. Mr. Phillips said the designation is really about creating open space with real low density, and was not about the long-term economics of forest management. Mr. Phillips said the Mineral Lands Ordinance is a pretty fair ordinance. It's difficult for the County to designate land because the east side of the County is so mixed up. The people mainly need the guarantee of the right to do mineral extraction and processing, with a minimum size to work. from. Dick Broders. Discovery Bay, said he was glad to see an ordinance that deals with the long-term resource issues rather than rural open space. Regarding the designation criteria of the Forest Lands Ordinance, he said that 40 acre parcels were too small; that 80 to 160 acre minimum parcels were more appropriate. There is ample research to back up those numbers. He is a commercial tree farmer and Land Grades are very important. With regard to Section 3.3, requiring that 50% of the parcel be Land Grades 1-3, it would be possible to have a parcel with only 51% in a low Land Grade 3. This would mean you would have a very low average growing rate on the parcel. A better minimum criteria would be to have a minimum average of Land Grade 3; in other words, a minimum site index for Land Grade 3. Regarding the other part of the section that required parcels "surrounded on two or more sides by parcels meeting all the other criteria," he said he did not think that should be included. It would include poorer growing ground adjacent to other parcels that meet the growing criteria. On the East side of the county, a Land Grade 3 grows about of 16,000 board feet per acre in fifty years. On the West side of the county, it's about 30,000 board feet per acre. This essentially has to do with stocking. An article in The Leader stated that 30,000 board feet per acre over fifty years gave a 4% rate of return. Therefore, 16,000 board feet per acre would give a very meager rate of return. Therefore, it's important not to designate the lower Land Grades, especially on the east side of the County. This ordinance talks about a 320 acre block size, but a 640 acre block size ought to be the minimum. Regarding lands that are exempted because of proximity to State roads, there ought to be some County roads added to that list because that land is also quite valuable for other uses. That is part of the Minimum Guidelines. Mr. Broders said that the designation process is a two-step process. First you look at land that has good growing capacity and then you overlay that with areas that have higher and better uses and take them away. The areas around roads and services, such as electricity, are more valuable for other uses and should be exempted. Section 3.9 is a very important step, and was worked out by very knowledgeable people. The areas outside that map are ones that are very valuable for other reasons. Section 7 was a good try by the County but it really doesn't guarantee very much. Section 8 is not a necessary part of the ordinance. Mr. Broders said the Mineral Lands Ordinance is a fair ordinance. He is glad to see that the ordinance was not based on the maps because they were so inaccurate. Mari Phillips, Quilcene, passed on providing testimony. David Cunningham. representing Pope Resources, said that a group of forest and resource land owners and managers submitted a proposal for resource lands. That proposal was supported by people who understand that the key to maintaining long-term forest land has to do with flexibility. It is an unstable business and is frequently subject to new con- straints. That proposal was the first to look at Jefferson County as a whole; all of the previous proposals neglected to look at the west County. There are distinct differences. Most importantly, it was a proposal that followed DCD guidelines, which say that soils and tax status are really just the beginning, economics, proximity to neighbors, and the ability to operate are just as important. It appears that the current draft ordinance is purely VOL 20 H(~698 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a political compromise; it shifts almost the entire burden of the issue onto several owners, Pope Resources being the primary one. We don't think that it's very well~founded legally. The ordinance has no findings. The definitions are extremely vague. It's difficult for anyone to tell how the current draft applies to their land. Changing the density from one dwelling per acre or one dwelling per five acres, to one dwelling per forty acres is clearly down-zoning. There needs to be some sort of compensation within this ordinance. He suggested that at least a density transfer be included. The ordinance provides nothing whatsoever for companion uses, such as wood processing, chipping, mineral uses, recrea- tional uses, and certain utilities that are compatible with commercial forest land. The ordinance fails to contain a precise map; the hand-drawn map prepared by staff is insuffi- cient to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70. The County guarantee of the right to practice forestry is a hollow promise. Section 8 is so vague, it should be omitted. Where is SEP A compliance; there should be some sort of environmental review of the ordinance, if not an EIS. In summary, Pope Resource's opinion is that the ordinance is unfair, it puts the burden on too few property owners; it's very vague and, because it's so vague, it's subject to appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Mr; Cunningham said, regarding the draft Mineral Lands ordinance, that it only suggests designating currently used properties. He assumes that through the Comprehensive Plan revision process something different will be proposed. The long-term commercial mineral land needs of the county certainly have to be more than those that exist currently. Mark Stevenson. Four Comers, said that he supports the so-called Gorsline proposal for Forestland designation. This ordinance would not prevent people from logging their land. It attempts to keep some land in commercial use for the future. He supports Jerry Gorsline and the work he does. He feels the community should be dealing with the proposals and not the people or personalities whose names happen to be on them. He asked the Commissioners to take the long view. Just because selling land right now to developers brings in more cash than replanting a logged parcel doesn't mean that parcel shouldn't stay in timber production for the long haul. The price for good timber has tripled in the last few years. Good timber will continue to be in demand by a growing world population. Please keep some commercial timber growing in East Jefferson County. Gary Winberg. Port Townsend, said he is glad to see that this ordinance brief because it's an interim ordinance. It pretty much addresses in the short term some of the things to be protected. · Page 1, Line 37, the parcel size should be between 80 and 160 acres. Line 39, regarding Forest Land Grades, should be reworded to say, "The average Land Grade on the parcel shall be 3 or higher." The last portion of that clause regarding a parcel surrounded on two or more sides by other parcels meeting all seven criteria should be omitted. Line 44, Item 4, regarding a block of land 320 acres in size could go up to a block 640 acres in size. Line 47, Item 5, adjacent to parcels at least 20 acres in size on 80% or more of the perimeter should be changed to say 40 acres. None of the land should be served by any community water system. On Page 2, Line 1, Item 7, the distance from an Interim UGA should be one mile, instead of a half mile, to allow for radiating density. Line 4, Item 8, the distance from an arterial should be at least 660 feet and all lesser County roads should be added to the list. Line 40, Section 6, the allowed density should be one unit per 20 acres. Line 49 should read "property is near designated forest land", and on activities it should read "inconvenient" residential development. On Page 3, Optional Section 8, can't be understood. Not knowing the intention, Mr. Winberg feels he would strike it. · · · · · · · VOL 20 rAu699 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 There should be an addition of another section addressing a sunset clause and he recom- mended Dick Broders' wording. Gene Seton. Four Corners, regarding Item 4, said that the 320 acres was very small when compared to other counties, such as Mason County which is looking at 2,000 to 4,000 acre plots. 660 acres is a small plot. There are some things that are left out. Mqst of them have been brought up tonight. If we put those back in, we're just about where the citizen's committee was two years ago with one of the only proposals there was consensus on. This is only an interim ordinance. One thing that should be included, because everyone wants trees, is that the property has to be replanted if it is not to be built on within a year after cutting. People would save those trees, or the majority of them, when they built on the land. Roger Short, Chimacum, said he had submitted an application for a permit to clear cut some timber on his farm. He intends to replant and not build any houses on that land. He commented on the Jeff Chapman study of the forest land tax that appeared in the Leader. It shows that the so-called forest land tax break is almost no break at all. It always comes back to the public benefit issue. If it's a public benefit, it needs to be compensated. The government should notify the citizens that their property may be regulated and state the purpose of the proposed regulation. The government should choose the least burdensome property regulation that will accomplish the purpose. The govern- ment should state the environmental and economic effects of the proposed property regulation. The economic effects of all of these proposed regulations have been forgotten. The government should compensate property owners when private property is taken for general public use. The current draft ordinance penalizes the people that are currently doing a good job. Ande Grahn. Port Townsend, noted that she was present speaking as a private individual and not as a Planning Commission member. These ordinances are Board generated ordinances that make no findings in relation to the community and citizen groups that have been working during this three year process. Concerning the Mineral Lands, there's been no analysis done about the needs of the County for mineral resources. The point of having an interim ordinance is to make sure you've designated enough land for mineral resource production. She provided a copy of a draft ordinance prepared by a citizen task force on resource lands that met in 1991, dated April 28, 1992. It is a consensus docu- ment, which has a statement of purpose, applicability, and classifications. This document was jettisoned over some controversy about the forest lands section, but the mineral lands section was okay. She encouraged the Board to consider the document for incorporation into the draft ordinance. Concerning the Forest Lands Ordinance, Ms. Grahn said she did not think it was an open space issue. The. interim ordinances are designed to give us time to re-do our Comprehen- sive Plan. The elements in the Comprehensive Plan include rural lands and open space designations. The tool to get us where we are is the Critical Areas Ordinance and the resource designation ordinances. We need to use these tools, realizing that they are interim ordinances. The Planning Commission report recommends that the interim ordinances sunset one year from the date of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, if there is no plan to compensate for what the Planning Commission considers a taking. Use this tool to give yourself the elbow room to create a Comprehensive Plan that meets the needs of Jefferson County. Use it as a way to set some parameters for doing analysis. Obvious- ly we don't agree on how to designate forest land. Use the tool of the interim ordinance to take the time to work out the problems of how to classify and designate. But designate an adequate amount to protect your options. Noone has spoken in favor of Optional Section 8. There's an unfortunate typo in that section. It's supposed to read "Sectioll 6 alld the protectioll of Sectioll 7." With the typo corrected, it makes more sense. The intention of the section is that if you don't meet the criteria for designation, but you choose to take the timber tax, then you need to comply with the protection and regula- VOL 20 Hr,:700 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tions of the ordinance, until such time as you choose not to take the timber tax. Before you omit the section, please give it some consideration. Julie Jaman. Port Townsend, said that, unfortunately, the ordinance seems to encourage low density sprawl outside of urban growth areas. This is the antithesis of what's intended. Criteria #8 is the lead-in to this. If you use this kind of criteria without figuring out how to keep forest lands that fall into this, then you will have to plan for community water systems and other kinds of infrastructure, which will be the reverse order of what's intended in terms of classifying and designating timber lands. This criteria flies in the face of GMA and good intentions. Steve Havden, Port Townsend, said this ordinance is a purely political move. The current version is not based on reality; it's not based on findings; it's not based on any rational, supportable criteria. He referred back to the 1992 Ad Hoc committee report, which was put together primarily by industry people. That committee came up with criteria very similar to the so-called Gorsline proposal, which included one unit per twenty parcel size, one unit per eighty densities, and that Land Grades not to be considered a criteria. If you add Land Grade 4 to this draft, which would affect pretty much the East County, you would have a proposal that was fairly similar to the Ad Hoc committee report of 1992. Several of the people who participated in that committee have not given testimony since that time. The reason is because they don't want to get into the political jockeying that has been going on since that time. The 1992 Ad Hoc committee report was based on people talking as foresters, not developers, and they came up with a fairly decent proposal. It was dropped because Pope Resources would not support it. That 1992 Ad Hoc report has most of what's needed in a forest resource ordinance. Regarding the Jeff Chapman article, it's not exactly as simple as it came out in the article. There are tremendous benefits in not paying the higher taxes for ten years and reaping the benefits of seHing the land at higher, appreciated land values. Steve Ladd, Director of Long-Range Planning, read a letter from Irv Berteig. Hearing Examiner, concerning the proposed Forest Lands Ordinance (copy attached). It provided specific comments on specific sections of the ordinance. One had to do with the clarity of Section 2 regarding the mapping. Others had to do with Sections 5 and 8. Mr. Berteig noted that the appropriate sections of the Hearing Examiner Ordinance would have to be amended. Cliff Larrance. Discovery Bay, said the talk about timber taxes bothered him. The timber tax is not on the value of the timber; it's on the value of the land. He cited examples of the value of recently sold parcels of logged-off land. He asked how timber land owners can afford to pay a 6% timber tax after holding property for 70 or 80 years, if they have to pay a high tax to boot? The argument on higher taxes on timber land, or the statement that timber lands are undertaxed, is a moot argument. Reed Gunstone, Discovery Bay, said that last year he had been appointed to a Commis- sioner of Public Lands committee to look at the issues that small land owners are affected by, which included timber lands. It would be directly related to both the Forest and Mineral Lands Ordinances. At the first committee meeting, there were a lot of numbers having to do with acres, volumes, and site indexes. The bottom line is that forest land is a poor investment. The risk involved with wildlife regulations, foreign competition, disease, fire, and trespass are not factored in. Those things are on top of the bottom line economics of a poor investment. The timber prices fluctuate, with a downward fluctuation occurring right now. Another issue is that various counties are acting individually. Because of that, there isn't a level playing field from county to county. Because of the taxing structure from county to county, there are differences in what property is taxed, such as waterfront timber property. The individual land owner should have the option of saving or not saving the trees and being taxed accordingly. Another related issue to the counties acting and regulating individually is the example cited by Gene Seton where VOL 20 rAu701 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 25, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mason County has the very large parcels designated as forest land. It would seem logical to have something that is at least similar so that land owners in Jefferson County could be competitive with land owners in neighboring counties. The Board has a task that's taking some time; don't worry about it; get it right. Fred Hill. Shine, said he sat on the original mineral lands group. This ordinance is kind of a condensed version. The maps available for mineral resources are not very accurate. The minerals should be as close to the market as you can find them. If mineral lands are not designated and houses are built over them, the minerals are gone. This draft ordinance is a real condensed version and without looking at the previous work, I'm not sure that it includes everything that was put together. There being no further oral testimony, Chairman Hinton closed the hearing. Chairman Hinton announced that written testimony would be accepted by the County Commissioner's office until 5:00 p.m. on May 2, 1994. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the hearing and reconvened on Tuesday morning. All three Board members were present to continue interviewing persons interested in serving on the Jefferson County Housing Authority: Marianne Moe, Terrell GuilIory, Ronald L. Marlow, David E. Johnson, Doug Simpson, Alex Mintz, and Bruce Cannavaro. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY OF COMMISSIONERS AITEST: jJ!{ (¡.~ 4foUk ma L. Daney, f (j Clerk of the Board VOL 20 rM'702