Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111593 ,"",' i u~ 'V" :-;:::"Óh'" MINUTES Week of Noyember 15, 1993 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present. Mark Huth re: Discussion of A2reement Proposed bv G2B; Shoreline Liti2a- tion: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Ruth recommended that the Board not sign this document because it requires that the County stipulate that valid procedural and substantive questions exist. To sign it will draw the County further into the lawsuit. Agreeing that valid questions exist means that the County is taking a position on the matter being litigated. In addition his document would only dismisses a portion of the lawsuit. Mark Beaufait, Attorney, representing Patti and Edgar Sullivan and the G2B Partnership, stated that the proposed settlement agreement is intended to say there are issues present. He added that the word "valid" can be deleted if it is the concern. There is exposure to the County in terms of Open Meetings Act violations, substantive due process issues, an over reaching and an attorney's fee provisions. This is a special case in that the ultimate target is the City of Port Townsend and the City's Shoreline Management Plan. The document if approved would let the County, and the Commissioners out of the lawsuit. Mter further discussion of the settlement agreement and what it means, Commissioner Hun- tingford asked that the language in it be simplified. Mark Huth suggested that he and Mark Beaufait work together to draft a more simplified agreement document. VFW Service Officers Pat Bowen and Bob Farr re: Proposal for Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Funds: Pat Bowen and Bob Farr came before the Board to discuss a proposal submitted by the State Department of Veterans Mfairs for a voucher system for payments from the Veterans Assistance (Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief) Fund. Pat Bowen then suggested a listing of 12 conditions for the approval of applications for these funds. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The provision for solid waste educational services under the contract with Skookum was discussed. Commissioner Hinton thanked James "Bonzo" DeLeo 'Jor his work to clean up the gardens in front of the Courthouse before the parking lot dedication last week. Appointment to the Ciyil Service Commission: Commissioner Hinton moved to appoint Ralph Harder to a six year term on the, Civil Service Commission (term will expire November 14, 1999). Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Hr,. qr11811 ,t,lJ~ ti\<... .. .' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 2 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and adopt the items as presented on the consent agenda. Commis- sioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 103-93 re: Vacation of a Portion of Platted Pine Street In the Plat of Phillips Addition to lrondale; Ross Ray and Mark Stewart 2. RESOLUTION NO. 104-93 re: Adopting Cost Allocation Plan For Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 3. CONTRACT; Professional Services for the Health and Human Services Department; Kim Wheeler 4. Call For Bids: Construction of a New Animal Shelter; Project No. ACF947; Bid Opening Set for 2:00 p.m. on December 20, 1993 5. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Assessment, Data Base, Status Report, and Comprehensive Plan Production; Olsen-Greaves Inc. P.S. 6. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services to Assess and Report; Preparing the County Comprehensive Plan; McClelland & Associates BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Plannin2 Commission Recommendation on Petition for Zone Chan2e; From General Use to Commercial Use; 9.85 Acres Approximatelv 100 Feet South of the SRI9/SR20 Intersection. East of SRI9; Ea21e Eve. Inc.. Applicant: Hiller West representing the consulting firm of Shockey/Brent, reported that this petition from Eagle Eye, Inc. for a zone change has been submitted in accordance with Section 13 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance. There are two criteria that must be met for approving this petition: 1) the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that a zoning designation other than General Use is most consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) because the petition change process is part of the on-going process of creating precisely detailed maps, it is not necessary to indicate a change in circumstances to obtain a change in zoning. The 9.85 acres of property covered by this petition is currently zoned General Use and the petition is to change that to the General Commer- cial designation. There is a procedure in the Interim Zoning Ordinance (the conditional use permit process) to establish a commercial use on properties zoned General Use. He then explained how the Conditional Use permit process works. In the General Commercial Zone all activities involved in retail or wholesale buying, selling or distribution of services shall be permitted. The petitioned property boundary, Hiller West continued, begins approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of SRI9/20 and continues south for 1,200 feet along the east side of Airport Cutoff Road (SRI9) and west of the City of Port Townsend waterline. The property is currently undeveloped and has an unimproved driveway from Airport Cutoff Road, located directly south of the Ford Dealership. To the north there is Courtesy Ford, to the south and east the property is mostly undeveloped, and to the west across the Airport Cutoff Road is the Wheel In Drive In Theater and two residences. 1 ¡1 [,~rç lq'[l' :1812 .- ,.) 't,d~ '. The policies in the Comprehensive Plan provide that 1) commercial development should be located in areas where a reasonable demand can be expected for needs of the nearby community, and 2) strip commercial development along roads and highways leads to unnecessary traffic congestion, automobile accidents, proliferation of signs and the diminishment of adjoining property values, therefore commercial development should be located adjacent to existing commercial development in a blocklike fashion. The intersection of SR19/20 is designated in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan as a commercial center. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide a guideline for the distance from the intersection to make a determination if a parcel is appropriate for commercial designation. The 660 foot distance is referred to in the Tri Area Community Plan. This figure can be used as a guideline for review. The Planning Commission recommends denial of this request. The Planning Commission found that use of the 660 foot radius is not binding in ~, , ,1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 3 this case. A substantial amount of testimony was received in opposition to this request. A prior decision by the Board on the Wiley (Wheel In Drive In Theater) zone change petition stated that the extent of the proposed commercial zone was clearly limited by existence of established property lines and that it would not be appropriate to use that decision to encourage another zone change approvals. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan refers to a commercial center as a location for neighborhood or local scale commercial uses. This proposed redesignation would encourage or be conducive to commercial uses of a regional nature. Commissioner Hinton asked for a definition of "blocklike fashion." The Planning Commission generally felt that a blocklike development would be a planned development where access, and building location, footprints, etc. are looked at as a whole rather than in a strip pattern where you have commercial properties being developed along a highway frontage. Commissioner Hinton asked where the 660 foot figure for distance from an intersection came from? Hiller West stated that the 660 foot distance was chosen as being the most appropriate distance for review of commercial development in the General Use Zone as a conditional use. The Tri Area Com- munity Plan refers to a 660 foot distance from major intersections. Commissioner Hinton asked if this piece of property was rezone at the same time as the Wiley/Courtesy Ford property was rezoned? Mr. West reported that it was not, but the environmental review was conducted for this property as well as the Wiley property. Chairman Wojt stated that the only problem that a project proponent may have would be review under the "General Use" category. If the project were designated commercial that review would not be required. Hiller West stated that is correct. Chairman Wojt asked what other conditions may be put on a project in this area? James Holland, Senior Planner, reported that environmental (SEP A) review may be required for a project on this site. There are setback and lot coverage requirements that commercial projects are also subject to under the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and other site specific requirements in the County Comprehensive Plan. Hiller West added that the Planning Commission noted in their findings that only a portion of the property falls within the 660 foot radius of the intersection. Janet Welch, of the Planning Commission reported that there is only a portion of the total parcel being proposed for redesignation. Commissioner Huntingford asked the designation of properties in the circle (created by a 660 foot radius from the intersection) under the Development Code? Mr. West reported that he under- stood that the some properties were designated commercial in this area, but the Wiley property and this property were not included. Craig Jones, Attorney representing Eagle Eye, Inc. stated that the Eagle Eye property was not ever included in the Wiley petition that was reviewed by the previous Board. The Commis- sioners did not decide to exclude this property from the redesignation, a request was not before them at that time. There are development standards in the Interim Zoning Ordinance which provide for lighting, landscaping, buffers, screens, noise, signs, traffic generation, access, as well as setback and lot requirements. He explained that the request today is to change the zone to make this property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jones reported that he has sub- mitted testimony to the Board (see attached). Mr. Jones then noted the following: · To the ,north of this property is the Courtesy Ford property, which is a commercially zoned property. To the west is the Drive In which is also a commercially zoned property. This property abuts State Highway 19. On the east side of the property is a natural barrier which is the extensive City of Port Townsend waterline easement and a power line easement. This parcel is a small parcel with no other use. The most effective use of the property is for commercial purposes. The parcel is 9.86 acres. The DNS issued for the site provides for phased review of any project that is proposed for it. This site has no environmentally sensitive areas on it. The intersection of SR19/20 has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a commercial center. The actual size of the commercial center is left to be determined by the County Commis- sioners. In the Wiley rezone petition decision the County Commissioners said that the standard that they were applying is that the property be in proximity to the intersection. The Planning · · · ~j rAG. 00 :18:13 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 4 Department staff stated that this request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it met all the criteria of the Interim Zoning Ordinance. There were three meetings with the Planning Commission (October 6, 20, and 27, 1993), Craig Jones continued. The final recommendation from the Planning Commission is inconsistent. In one portion of the recommendation it states that the 660 foot requirement is included in the Interim Zoning Ordinance for commercial use in the General Use Zone. In the Commercial Zone there is no 660 foot requirement in the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and therefore it has no rele- vance. He asked that the Board follow the minority position of the Planning Commission and approve this petition for zone change. Another question raised by the Planning Commission is the difference between strip and blocklike development, Craig Jones explained. The majority position of the Planning Commission was that this approval would lead to sprawl or strip commercial development. This was not the minority position of the Planning Commission who stated that they felt the approval would complete the commercial zone in a blocklike manner, and was therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Hinton asked if the 660 feet from the intersection creates the radius of the circle or if the 660 feet refers to the circumference? Senior Planner James Holland reported that it is a 660 foot radius. After further discussion of what was done previously in this area, the criteria for granting a zone change petition, and the County ordinances that apply, Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the petition for zone change as petitioned for Eagle Eye, Inc. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion Chairman Wojt vote against the motion. The motion carried. The Board directed the Prosecuting Attorney to prepare findings and conclusions to support this action. Plannin2 Commission Recommendation on Petition for Zone Chan2e; From General Use to Commercial Use; Approximatelv 5 Acres on the West Side of SR20. 800 Feet South of the SR20/SR19 Intersection; Mvrl Hancock. Applicant: Hiller West reported that this zone change petition was submitted by Myrl Hancock for a five acre parcel approximate- ly 800 feet south of the SR19/20 intersection. The property fronts on Highway 20 and is generally level. The site has been partially cleared and contains an existing well drilling business and a residence. To the east is the Drive In Theater, to the north a construction and excavation business and further north is the Ford Dealership right at the intersection. The Planning Commis- sion felt there was a potential for strip commercial development if this zone change is approved. There was considerable discussion, by the Planning Commission, of the new intersection which is on the 1994 Jefferson County Transportation Improvement Plan, and whether this property would fall within 660 feet of that new intersection configuration. There was agreement that a portion of the property would fall within that distance, but there is no certainty that the new intersection will be built. The property was reviewed under SEPA in September and a proposed mitigated determination of non-significance was issued on September 22, 1993. Hiller West than reviewed the Planning Commission findings and recommendation to deny this petition. Myrl Hancock stated that he has had this property with a commercial business on it for quite a long time (since Commissioner Huntingford's uncle was a Commissioner in Jefferson County). He has had a commercial building permit on the property and has an industrial water well on the site. He can't get a building permit on his property unless it is designated as commercial. Commissioner Huntingford asked Myrl Hancock if he could get a building permit for an expansion of his business? Mr. Hancock stated that he had a commercial building permit for the property and let it expire. He doesn't know if he could get another one. He stated that he can't sell the property as commercial property. Hiller West reported that any expansion of the use for commercial purposes or any new commercial uses on the property would require a conditional tJ fA;,· no 1814 " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 5 use permit. The existing commercial business on the property can continue and can be sold as an existing business. Lonnie Phillips, Redmond, stated that he feels this is the most perfectly suited property for his plans. He stated that he feels where the residences are located on the site should remain residential and he would not want to live along the highway. He stated that he would have a very small, quiet business that would not interfere with any neighbors. He added that King County has restricted commercial growth so severely that a small business cannot afford to open. Mr. Hancock is selling this property at a price he can afford so that he can start his business. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Mr. Phillips would buy the property if he had to apply for a conditional use permit to have his business on the site? Mr. Phillips stated that he cannot afford to buy the property and then be denied the use of it for his business. Commissioner Hinton asked how this property was viewed differently by the Planning Commis- sion than the Eagle Eye property? Donald Cote of the Planning Commission stated that there were quite a few letters complaining about the property being filled and the runoff from the property, as well as previous activities on the site. Commissioner Hinton asked what the staff recommendation was on this rezone petition? Hiller West reported that the Planning Department staff recommended that the rezone petition be approved effective when the new intersection was constructed. Commissioner Hinton stated that this piece would be consistent with the zoning of the adjacent properties and would be in a "blocklike fashion." He then moved to approve the petition for rezone as submitted by Myrl Hancock. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has concerns about the housing in this area, but he doesn't want to have to deal with this same petition a year from now. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Plannin2 Commission Recommendation on Request for Redesignation Under the Comprehensive Plan; From Resource Production to Rural Area Desi2nation; 7.91 Acres South of Wildwood Road in Ouilcene; Frank Hyde. Applicant: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the Frank Hyde rezone petition as recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Application to Open Ri2ht-of-Way; Parallel to Hastin2s Ayenue West; Thelma Orr. Applicant (Continued from Noyember 1. 1993): Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported on the history of Hastings Avenue West. In 1891 the road was approved by the County Commissioners and established on May 4, 1892. In 1936 the 70 foot wide right-of-way for the current alignment of Hastings Avenue was quit claimed to the County. The County then rebuilt the road on the new right-of-way and abandoned the prior right-of-way. The chain of title does not show any record that this right-of-way exists, (per a letter from John Nesset of Jefferson Title Company to the Public Works Department). In the surveys and deeds since that time there is no mention of this right-of-way and the County has never allowed use of the right-of-way to the adjacent property owners. The general law in this type of situation is that when a municipality builds a new road on a new right-of-way, and does not express their intent to save the old right- of-way it is considered to be abandoned. The County can't grant approval for opening something that no longer exists. Malcom Harris, Attorney representing Mrs. Orr, stated that Mrs. Orr is a widow who owns a landlocked parcel of property. , He then reviewed the actions taken by Mrs. Orr to date to establish an easement for access to her property. He stated that before he abandons this application he would like proof that the County has abandoned this right-of-way. He asked if there is any record of this abandonment? "', ." d rAGE 0018:15 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 6 Mark Huth reported that the only record is that the County vacated a portion of it in 1973 which indicates that the County had no interest in that portion of it. He added that he would provide a formal statement for Mr. Harris that the right-of-way has been abandoned. Mr. Harris stated that he wants the County to stand behind the position that is being taken today if it is ever ques- tioned in the future. Mark Huth asked Eileen Simon of the Public Works Department if she found anything in searching the public records? She reported that the only thing she found was a plan for the realignment. Mark Huth asked Mr. Moore, an adjacent property owner, if there is any evidence today that a road crossed his property? Mr. Moore stated that it appears there was an old skid road that is overgrown and it is not passable by a car. Mark Huth then asked if there is a fence between Hastings Avenue and Mr. Moore's property? Mr. Moore answered that there is a fence and a post and cable across the old road bed. Mark Huth asked if there has been any traffic on the old road bed? Mr. Moore stated it has not been any traffic on it and no one would be permitted to drive on it. Commissioner Hinton moved that the application to open right-of-way submitted by Thelma Orr be denied. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: CDBG Grant Application for ClaUam Jefferson Community Action Council: Fundin2 for Activities. Includin2 Emplovment. Housin2. Ener2V Assistance. Nutrition and Education: Washin2ton State Department of Community Development: Lee Tickell, Executive Director for Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council, explained that three years ago Community Action Council's around the State lost the ability to transfer money from the low income home energy assistance program to the Community Service Block Grant, which is the funding which provides for the administration of Community Action agencies statewide. The State Legislature gave authority to Community Action Council's to use Community Develop- ment Block Grant Human Service funding. This block grant funding will allow for a range of services that are administered by the Community Action Council such as: emergency shelter, housing programs, employment related services, etc. The County must apply for these grant funds. Chairman Wojt then opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment for or against this grant application the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 105-93 for the submission of the CDBG Grant application for the Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council funding. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Bob Monica. Civil Service Commission re: Testin2 Procedures: Bob Monica member of the Civil Service Commission reported that the recent Civil Service test given for Sheriff's Office positions met the provisions of the RCW. He feels that the test was given fairly. He added that the main function of the Chief Examiner is to maintain the integrity of the testing procedures. Commissioner Hinton explained that a question has been raised regarding a conflict of interest for Commissioner Monica serving on the Civil Service Commission while he is a member of the City Police reserves. The discussion continued regarding the testing procedures, the role of the Chief Examiner. Commissioner Hinton reported that the Prosecuting Attorney has advised that Bob Monica needs to either resign from the City Police Reserves or resign from the Civil Service Commission. Bob Monica stated that he will consider the options and report back on his decision. Commissioner Hinton reported that the Board will check with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding whether Mr. Monica can serve on the Civil Service Commission even if he resigns from the police reserves. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Si2nificance: LP-05-93 Silent Lake: 76 Acres into 15 Lots. AU Greater than 5 Acres; On the Toandos ¡ G p r. U·~lf).. :181.6 Æ. tJ ! ;-O,d. l} Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 7 Peninsula; JAL Associates: Chairman W ojt explained the hearing process and asked the follow- ing questions: Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Associate Planner Jim Pearson submitted additional correspondence for the Board that were received too late for inclusion in their packet of information including: information from the applicant, a brief from the Washington Environmental Council and a letter from Cass Whalen, an adjoining property owner. Jim Pearson then reported on the items being appealed: · The SEP A determination does not consider compliance with the forest land desi€!nations which are a requirement of the Growth Mana€!ement Act. Jim Pearson added that the County has not completed this designation process yet, but explained the U.S. Department of Agriculture soil mapping of the site which indicates there are Class 4 or unclassified soils for forest land production, was considered in the SEP A determination. The Coyle Community Plan indicates that Class 2 and 3 soils are considered prime soils and there are policies that would prohibit development on areas that have prime soils in order to preserve them for resource production. Since there are Class 4 soils on this site, this project is not contrary to the Coyle plan. Impacts on adiacent Forest Lands. Very often there are conflicts between residential development and forest management practices. If the Board determines that the proposal might have a significant impact, Jim Pearson recommended that a notice be placed on the plat that would notify potential purchasers that the property is located adjacent to forest land owned by the State and managed for timber production, and that forest management activities should be expected. Commissioner Hinton asked what the proximity of this site is to the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) timber lands? Jim Pearson reported that the property is adjacent on the north, east and south to DNR timberland. The boundary on the west is the Coyle Road. Availability of water in the area. This matter was considered during the Planning Depart- ment review of the proposaL The proposal site is 76 acres in size and the proposal is to subdivide it into 15 lots. This is one unit per five acres. There are restrictions on clearing and timber harvest which will not allow large amounts of impervious surface in the area. The precipitation in the area was also considered in the Planning Department's finding that the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to ground- water supplies. Chairman Wojt asked what is meant by precipitation? Jim Pearson answered that the rainfall in that area is approximately 30 inches per year. Additional information was received from the applicant since the SEP A determination was made, that shows well logs and well test reports in the area. Under Section 7.406 of the Subdivision Ordinance the applicant is not required to provide potable water for lots of the size proposed. A notice will be placed on the titles to notify potential purchasers that water is not provided. Impacts to wetlands. Water quality protection and wildlife habitat were reviewed. Regarding water quality the slopes on the site were reviewed, as well as the nature of the soils. A stormwater management plan is required for road building and a small parcel erosion control plan is required for development of the lots. The applicant has proposed limits on timber harvest and clearing on the sites. In consideration of those factors there does not appear to be an impact to water quality by the proposal. With regard to wildlife habitat, there was originally concern that there was nesting habitat for cavity nesting ducks on this site. During the review it was found that the trees on the site are not suitable for cavity nesting ducks, but there are nesting areas on the DNR properties that surround the · · · L 8 rM)~ 00 1_8:17 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 8 site. Buffers have been proposed for the wetlands to protect the wildlife habitat com- ponents. Jim Pearson then reviewed the issues raised by the Memo from Cass Whalen: SEP A review for subsequent re-subdivision of the property -- Jim Pearson explained that if the parcels were subdivided by the Short Plat process, SEP A review would probably be required because there are significant wetlands (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) on the site. Impacts to the lake and wildlife use of the lake by docks and outboard motors on the lake -- The State Department of Wildlife indicated there isn't a problem in allowing docks on the lake. They are concerned about the use of outboard motors. The applicant shares that concern and would support an action by the County to prohibit the use of outboard motors on this lake. Commissioner Hinton asked about the concern raised by the Fire District for access to this lake for water? Jim Pearson reported that the Fire District's access to the lake is over DNR land that would not be affected by this proposal. Chairman Wojt then asked the appellant to present their information. Tobv Thaler. representing the Washington Environmental Council, then asked Mike Cronin to address the forest land issues. Mike Cronin. 1082 So. Jacob Miller Road, Port Townsend, swore to tell the truth. Mr. Thaler asked the following questions: Q. What is your occupation? A) Forester with the Department of Natural Resources. Q. What is your education? A) A Bachelor of Science in Forest Management 1972 from Southern Illinois Univer- sity. Q. What are the responsibilities of your position as a Forester with the Department of Natural Resources? A) Responsible for management of about 30,000 acres of Trust lands in east Jefferson and east Clallam counties. Q. Trust lands means lands that the people of the State own that is managed by DNR? A) Yes. Q. That means you do not deal with Forest Practice Applications? A) That's right. Q. How long have you been in your current position? A) I've been in this job for 13 years, in the same geographical area. Q. You're familiar with forest lands in east Jefferson County? A) Yes. Q. Are you personally familiar with the site in question? A) Yes. He stated he is not intimately familiar with the individual 80 acre parcel, but he has worked in the State lands surrounding it. He provided a map of the area and explained that it is a map generated by the DNR GIS system. It outlines the Trust lands managed by DNR (shaded in gold) and the roads that service them. The Silent Lake site is an 80 acre rectangle in Section 35, and DNR lands surround it on all four sides. On the west boundary the black line is the Coyle Road. Q. You have a photograph that shows the area? A) He held up a photograph of the Silent Lake area. Q. Does the north end of Silent Lake lie on DNR property? A) Yes, it does. Q. Is there any legal access to the north end of the lake from the Coyle Road? A) No. Q. The Fire Department's access is informal? A) It is his understanding that they use the existing road to the Lake. He is not sure what side of the property line that road falls on. He believes this access has to go Ft~~;· no 181.8 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 9 through the proponents land to get to the lake. This is a long standing lake front road, but it's not on DNR land. He feels they don't have a legal access. Q. Is legal access or non-legal access across DNR land something you deal with on a regular basis? A) Yes, particularly in that vicinity. Q. Is this particular DNR land of one type of Trust as opposed to any other? A) The Section 35 ownership is State Forest Board Transfer land which is managed by DNR for the financial benefit of the County as opposed to being original Trust land for the benefit of schools, universities, etc. Q. That means that income generated from this land is allocated to the County specifically? A) Yes. Q. Are there other economic benefits to the local economy from the DNR lands in and around Section 35? A) The same benefits that accrue from having a working forest. 75% of the financial return on timber sales go to Jefferson County, as well as the value of the employ- ment generated by the timber sales and reforestation activities. Q. Where does the timber that is harvested from the DNR lands in that vicinity go? A) The timber is sold by auction on the open market. It is required to be processed domestically. Most of it is processed in the Northwest. Q. Most of the logging is done by local residents? A) Jefferson and Clallam residents. Q. Does DNR have a present intention of maintaining its lands in Section 35 for timber production purposes? A) Yes, we do. At this point in time we have no plans to do anything other than maintain them for commercial forest lands. Q. You're aware of the term "areas likely to convert?" (Designated by the State Forest Practices Act) A) Yes. Q. Is this land near any DNR lands designated such? A) Not to my knowledge. Q. Did you hear the Planning Department staff describe the Coyle Plan's definition of the productivity of the site? A) Yes. Q. Does your background and experience include evaluating the productivity of forest lands? A) Yes, that's routine business for us. Q. Describe the standard timber classification method used? A) They use a site index based on the State Soil Survey and on-site measurement. The State Soil Survey lists the site index for Douglas Fir on those sites from a low of about 90 to 105-110. The average is close to 100 for the soils that cover Section 35. What that means is the potential for Douglas Fir to grow a given height in 50 years. Site index 100 is 100 feet tall in 50 years. There are categories based on the site index. They usually use the King's Site Index Curve with rankings from Class 1 through Class 5. The productivity of this site falls in Class 3. On-site measurements on soils on the adjacent State property north and south of this 80 acre site, show that it is higher than the soil survey indicates. He has come up with an average site index 120, which is the upper end of Class 3. Q. Are you familiar with the regulations concerning designation of forest lands under the Growth Management Act? A) I've gone over them briefly. It's a bit confusing. Q. Have you read those (seven) criteria listed and do the DNR forest land in Section 35 meet these criteria? A) Yes, they do meet the criteria for forest land, based on the size of the parcels surrounding the site. The DNR managed parcels are part of a multi-hundred acre block. Q. The first paragraph of that regulation refers to another regulation to be used by the Counties in designation of forest lands, which' is the State Department of Revenue's regulation concerning timberland taxation. Can you tell me what this provides and how it relates to the site in question? A) The grades used by the Department of Revenue to determine commercial forest feasibility range from 1 to 7. Those grades below 7 are considered to be poor >,..~.....; 1 d f'M,· 00 .181c9 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 10 enough quality that they are not commercially feasible soils. The Douglas Fir Site Index on that site ranges between 90 and 110 and falls into the Land Grade 3 and the upper end of Land Grade 4 which are clearly higher than the minimum base of 7. Q. How would you compare this particular site with other forest land in Jefferson County for its timber growing capacity? A) They are very similar. It is considerably better than everything on the northern part of the Quimper Peninsula and not quite as good as lands in Range 2 West (around Quilcene). As far as east Jefferson County and the north Olympic Peninsula, they are typical of commercially viable forest soils. Q. The GMA requires a consideration by the County of conservation of forest lands based on their statewide significance. How would you compare this land for timber growing with land elsewhere in the State? A) They are quite good. It depends on what scope you consider this in. There are parts of western Washington that are consistently better than most of east Jefferson County. But, on a statewide basis, commercially viable forest lands in eastern Washington are much poorer than those here. He explained further for Chairman Wojt that land grading addresses both soil potential and operability (which deals with slopes and soil type limitations due to compactability and erosion.) Q. Describe WAC 458-40-535, the Tax Land Operability Class? A) The Operability Class deals with limitations based on soil stability (or instability), steep slopes, erosion potential. In the Operability Class this site is Class 1, favorable, because they are gentle slopes and relatively operable soils. Q. In your personal knowledge, can you indicate on the map where the nearest human settlements are to this site (congregation of two or more houses?) A) Significant depends on who you are. He then pointed out Camp Discovery on the Dabob side of the peninsula which has seasonal and some permanent residences (6 or 8); single residences along the beach; and approximately a dozen residences along the State's property. Q. Is it correct that most human habitat along the Coyle Peninsula is towards the salt water and not up on the hill? A) Yes, that seems to be the trend. Q. Does the development in Section 36 (directly to the east of the DNR land surrounding the site in question) pose problems for DNR's continued management of its lands for timber production? A) There is a long term access problem in Section 35 on the Seahome Road. It is against DNR policy to grant multiple residential easements. These are conflicts with forest use. Q. Is it your opinion that continued subdivision of land in and adjacent to DNR lands creates problems for your long term timber management? A) Development adjacent to our lands does. It has removed options, made it more difficult and economically not as feasible to manage that land. Q. So the long term conclusion is that it brings pressure on DNR to convert? A) It does bring pressure to convert. Commissioner Huntingford asked if DNR had ever looked at purchasing these properties? Mike Cronin answered that he believes DNR approached the previous owner of the property about buying it. This is clearly a parcel that if it was available at forest land prices, would be considered for acquisition. Mr. Thayler continued. Q. Do you have anything to else to add that might be relevant for the Commissioner's consideration? A) Mr. Cronin stated that he thinks it is important that site productivity be viewed in context. In context of what's available on the east peninsula. It's not to be considered an extremely poor site because of a comparison to lands in southwest Washington. This is a good site that has been forest land for a long time. The DNR would like to maintain the ability to practice forestry. The DNR has not given up long term forest management on the Coyle Peninsula. ~~, 0- r) L 'd fAG~ . ~LJ :1820 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 11 Paul Costantine, representing JAL Associates (project proponent), then asked Mr. Cronin the following questions: Q. Are you aware of a community called Dabob Cove which is right across the street and a little south of the proposed project? These are residential sites in the area. A) Yes, I am. Mr. Constantine added that to characterize this as being out in the middle of no people is a little bit unfair. There is certainly residential development going on around it. Q. What did you mean when you were talking about access? A) There was a comment that access used by the Fire District to get to the lake edge was DNR. He doesn't believe that is the case. Mr. Constantine reported that the State land is between Coyle Road and the lake. Mr. Cronin added that the property line is so close there he isn't sure where it is. Q. The classification as Forest land, what is the Soil Conservation Service classification of that land? Is it Class 4? A) Mr. Cronin answered that he doesn't know what category Mr. Constantine is referring to. Q. Not all of Section 35 will be subdivided. He asked specific what soils category the 76 acres that are being subdivided are? A) There are several different soils, but he doesn't know exactly what SCS number they are. They are in the range on the Douglas Fir Site Index of 95-97 and 105. Q. As far as operability - does the presence of most of a 12 acre lake and some wetlands have any bearing on the operability of a site as timberland? A) Certainly those soil in the wetland are not highly operable soils. There's a transition between the wetland soils and the operable upland soils. Q. Would you characterize that specific parcel as being very easy to undertake commercial timber management operations? A) The soils on that site are quite operable. I don't have a detailed soil report on that exact site. 12 to 15 acres of the site is water and the associate wetlands on another 10 acres, and that leaves a majority of acres in operable soils. Q. Operability doesn't take into account anything, such as the proximity to the lake and the wetlands? A) Not that index. Q. Have you looked at the Coyle Community Plan? A) Just briefly. Q. Do you know how this land is classified in the Coyle Community Plan? A) Yes. Q. And do you know how the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan classifies woodland productivity types? A) Yes. Q. Are you aware that the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Coyle Community Plan don't consider Class 4 soils to be high woodland productivity? A) I'm not sure that I understand that. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth then asked Mr. Cronin the following: Q. Are you here as a representative of the DNR? A) No. I'm here to report local knowledge. Q. Your comments today are not an official Department of Natural Resources position? A) I don't mean to be taking a position. I'm here to provide some information about the area. Q. Are you aware that the DNR has already commented on this project? A) Not, specifically, no Q. So, you haven't seen any letters from Vale Case for instance, expressing their comments? If you knew that DNR had commented (and they have) and not stated concerns about long term commercial significance or continuing forestry or transition lands, etc., would that change your opinion? A. No. Q. In the classification of timber growing productivity based on soil types, is that SCS soil types? A) SCS soil types. Q. Do you know what the soil types of this area are? Î. .La f,Ar;: !t·'~í..~ 1-821 1_ ....) ,.'IL -þ\ " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 12 A) To use the terms 4 or 5, without describing exactly what category you're talking about, is dangerous here. If you're talking about Douglas Fir Site Index, I can testify to that. Q. How do these indexes (the Douglas Fir Site Categories and the Soils Categories) fit together? The Department of Revenue uses Class 1 through 7 for land grading. He asked Mr. Constantine if he was referring to these classes? Mr. Constantine explained that he was referring to the Soil Conservation Service classes of woodland productivity soils, which run 1 through 4 (1 being the highest). A) Mr. Cronin stated that he gave an interpretation of the Kings Site Index Curve which runs from a high of 140 (meaning a 140 feet of growth in 50 years) and a low of 60. These figures are then grouped in the Kings Site Index Curve. 60 to 70 would be Class 5; 80 to 90 being Class 4; 100 to 110 being Class 3; 120 to 130 Class 2; and 140 and above being Class 1. Q. When you say those five classes, they may not be the same as the Soil Conservation Service classes? A) They may not be the same. Q. Is King's Site Index Curve something you use in your everyday work? A) Yes. Q. The Department of Revenue rating - do you use those? A) To a lesser extent. Q. Are you responsible for designation lands as conversion - urban transition land? A) I'm consulted for local input when real estate specialist review this. Q. Would these lands be judged by DNR as having long term commercial significance? A) I believe that we feel they do. Q. When was the last sale of timber from lands within proximity of the proposed project? A) There are sales pending on 80 acres immediately to the south of the site. There is another pending sale in the Section to the west. There have been small sales in the past two years. There haven't been any large sales in that block in several years. Most of the timber is 45 to 50 years old and is just reaching the stage for harvesting. Commissioner Hinton asked Mike Cronin: Q. Access to the lake? Would it be possible for the Fire District to use DNR property for access? A) Mike Cronin stated that would not be a problem. There is a regional interest in fire protection and the DNR has an interest in granting that type of access. He explained that the access road referred to may be on State land and is open for public use. Q. Can you define long term commercial significance? A) I wish I could. The property would have to meet minimal soil productivity, which pretty much everything thing on the Coyle Peninsula does, and there would have to be the absence of intensive development and market conditions that make it almost impossible to keep the property in forestry. Q. This site has County access, so how would the proposed development impact DNR? A) The proximity of the development to DNR lands would be the impact. Commissioner Huntingford then asked: Q. There is a list of things in the appellant's brief that might make the timber long term commercially significant, one of which is the property tax classification. What's the DNR's position of having all their property automatically put into long term commercially significant timber designation in Jefferson County? A) I'm not the guy to ask that. Toby Thaler asked if DNR's ability to manage it's lands for long term timber production is made more or less difficult, if it is designated in isolation of the land around it? Mike Cronin stated that there are problems with management when there is a change in land use on properties around timber production lands. He then asked if most of the land surrounding the DNR land in Section 35 is in large timber company ownership? Mike Cronin reported that most of it is still in large ownership and being managed for forestry. l ~j f'A(;~ 001822 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 13 Commissioner Hinton asked what the difficulties are in managing these lands? Mike Cronin answered that the expectations of residents are a problem. Buffers are required by the Coyle Plan and buffers are acres that are not managed intensively, so the desirability of that forest land is reduced. Residents expect that they won't be subject to disturbance. No one wants a clearcut in their backyard or the early morning loud noises from thinning. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the DNR feels that buffers should come from adjoining properties or that they should provide them? Mike Cronin stated that he feels landowners would rather have the buffer on their neighbor. Mr. Thayler then called on Jerry Gorsline. Jerry Gorsline. 5282 Cape George Road, Port Townsend: Q. What is your educational background and experience? A) Mr. Gorsline answered that he has been involved for over 20 years in forest management issues on the north Olympic Peninsula. He ran a contracting business for about 10 years. For the past four years he has been a Field Representative for the Washington Environmental Council and a participant in the Timber, Fish and Wildlife process. He has been monitoring (Forest Practice) applications and reviewing on-site evaluations. Q. Did you understand the discussion while Mike Cronin was testifying regarding soils? A) Yes. Toby Thaler handed him a document he identified as the Jefferson County Soil Survey, page 57. He explained that this page has four or five paragraphs describing the woodlands groups used by the survey to describe productivity classes. He then submitted a table that he put together to be used as part of his committee work with the County's GMA process. He explained that there are definitions listed underneath the table. The SCS Productivity classes are the ones used in the Coyle Community Plan. He then explained the table. (See attached) Q. Have you been addressing and tracking conversions in general in your work with the WEC and TFW? A) Yes, I have. Q. Can you tell me what these handwritten notes are (Entered handwritten document listing forest practice permit conversions - see attached) A) These are notes I made of applications tracked since March 1992 which was the date that Jefferson County was supposed to have its' Interim Resource Land Ordinance in place. These are Class 4 general applications since that time up to October 19, 1993. There are 63 forest practice applications on the list which amount to 788 acres. Q. Class 4 General under the Forest Practices Act means that it's a forest practice permit for a piece of land that is being converted to another use. Is that correct? A) It's more complicated than that. It can mean conversions, but it can also mean lands that were platted after 1960 which the applicant mayor may not intend to convert. Q. When you put this list together, did you discuss tracking these permits with either the DNR or the County? A) I talked with the County Planning staff about this database. Q. Had they tracked that before you came to them with the information? A) I'm not sure. This database will be used in deliberations on the County's Forest land designations. Commissioner Huntingford asked how many acres of the 788 acres tracked as Class 4 Forest Practice Permits have actually gone through the County for conversion or subdivision? Jim Pearson reported that up until the change in the Forest Practices Act made about a year ago, the process for determining who would conduct the SEP A review for conversion was unclear and in most cases it was done by the State DNR if the County didn't have any permits to grant. A number of those parcels listed are five to ten acres in size and were actually converted quite a while ago. , .,'""' ("'fl 2· 3 L ~J f~r;; k. Î-8 Mark Huth then asked Mr. Gorsline the following questions: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 14 Q. How many of the Class IV General (Forest Practice Permits) on the list are on the Coyle Peninsula? A) I can't answer that. At this point all that has been done is tracking the raw data. Because Section, Township and Range are on the list, Mr. Gorsline reviewed the list and reported that there are several applications in that area. Toby Thaler asked Jerry Gorsline about the forest land designation process that he is participating in and the maps that were produced for that committee: Q. What do the maps show? A) There are two maps which were developed with slight differences in the criteria used in their generation. He then reviewed what the designations on each map represent, per the map key. Mark Huth asked: Q. What is the purpose of the maps? A) The ad hoc committee came up with some recommendations about a year ago, but they did not use objective criteria. The Planning Commission felt the recommenda- tions had merit and they derived objective criteria and then had the maps generated on the GIS system. Q. What would the criteria for Class 2A be? A) There is primary forest land, then there is what we call the transition area which is identified as class 2 and 2A. Q. Transition meaning from forestry to development? A) Meaning from forestry to rural lands. Q. What is the designation of the light green area? A) Reading from a Memorandum from David Young the GIS operator to the GMA Planning staff dated November 1993 stating the criteria used for generating the maps. For Class 2A designation criteria is: "Parcels meeting all Class 2 criteria except number 3." Number 3 is "located immediately adjacent to parcels identified as Class 1 Forest land." Q. What are the other criteria for Class 2? A) It has to be currently designated timber tax status (which this 80 acre parcel is) greater than or equal to 20 acres, located immediately adjacent to parcels identified as Class 1 Forest Resources land, adjacent to parcels greater than or equal to five acres on 85% on their perimeter and the majority of the parcel is not currently within a community water service area. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the County can use the Forest land Resource designations in this deliberation since they have not been done? Mark Huth agreed that this project cannot be mitigated or denied based on the potential of the site to be designated under any set of regula- tions that haven't been adopted yet. The application is vested under the regulations that are in place upon submission of a completed application. Whether or not it would be designated resource lands really isn't the point. Toby Thaler reiterated the appellants position that the SEP A Threshold determination is incorrect because of its' failure to consider the impacts of the proposed action on land use including the potential future designation of this site as forest land and on DNR's ability to continue their lands in timber management. None of those issues were addressed in the SEP A document. Mark Huth added that the County couldn't address them because that would be judging this project on the basis of future regulations. The County can't do that. Carol Bernthal, 3132 Sheridan Avenue, Port Townsend Q. Your educational background? A) I have a Bachelors of Science in Natural Resources from the University of Wisconsin at Madison 1985. I am currently employed as the Habitat Coordinator for the Point No Point Treaty Council. I deal with fisheries, wildlife and wetland issues for the Treaty Council. I worked for three years as the Regional represen- tative on Timber, Fish, and Wildlife for the Washington Environmental Council. In addition I worked for one year for Island County doing their critical area planning under Growth Management. ; . .' ('''') :1824 ,<1 [,Ir, . ¡f , L~) r ~,)_j, . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 15 Q. Is it correct that you are not here representing the Treaty Council or any of its tribes? A) That's true. Q. Has your experience given you expertise in wetlands and associated wildlife habitat? A) Yes. When I worked for WEC, I reviewed Forest Practice Permits and issues covered included wetlands as well as wildlife, and water quality. We would go out and analyze the impacts and look at what kind of mitigation was required. When I worked for Island County, one of the areas of heavy concentration was wetlands. With my current position I also look at impacts to wetlands systems. Q. Can you tell me about your role on a technical committee you mentioned? A) I was involved with a committee that was looking at putting together the Forest Practice rules for wetlands through Timber, Fish, and Wildlife. I am currently involved with the State wetlands integration strategy which is an effort of the State DOE to look at the existing regulatory and technical issues related to wetlands and to see if there is a better way to integrate wetland protection on a statewide basis. Representation on that committee consists of: the environmental community, the business community, the agriculture community, the Indian tribes, State and federal agencies. Q. What is your involvement with this particular site? A. I was involved in reviewing the original Class 4 General Forest Practice Permit and was on the ID team that took place on July 21, 1993. I reviewed the site prior to the ID team. I provided comments on the SEP A Threshold Determination and reviewed the existing file on this permit and have discussed it with Mr. Constantine. I supplied written comment on the SEP A threshold determination. Mr. Thayler asked that Ms. Bernthal make her presentation based on the maps with a focus on the threshold determination. Carol Bernthal clarified the functions and value of the wetlands that need to be protected: Water quality - sediment and nutrient removal and uptake. Wildlife habitat - This site contains habitat for cavity nesters which is a priority habitat. Avoiding human encroachment into the wetland buffer. She then reviewed a series of maps (see attached). Silent Lake is a 12 acre lake of open water with wetland vegetation around it. This is a wetland, even with its' open water component, because there is wetland vegetation and rooted aquatic vegetation on the edge. There are seven other wetlands on site. John Heal prepared a wetlands report on these seven wetlands. He classified the wetlands using the DOE rating system. The priority habitat for this area was for cavity nesting ducks. Some of the site was logged about 10 to 15 years ago, so it is a young plantation. The remaining timber is just getting to maturity now. The zone of influence for cavity nesting species is 600 feet around the core open water area. She disagrees with the Department of Wildlife that the nesting area for these species is found off site. There is a substantial amount of habitat actually on site (directly adjacent to the lake) and it is no different from the timber type on the surrounding State lands. The currently proposed mitigation is a 25 foot buffer around the lake including any adjoining wetlands. The buffer is measured back from the edge of the wetland. Within that area 50% of the trees should be maintained including all snags and trees greater than 20 dbh. This also means that 50% of the trees can be removed from this area. The brush is to remain but it can be trimmed down to six feet. There is a staggered building setback defined. The setback is 75 feet for a maximum distance of 100 feet (parallel to the lake) and then the setback goes back to 100 feet. Within this area the same criteria for trees in the buffer area applies, except that the under story can be removed. This doesn't say what distribution the trees must be left in and there could be lawn placed in this area. Studies have shown that buffer values decrease substantially when vegetation is simplified in the under story. A 30 foot wildlife corridor was defined to connect to the State DNR lands, as well as another 30 and 50 foot no harvest area to provide a corridor to the lake. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the preliminary map was changed? Jim Pearson reported that it had been changed. tô fAGE 00:1825 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 16 Carol Bernthal continued by explaining that it was the understanding of the ID team, when they visited the site, that there would be a 100 foot no-harvest buffer left around the lake. The building setback is to be from the edge of the lake, but in areas where the wetland buffer extends back 50 feet, the building setback would fall within the wetland area. She added that she feels that the language in the mitigation on setbacks needs to be clarified. She then reviewed the wetland buffer requirements indicated by current literature as summarized by Wetland Buffers Use and Effectiveness prepared by the State Department of Ecology and dated February 1992. Currently there is a proposed 25 foot commercial harvest buffer around Silent Lake, and the studies indicate that to protect water quality a 100 foot buffer is needed. To provide for wildlife a minimum buffer of 200 feet is needed, and to address sediment removal 100 to 200 feet is needed. To prevent human encroachment a 50 to 150 foot buffer is necessary. Based on this information she feels there is potential for significant adverse impacts in the proposal as it currently stands. Mr. Thayler then asked Carol Bernthal the following questions: Q. In the SEPA review document dated September 10, 1993, there are some conclusions on the bottom of Page 3 and 4 (water) and page 5 (wildlife). One conclusion says that "the proposal is not likely to result in significant adverse impact to ground water supplies." Are you able to formulate an opinion of the accuracy of that statement in light of the possibility of 14 septic systems on this parcel? A) I don't want to comment on that because my expertise isn't in that area. Q. The next conclusion is that this proposal is not likely to result in significant impacts related to these wetlands (the small wetlands numbered 4 through 7). Do you agree with that conclusion? A) No. Those isolated wetlands still have functions they provide in terms of water quality and they should get some type of protection. To ignore them is to negate their value. Q. The last conclusion says that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse impact, but that they will be avoided by mitigation measures. Is that what you were discussing in your presentation? A) Based on the literature I reviewed, I would say that all the buffers are inadequate. Q. On page 5 a similar conclusion is drawn with reference to wildlife. Under staff recom- mendations it makes specific reference to what the impacts are and then says that the impacts can be avoided. Do you agree with that conclusion? A) Not based on the information I reviewed, specifically for cavity nesting birds. With the 600 foot radius a substantial amount of the habitat will be on this property. Clearing some of the under story can negate some of the value that might be provided by the 50% retention of the larger trees. Mark Huth then asked Carol Bernthal the following questions: Q. Have you reviewed the correspondence from the State Department of Wildlife to the County regarding this project? A) Briefly. Q. Do the mitigation measures suggested by the Planning Department appear to conform to the statements by the Department of Wildlife in their comments? A) She answered that she was confused because two different recommendations were made. The first (earlier) recommendation was for a 100 foot setback around the lake and the second (later) recommendation was for a 25 foot buffer around the lake and a 100 foot building setback. Q. Your professional opinion differs from that of the State Department of Wildlife? A) Yes. Paul Constantine. 781 Griffiths Point Road, Nordland, representing JAL Associates, stated that they have gone through all of the Comprehensive Plans, community development plans and then designed and proposed the project in compliance with all those plans, rules and regulations. He has met with Jerry Gorsline, Carol Bernthal and everyone on site when they were reviewing the cutting permit portion of the project. They applied for a Class 4 cutting permit as part of the conversion process, so they could sell the timber from the road and lot clearing. LJ f~.C' no t826 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 17 He then clarified that the 100 foot setback discussed by Vale Case was for any commercial cutting operations. The cutting permit was only for 20% of the merchantable timber. Subsequent setbacks were designed for residential purposes. He talked with Stephan Kalinowski of the State Department Wildlife who told him exactly what to do to protect the wildlife habitat. Mr. Kalinowski visited the site and made recommendations on what should be done to protect the habitat. Mr. Constantine added that his proposal included exactly what Mr. Kalinowski said he should do to protect the habitat. Wildlife corridors that run from the lake back to the DNR property were added. Rather than treating each wetland separately, a corridor was created. There are also some light and noise restrictions proposed. The comment period passed with no comments from most of the people here today. He then clarified the proposed mitigation with regard to buffers and setbacks: · The 30 foot buffer from the lakeshore or associated wetland boundary, is a non-dis- turbed undergrowth area intended to protect the ducklings, etc. from predators. The building setback is 75 feet for a distance (on each lot) of 100 feet parallel to the lake/wetland edge and then graduates back to 100 feet from that point for the rest of each lot. . Mr. Constantine concluded by noting that he can't think of a better way to use this site. To use this site as commercial timberlands, he feels would be a greater harm. Mark Huth asked Mr. Constantine the following: Q. Have you got the cutting (Forest Practices) permit? A) No. His understanding is that Jefferson County is the lead agency on that permit. Commissioner Huntingford asked if there will be a septic system for each lot? The project engineer for JAL Associates, indicated that is correct. Toby Thaler asked if Mr. Constantine considered using a clustered development on this site? Paul Constantine answered that they considered clustering, but after reviewing the market they decided to maximize accessibility to the water and they wanted to have as many lake front lots as possible. They could have come in with a proposal for as many as 30 lots under the Coyle Plan and the County Comprehensive Plan, but they did not do that. Chairman Wojt asked about cutting the understory? Mr. Constantine answered that there will be no cutting allowed below six feet within the 25 foot buffer adjacent to the lake. The Department of Wildlife did not say anything about cutting understory except in that 25 foot area. Chairman Wojt asked where the setback will be measured from? Paul Constantine answered that the 25 foot buffer will be measured from the edge of the wetland. Chairman Wojt asked about the 50% cutting, and if that could all be done in one area allowing clear cutting of an area? Paul Constantine stated that he doesn't feel that will happen. He feels that if the project is designed to be environmentally sensitive and if the people who are going to live there are educated about why they are being restricted, then they will be sensitive about how they design and build their house. Mr. Thaler asked if they had considered putting in a community well or water system? Mr. Constantine stated that they didn't consider that because it is an involved process which can take up to three years to resolve. In parcels like this, people will buy them to keep for retirement, and they may not need water right away. It is expensive to put a community water system in when it is not needed right away. The water well report provided by Mr. Constantine lists sites within a three mile radius of the project, Toby Thaler noted. He asked if it is accurate to say that all but two of these wells are located on the lowland, salt water boundary of the peninsula? Mr. Constantine stated that it would be hard to say that they're not, but there is evidence that there is water on the ridge. People locate on the water because it is a desireable attraction for human habitat. They feel that what makes this a fine residential project, is the lake. Mr. Thaler stated that wells, which appear at a higher elevation, indicate the lowest flow of any of the wells. The discussion continued regarding the availability of water in this area. t r~~' on 1827 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 18 Chairman Wojt then opened the hearing for public comment. Teresa Barron swore to tell the truth and stated that she lives near Silent Lake. She thanked Mr. Constantine for his efforts to be environmentally sensitive on this development. She added that she has been swimming in that lake for years and then reported on the wildlife species she has seen in the area. She suggested and urged that JAL consider the fact there is a growing market of people who want their investment to promote environmentally sensitive developments. She suggested that the testimony and concerns presented help the buffer along the lake to be streng- thened. She suggested that the developer consider a community dock system instead of a proliferation of docks with one for each site. Hearing no further public comment the Chairman closed the public hearing. Jim Pearson reported that the mitigation requires the setbacks be from wetland boundaries, not from the shoreline of Silent Lake. The mitigation requires a storm water management plan, permanent stormwater management facilities, and temporary erosion control during the develop- ment of the site. The Planning Department has relied on the Department of Wildlife regarding the actual habitat that exists on the site. The nesting habitat appears to be off site, while feeding and rearing habitat appears to be on the site. Chairman Wojt asked about the matter of hydraulic continuity? Jim Pearson suggested that the amount of draw from the aquifer by the residences proposed be considered. He then pointed out that the memo from Larry Fay Environmental Health Director to the Planning Department (dated July 10, 1993), indicates that the Health Department has not identified probable significant en- vironmental impacts associated with the project provided that on-site sewage systems are designed and installed in accordance with State and County requirements. Inspection of the site indicates that there are areas with suitable soils on each proposed lot for on-site sewage systems. Toby Thaler then referred to the letters from the State Department of Wildlife. The July 27, 1993 letter clearly states that there should be a 100 foot buffer maintained around the lake and wetlands. The second letter (from Wildlife to Mr. Constantine) states ". . . as we talked about on the site, there are a couple of things which could be done to maintain much of this available habitat." This does not say that impacts will be avoided on the wildlife habitat and wetlands. This lake is utilized and is a functioning, important wetland habitat. There is no other open water on the Toandos peninsula. In some senses it is a locally significant natural area. The Department of Wildlife letter (dated September 10, 1993) indicates that all structures should be setback at least 100 feet. Mr. Thayler stated that the expertise heard today, he feels, makes it very clear that in order to maintain the wetland functions the buffer needs to be maintained. Buffers don't work and they can't be enforced if they are not of a certain size. After discussing the issues around the loss of timberlands, Mr. Thayler added that the impact on the timberland base must be considered and it was completely ignored in the SEPA document. He pointed out that Vale Case of the DNR deals with regulatory matters of forest practices on particular sites, and not with the impacts on the ability of DNR to maintain areas as forest lands. Paul Constantine responded that he talked with Steve Kalinowski when they put together the proposed mitigation to make sure that what was proposed was what he suggested. Mr. Constan- tine added that it is his opinion that the rural lifestyle is better served by having a more loose spread of homesites. Commissioner Huntingford asked what the last date for public comment on this proposal was? Mr. Constantine explained that the preliminary MDNS comment period ended on October 6, 1993. After that there was a public hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner (on the plat). Commissioner Hinton asked who owns the lake? Jim Pearson reported that the bedlands of the lake are owned by JAL Associates. The lake itself has access over State land and the public cannot be precluded from using it. Commissioner Hinton then asked if the County can prohibit motorized boat use of the lake? Mark Huth stated that he would have to review the State law and the County's ordinances regarding that. Mr. Thayler suggested that as part of the wildlife mitigation the County place a restriction on the plat that motorized boats be prohibited in the lake. Jim Pearson reported that another issue to consider is that there is access to the lake over DNR land. SEP A authority would not stop someone accessing the lake from DNR land. ~J PM,' OOt828 " Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 19 Mr. Constantine added that this is a public access lake that is stocked every year by the Department of Fisheries with trout. This is a fishing lake. Mr. Thayler asked to be allowed to work with the Prosecuting Attorney to make sure that everything discussed today is in the record. He added in response to a question from Chairman Wojt about specific recommendations, that a 100 foot, no cut buffer be required around the lake. He also recommended that the wetland buffers be established per the wetland report. Problems needing clarification are: the shoreline/wetland boundaries issue. It needs to be made clear that any setback is from the upland end of the delineated wetland boundaries. The wildlife corridors are a joke. One goes across the proposed turn around on the plat. The cutting provisions on the lots should be more specific to protect wildlife because the habitat is on site. Jim Pearson stated that the wildlife corridors were not recommended by the Department of Wildlife. They were proposed by the applicant to allow wildlife to move back and forth from the lake to the adjoining DNR properties. This was not an issue that was raised by the Depart- ment of Wildlife. After further discussion of the setbacks and where they will be measured from, Mr. Constantine stated that he has no problem with having the setbacks relate to the wetland on the south end of the lake. He does object to a creeping buffer. He then explained that they are trying to mitigate impact, and he wants to go with what was proposed because it was well thought out. This is a public fishing lake, that is anything but pristine. The Depart- ment Fisheries has been stocking the lake for years. Toby Thaler stated that they feel that the wildlife, recreational, and fishing values will all be diminished and that has not been adequately addressed or mitigated. The discussion turned to the funds available through various groups and agencies to purchase sites that are important for environmental values. Mr. Thaler stated that the key issue is the SEP A impact determination, which is not adequate. Commissioner Hinton stated that his only concern on this project is that some of the adjacent properties are forest lands which are managed by the DNR and this project could have a probable impact on those properties. He feels a notice to potential purchasers would be adequate mitigation for that impact. With regard to problems with the boaters on the lake, he feels that the County should look for ways to protect the lake from some of those activities. As far as the buffers, the proponent has made a good faith effort to work with the Environmental Council, the State Department of Wildlife, and the County staff. Commissioner Hinton moved to deny the appeal and uphold the final MDNS with an additional mitigation that a Notice to Potential purchasers be placed on the plat that the surrounding property is managed by the State Depart- ment of Natural Resources for timber production. Commissioner Huntingford asked exactly what the County is requiring for setbacks and buffers. Jim Pearson referred to and explained the preliminary MDNS issued on September 20, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the allowable cut inside the 25 foot buffer be changed and that the setback be 100 feet from the buffer. Chairman Wojt suggested that possibly joint use docks be required (one dock to serve two lots) instead of a dock for each lot. Commissioner Hinton's motion died for lack of a second. Mark Huth suggested that Mr. Constantine modify his proposal to address some of these concerns and bring it back for the Commissioners to consider. Mr. Thayler stated that it is the position of the WEC is that this land should not be converted because it is totally surrounded by DNR managed forest land and fits within the minimum guidelines of the State Department of Community Development and the County criteria for forest land and the impacts have not been adequately addressed. Commissioner Huntingford moved to continue this hearing until November 22, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 1 -, f d r~~r on 18~9 .... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 15, 1993 Page: 20 Gary Rowe. Bud2et Mana2er re: Presentation of Preliminarv 1994 Budeet: Gary Rowe submitted the preliminary 1994 budget which he reported that allows for 5.2% growth. The final budget hearings are schedule for the week of December 6 through 10, 1993. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the above business and reconvened on Tuesday morning with all three Board members present. Discussion re: Draft Proposal for the Jefferson County Veterans Assistance Fund from John Lee. State Department of Veteran Affairs: Bud Porter asked what the County has come up with for funding of the budget request for 1994? Commissioner Hun- tingford stated that the Budget Manager is currently working on this. Bud Porter then suggested that the Board hold hearings out in the various communities regarding what the veterans want from the County. Pat Bowen, Service Officer for Port Ludlow VFW, reported that some of the Service Officers have suggested a proposal different from the one that was submitted by John Lee. Commissioner Hinton acknowledged that a proposal was submitted by John Lee and one has been submitted by Pat Bowen representing the VFW Service Officers. Pat Bowen then explained his proposal and the twelve suggestions for approval of Veteran Assistance fund applications. After discussion of both proposals and the best way to proceed, the Board concurred that the Service Officers form an organization that will work with the County to implement a voucher system for these payments. An ordinance and agreement will be drafted and sent to the Service Officers for their review and input. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: AITEST: .. . -¡'; ." to ; ,.... ......J."_ J..... .: \>......>.-~.. ....- r '".. -;J. . ,J- "\ )Fe...-__."'.. --~1"" If ~ > _,l '<2Ë;!t; r;.: t ) .>/ ...,""'~ '_:".~:-,_".ci'.~,~.~ f,~r; Oí!1 830