HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112293
û~
~ò..c:
MINUTES
WEEK OF NOVEMBER 22,1993
Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner
Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford.
COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION
Community Services Director David Goldsmith re: Presentation of Memo on Interim
UGA Ordinance: David Goldsmith reviewed his memo outlining the advantages and disadvantages
of Interim Urban Growth Area status for the Tri Area. Mter discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages and information from discussions with representatives of the state Department of
Community Development, Commissioner Hinton asked that a workshop be arranged to discuss this
further. A workshop was then scheduled for Wednesday (November 24, 1993) at 1:00 p.m.
Jim WestaU and Carl Nomura. Skookum Products and Services. Inc. re: Introduction
of Recyclin2 Education Coordinator: Carl Nomura introduced Dr. Atkins who has been hired as
the new Recycling Education Coordinator for Skookum Services, Inc. He then reviewed his education
and background.
Commissioner Hinton movt;d to appoint Dr. Michael Atkins to an unexpired term on the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (his term will expire June 15, 1995.) Commissioner Huntingford seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
, Bob Minty. Emer2enCy Service Coordinator re: Special Event Permit Application:
Wild Olympic Salmon: Bob Minty reported that the Wild Olympic Salmon organization has met
all of the requirements for a special events permit for their festival scheduled at the Chimacum Park
on Saturday November 27, 1993. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the permit as submitted.
Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The public comments received were all regarding the
interim urban growth area designations.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the minutes
of October 25, November 1, and 8, 1993 as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the
motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Huntingford moved to delete Item 12 and to approve and adopt the balance of the consent agenda
as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. PROCLAMATION re: Jefferson County Elections Poll Worker Recognition
(- ."')
;u :1979
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 2
2. HEARING NOTICE re: 1994 JEFFERSON COUNTY BUDGET; Hearings set for week of
December 6 - 10, 1993
3. CONTRACT #1620-03112 re; 1994 Consolidated Contract for Federal and State Funding of
Jefferson County Health Department Services; Washington State Department of Health
4. AGREEMENT, Interagency #2343-94730 re; 1993-1995 Oral Health Program for Clients of the
Division of Developmental Disabilities; State Department of Social and Health Services
5. RESOLUTION NO. 106-93 re: Amending an Existing Short Plat; To Avoid Duplication of an
Existing Short Plat Name; Robinson Short Plat #SP03-92 to be called the Charles Robinson Short
Plat
6. Memo to Assessor re: Assessor's Data for Community Planning Committees; Property Owner
Information
7. HEARING NOTICE re: Amendment to Ordinance No. 2-88; Jefferson County Speed Limit
Ordinance; Setting hearing for December 6, 1993 at 11:15 a.m.
8. Accept Recommendation to Approve Claim #C-16-93; Cracked Windshield by County Mower
$204.07; Roland Ceehorne
9. Accept Recommendation to Reject Claim #C-17-93; Damage to Phone Pedestal By County
Brushcutter $184.12; U.S. West Communications
10. Accept Recommendation to Reject Claim #C-18-93; Damage to Phone Pedestal By County
Brushcutter $313.15; U.S. West Communications
11. Accept Recommendation to Approve Claim #C-20-93; Damaged Windshield and Broken Headlight
by County Truck $63.90; Peter Crawford Gillis
12. AGREEMENT (Federal Aid No. RS-0161-(002) re: Consultant for Acquisition of Services;
Chimacum Road Improvement Project #CR0953; Richards and Associates
13. DELETE Two (2) Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund $500,00 each; VFW Post #7498 and
American Legion Post #26
14. Adoption of the 1993-1995 Alcohol/Drug Abuse Plan Update and Contract Proposal; State
Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA)
15. CONTRACT, Amendment re: Additional Funding $10,000 for Health Services; City of Port
Townsend
16. CONTRACT, Amendment re: Professional Services - Zone Change Petitions; Shockey/Brent
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Associate Planner Eric Toews re: Extension of the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: Eric
Toews reported that it has become apparent that the new Zoning Ordinance will not be ready for
adoption by the time the Interim Zoning Ordinance expires on December 31, 1993. A six month
extension is necessary, to allow the time necessary for review, hearings and adoption of the permanent
Zoning Ordinance. Currently it is estimated that the permanent zoning code could be adopted by the
second week of February with an effective date in the second week of March. He added that the
interim zoning code will only remain effective until the permanent zoning code is adopted.
Commissioner Hinton moved to set the public hearing for the extension of the Interim Zoning
Ordinance for December 14, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. and that the hearing notice reflect that it will be
extended for eight months (September 1, 1994). Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carried by a unanimous vote.
Discussion of Plannin2 Commission Review Timetable; Zonin2 Ordinance: The
Planning Commission has currently scheduled eight meeting dates to review the draft zoning
ordinance, with six other dates identified if necessary. It is expected that the Planning Commission
will forward their report and recommendation to the Board on January 13 or 14, 1994 with a
workshop for the Board on January 17, 1994. He then reviewed the balance of the proposed
scheduled.
Settin2 a Hearin2 Date re: Ea21e Eye and Myrl Hancock Zone Chan2e Petitions: Eric
Toews reported that because the Planning Commission recommendations were overturned by the Board
on the Eagle Eye and Myrl Hancock zone change petitions, the' Planning Enabling Act requires that
the Board hold a public hearing on each petition for the development of findings and conclusions.
),ot. 1'9 ~.t4 00 :1980
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 3
Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the hearing dates for the zone change petitions for Eagle Eye
at 2:30 p.m. and Myrl Hancock at 3:30 p.m. on December 20, 1993. Commissioner Hinton seconded
the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT
After meeting in executive session regarding potential litigation, the Board proceeded with
the following scheduled business.
Frank Gifford. Capital Proiects Mana2er re: Trails Proiect: Frank Gifford updated
the Board on the IS TEA grant funding for the trails project. He reported that the ISTEA Grant
Coordinator position is being advertised. It will close on December 3, 1993. He invited the
Commissioners to sit on the selection committee.
HEARING re: Intent to Sell Surplus Real Property (Continued from November 1.
1993): Chairman Wojt reopened the public hearing on the County's intent to surplus and sell specific
parcels of real property. Treasurer Ila Mikkelsen reported on several parcels that need to be deleted
from the list due to information received on the title reports:
Parcel #821-271-006 - This parcel belongs to Jefferson County Water District #1.
Parcel #964-500-503 - A portion or all of this parcel is road right-of-way.
Parcel #964-500-505 - Lots are either under the railroad or are railroad right-of-way.
Parcel #964-500-506 - Lots are in the railroad right-of-way.
Parcel #964-501-101 - Lots are either under the railroad or are railroad right-of-way and Lots 3
and 4 are in the road right-of-way.
Parcel #991-200-406 - Cannot be sold now because a quiet title will have to be obtained first to
eliminate a potential cloud.
Parcel #002-354-005 (off Old Gardiner Road) - must be deleted because there is another party that
claims ownership to it and rather than sell it Mark Huth suggested it be pulled.
The Board needs to decide if they want to sell the following:
Parcel #964-501-105 - The lots exists, but a portion of each are beyond the line of vegetation.
Parcel #989-700-802, #989-700-805, and #989-700-902 - These lots are all downtown and the last
one is Union Wharf.
Ila Mikkelsen reported that all remaining properties are tax title property acquired by foreclosure sale
of the Jefferson County Treasurer. The Commissioners may set a minimum bid and a request has
been received from the auctioneer that if a minimum bid price isn't received on a parcel that he be
allowed to offer it for less. The sale would then be subject to the approval of the Commissioners.
The Treasurer is asking that all payments be made in cash or by a letter of credit from a bank.
Stokes Auction will do the sale for 2% of the gross. All advertising will be paid for by the County.
A County deed will be used to convey title. Added to each successful bid will be the following:
$5.00 deed fee, $7.00 recording fee, and a $2.00 affidavit fee. The auctioneer has asked if the parcel
can be offered to the backup bidder if the successful bidder does not make payment in the specified
time (60 minutes after the close of the sale), subject to the approval of the County Commissioners.
Mark Huth reported that the Assessor has provided a sheet of suggested values (not a full appraisal)
for the purpose of setting a minimum bid. These properties are offered where is and as is and the
County is not guaranteeing the value of the properties. Commissioner Huntingford asked how
minimum bids will be established from these estimates of value? Mark Huth reported that is to be
determined by the County Commissioners. Ila Mikkelsen stated that some of these amounts are
market value and if that is used as the minimum bid, some parcels may not sell.
Doug Mason, representing the City, stated that the City is interested in purchasing several parcels
within the City limits and they have requested that time be allowed for negotiations and that these
parcels be withheld from this sale.
Mark Huth stated that the question is if the County can pull these parcels from the sale on the basis
of such a request. The City knows what these parcels are worth and, he feels they should make the
~ Vat: fil! faG{. 001981
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 4
County an offer prior to the sale. Some conditions can be placed on the sale of thes,e properties to
the City and the School District if the County is going to pull them from the sale, such as a partial
payment, earnest money, or payment by a specific date.
Commissioner Hinton asked if property can be sold with a condition such as requiring that it be used
as a parking lot? Mark Huth stated this could be done, but it could cause enforcement problems in
the future. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mark Huth to draft a letter to the City and the
Chimacum School District advising them that they would have to agree to some conditions if the
properties they have inquired about are to be pulled from the sale. They must respond by 5:00 p.m.
the day before the sale. Mter further discussion of the parcels and what parcels should be deleted,
the Chairman asked for public comment.
Steve Fager, 176 Fager Hill Road, Port Townsend, asked if he could have a copy of the minimum
bids? Ila Mikkelsen reported that they will be published in Wednesday's Port Townsend Leader.
Howard Fager, 176 Fager Hill Road, Port Townsend, asked what is being sold in parcels 964-501-
301 and 964-501-304? Is the County selling what's on the railroad easement or the portion that is
not the railroad easement? Is there tidelands included in these parcels?
After reviewing the title report Mark Huth reported that these parcel numbers are Lots 1 through 4
Block 13 and 7 through 12 of the same block. Part of lots 7 through 12 are on the waterfront, but
there are no tidelands. The County is selling the lots except for the railroad easement.
Doug Mason, 2404 35th Street, Port Townsend, asked what the title report shows is included in Parcel
#989-700-802 (at the bottom of Water and Adams Street). Ila Mikkelsen reported that this parcel
is tidelands. He asked that the County make sure that this property doesn't belong to the City. Mark
Huth reported that this has been recommended to be deleted because there is some confusion about
what exactly is being sold. Ila Mikkelsen added that 989-700-805 is also being recommended for
deletion from the list.
Lee Arey asked about the market value for some of the parcels.
Ila Mikkelsen suggested that the minimum bids be set at 75% of the assessed value.
Chairman Wojt closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the mlmmum bids at 75% of the estimated value, as
submitted by the Assessor's Office. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote. Commissioner Huntingford then moved that terms of the sale be cash or a line of
credit. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Mark Huth clarified that the request is to delete:
#821-271-006
#964-500-503
#964-500-505
#964-500-506
#964-501-101
#964-501-105
#989-700-802 and #989-700-805 - Questions about City or County ownership
#991-200-406
#002-354-005
Commissioner Huntingford moved to delete all the parcels recommended in the memo from the
Treasurer with the exception of 989-700-902 (Union Wharf), and to also delete Parcel #002-354-
005. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
HEARING re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Si2nificance; LP-
05-93 Silent Lake; 76 Acres into 15 Lots. All Greater than 5 Acres; On the Toandos Peninsula;
JAL Associates (Continued from November 15. 1993): Jim Pearson reported that Paul Constantine
has proposed revisions to the conditions on his projects for the Board's review. Mr. Constantine
said that he "met with Jerry Gorsline about the issúes raised at the hearing. He is willing to meet
with some consultants suggested by ',Mr. Gorsline and after that, he may wish to amend the proposal
even more.
VrA..
11):
r~r+.~
00 :t982
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 5
He then explained that in the amended conditions (see attached) he has expanded the vegetation buffer
on the lake shore from 25 feet to 35 feet and reduced the allowable cutting to 25% (from 50%.) He
has stipulated that there will be no docks or floats, but a 10 foot long landing area will be allowed.
A 25 foot, no cut, vision and noise screen around the perimeter of the project has been added as a
condition. Finally he has agreed that a notice be placed on the plat advising potential purchasers of
the current status and intended use of the adjacent land presently managed by the DNR as commercial
forestland.
Mark Huth asked if Mr. Constantine means that the wetland boundary will be used as the location
for measurement when there is wetland and that the shoreline will be used in cases where there is
no wetland? Mr. Constantine stated that is correct. The Board needs, Mark Huth added, to decide
if the proposed mitigation measures address the impact adequately.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if this appeal was made at the last minute? Jim Pearson reported
that typically appeals come on the last day that they can be filed. Commissioner Huntingford stated
he feels Mr. Constantine tried to meet the conditions as set out by the State Department of Wildlife.
The discussion continued regarding the enforcement of the SEP A conditions and what can be done
if violations occur.
Commissioner Huntingford moved to deny the appeal and uphold the mitigated determination of non-
significance with the additional conditions as submitted by the project proponent. Commissioner
Hinton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The Planning Department
will prepare findings of fact for the Board to approve and sign at a later date.
The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened
on Tuesday morning. All three Board members were present for an executive session regarding a
personnel matter. The afternoon meeting was recessed after the executive session and reconvened at
the Chimacum High School Auditorium at 7:00 p.m. for the following hearing. All three Board
members were present.
HEARING re: Draft Critical Areas Ordinance: Chairman Wojt reviewed the hearing
procedures for the approximately 200 interested County residents present and then opened the public
hearing on the draft critical areas ordinance.
Joshua Sage: Mr. Sage stated that he doesn't feel we are doing a good enough job all of the years
we've been inhabiting the Peninsula and the world. There are problems with things such as the
groundwater and salmon runs. We do not take full responsibility for the problems we are creating.
At some time we have to take these problems on and find creative solutions to them. People are
going to have to make really hard choices. The choices will impact certain people. Unless we do
that now, there will be people in the future arguing about the what we already know needs to be
done environmentally. The biggest problem are the people who will be impacted by this directly.
It will be a surprise, and things may come up that mean we won't be able to use our land the way
we thought we could. Everyday we have shocks and surprises, and we realize, that even though
they aren't planned, we have to move forward from that point. We need to do what is right for the
environment. We can move forward with this and do it in a good, clean efficient manner. We will
be saving a lot of time and a lot of money down the road by taking care of this now. He urged the
Board to take the extra step now.
Roger Short described a story in last week's Port Townsend Leader where a jury awarded a land
owner $119,000 less than they wanted, in a property condemnation case, as an example of the scary
regulations that landowners face. He said that he owns a dairy farm in Chimacum which has 200
cows, and includes farming of about 500 acres in Chimacum and Beaver Valley. It has been difficult
to find a part of that 500 acres that doesn't fit into some critical area. About two thirds of it has
multiple layers of critical area on it. He congratulated the Commissioners for realizing that
agricultural property owners do not need another layer of environmental regulations. He supports
draft 6 because it describes four kinds of triggering applications. As he looks to the future, the
Critical Area Ordinance will take away some of his options. Buffers of any kind are a taking of
property value and a funding mechanism needs to be devised to compensate the property owner.
Pamela Johns-Merryman related an anecdote about the Santa Ana (Orange County, California) area
where she grew up. No one has been able to have fairly uncontrolled development and have the
place be one where people want to stay. Why do you think they're all moving up here, if it's so
great down there? There needs to be more protection of all types of wetland. The science supports
I~œ..
t9f&G~ 00 :1983
," "
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 6
the gut feelings she has always had. Draft 6 does not go anywhere near the protection that is needed
for wetlands, slopes and all critical areas. She will submit more testimony in writing. She added
that she feels the County needs to go back to the drawing board.
David Olsen, Berry Hill Lane, said that when he first looked at this ordinance he felt it was a "top
of the hill II ordinance, meaning that if you were at the top of the hill you were protected by it. If
you were are the bottom of the hill you're not so protected. This ordinance doesn't protect shellfish
because if trash is dumped it will go down into the water and as trees are cut, silt will go down and
the shellfish beds will be wiped out. A lot of people in this County depend on shellfish and they're
not being protected by this ordinance. Real estate people will have a hard time selling properties that
are trashed, cut over and polluted. Real estate and tourism is based on quality of life, and not on
strip development and pavement. Mr. Olsen stated he is concerned about this ordinance because it
doesn't protect the rest of the County from the people at the top of the hill. A variety of polluting
industries could be put in, and the County can't stop that. Stream headwaters and type 3 and 4
streams are not being protected by this ordinance. The majority of the Board of Commissioners have
ignored and intimidated the Planning Commission. If you're not going to listen to them, you might
as well get rid of them. You didn't like the response of the attorney's so you went out and spent
taxpayer dollars on an outside consultant and I don't think you liked what the consultant had to say
about this plan. Now you're looking at spending taxpayers money on a possible lawsuit if this goes
all to heck. Before you waste anymore taxpayer money and before you let the guy at the top of the
hill trash the County maybe you better do your job and fix the ordinance.
Peter Brady, 81 Martin Road, stated that he is not a scientist or biologist, but he has read some of
the material submitted by experts through the last year or so that the ordinance has been considered
in its various drafts. To his view this is not adequate to do what the State mandate is to do. Other
counties have come up with something that is adequate in terms of the intent of the ordinance, but
still has mechanisms that attempt to protect private property interests, and the use of property. This
ordinance in terms of protection for wildlife, fish, shellfish, slopes, geologically hazardous areas,
could be done better. Approaching the mandate from the State by doing the least possible is
counterproductive because it is leading to a lot of concern from the people in the County - property
owners and non-property owners. Some specific items Mr. Brady objects to are: lack of protection
for wetlands in terms of reduced buffers for 1 and 2 wetlands and the complete elimination of 3 and
4 wetlands from protection; the lack of erosion buffers for slopes less than 45 degrees (something is
needed between 15 and 45 degrees); the exemption of low density residential development from any
regulation at all (the construction of a house, accessory buildings, etc. in an uncontrolled way can be
detrimental to wetlands, geological hazards, etc.); and the provision allowing the reduction of the
buffering and other protection at the discretion of the Planning Director. He feels that the Planning
staff is intimidated at this point and the County is may not get objective planning information, but
responses or actions that the Planning staff thinks you might like to hear or see take place.
Jane Rogers, 83 Shorecrest Court, Kala Point, stated that after working on this for the last three years,
she feels that something is missing. We like to have freedom with our property. All of us value
our property rights. We should really do something that would help all of us, monetarily and
environmentally. She suggested that we do something to make freedom a responsibility.
George Yount, 797 25th, Port Townsend, speaking as President of the Admiralty Audubon Society.
Mr. Yount read and submitted this testimony in writing (See attached).
John Hillman, 2800 East Marrowstone Road, Nordland, stated that he was a member of the Planning
Commission when the Growth Management Act came into being. He participated in a number of
workshop sessions. He said he is really dismayed that the County Commissioners have chosen to
ignore all the thousands of man hours of work that went into that process and have not followed the
recommendations of those experts. The Growth Management Act asks for a balance between
development and protection of environmentally sensitive areas. This (ordinance) does not achieve that
balance. He urged the Board to go back to one of the earlier drafts of the ordinance and adopt some
of those provisions. He then stated the following specific recommendations:
· Include at least Class 3 wetlands.
· Increase the buffer widths.
· Make better provisions for stream side buffers.
· Under the aquifer recharge section, provide protection for quantity as well as quality of surface
waters.
· The maps that were published with the draft are not actually a part of the ordinance, but are
referenced very briefly, in the ordinance as documents that the Planning staff should refer to
anytime an application is submitted. He feels that stronger wording is needed to say that Planning
staff and prospective applicants look at those maps.
;'JDt: fg~'UG~ 00 :1984
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 7
The maps are not complete, but they are a starting point, Mr. Illman stated. There are some gaps
that should be filled in, such as all of Marrowstone Island being a critical aquifer recharge area.
There are areas in the County where the aquifers and wells are subject to salt water intrusion.
· Subdivisions proposed in areas with saltwater intrusion problems, should be subject to review, for
proposed parcels of five acres or less in size.
Ed Manary, Legislative Liaison and Assistant Director of the Washington State Department of
Fisheries, stated that the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife will be merged into a single agency
effective July 1, 1994. His comments include information provided by both agencies. As a goal for
the Growth Management Act these Departments would like to see counties and cities pass ordinances
which provide adequate protection for fish and wildlife habitat. These Departments have limited
abilities to protect fish and wildlife habitat since habitat conditions are affected in a large part, by
upland activities beyond their direct control. Neither agency can meet their statutory mandate without
the cooperation of local governments. In a recently completed, three phase, plan to provide a
recovery for wild salmon and steelhead stocks in the State, 435 separate stocks of salmon have been
identified of which 187 stocks were found to be healthy, with 122 deemed to be depressed. Of the
122 depressed stocks, 10 originate, spawn or spend their early life in Jefferson County. 12 stocks
were deemed critical. Of the 12 critical stocks, 3 originate, spawn or spend the majority of their
early years in Jefferson County. In addition nearly 590 acres of tidelands in the County are restricted
to harvesting shellfish.
Jefferson County is an important part of the overall habitat network necessary in the State to help
the citizens of the State and to meet the mandates for the Department of Fish and Wildlife as spelled
out by the State Legislature. He commended the Board and Planning staff for including the following
protection for fish and wildlife habitat:
· The removal of subsection 5 in Section 3.40,
· The language in Section 9.3 regarding classification designation, has a positive impact.
· Section 9.303 sub 3, suggesting the use of the Department of Wildlife database, is a
positive step as a source of information. He suggested adding a sub 4 in the source of
information to include the State Department of Fisheries Stream catalog.
· Section 9.509 sub 2, the proviso for increasing buffer widths based on sensitive species,
is a positive step.
· Section 10.901 sub 2, habitat management plans, is a positive step.
There are number of areas of concern that are either not covered or are inadequately covered in the
proposed ordinance:
· Section 3.30 - the triggering applications are very narrow and the thresholds of disturbance
in the critical areas section are very liberal.
· Section 3.02 specifically exempts Class 3 and 4 wetlands from the ordinance. These
wetlands are important to fish and wildlife habitat and water quality is a large issue.
· Section 6.505 sub 5 provides inadequate buffers in Class 1 and 2 wetlands.
· Section 9.507 sub 7 fails to provide adequate streamside protection in type 4 and 5 non-
fish bearing waters and provides inadequate lists in type 1, 2, and 3 waters.
The Departments of Fish and Wildlife recognize that nearly 90% of the County's landmass lies in
national parks, forest service, DNR, and private timberlands, however the remaining 10% is also very
important and needs to be adequately protected since a number of these lands provide the home and
the habitat for a significant number of species which live entirely in the low elevations and/or near
the marine shore habitat.
In conclusion, Mr. Manary stated that the Department of Fisheries believes that the key to protecting
fish and wildlife habitat is to focus high density development away from priority fish and wildlife
habitats and to integrate fish and wildlife management guidelines in all land use decisions. The draft
under consideration at this point in time, does not meet this criteria. The Departments of Fisheries
and Wildlife would appreciate the opportunity to work with the County to develop a critical areas
ordinance which adequately protects fish and wildlife habitat, therefore, meeting goals number 8, 9,
and 10 as specifically enunciated in the Growth Management Act. The Department of Fisheries
recently acquired a significant number of tidelands. They will be preparing their management plans
to meet or exceed the standards. They wish to be a good neighbor.
Al Latham, speaking for himself, stated that his comments are based on his experiences from working
for the Conservation District. The Conservation District promotes good stewardship of natural
resources through projects such as stream habitat enhancement projects. These projects are currently
regulated in Jefferson County by the State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. In other counties
that have adopted a critical areas ordinance, these stream enhancement activities have been added into
development regulations and it is difficult to åccomplish them. The proposed ordinance has no
VDLt9 rACf 001985
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 8
additional permit required for enhancement activities. He feels it would be a lot easier to do
enhancement projects, if no additional hurdles are added. He noted that he is concerned that the
ordinance in current form does not protect critical areas prior to a triggering application being applied
for. Much of the potential damage that can be done to a critical area, happens prior to any triggering
application. He explained about a project he has been working on recently in which the property
owners were interested in retaining and enhancing the wildlife habitat and bluff stability of their high
bluff waterfront property, by obtaining as much information as possible before doing anything on the
property. The parcel next door took the opposite approach. These people cleared trees off a steep
bank, left brush piled on the bank and did additional building site clearing and grading with no
thought of drainage and slope stability. Unknowingly they did almost everything they could to
promote bluff instability. Their activities would not have triggered an application under the critical
areas ordinance, but it might well trigger a slope failure onto the beach and shellfish beds below,
depending on the weather this winter. These activities that could really affect critical areas are falling
through the cracks and need to be addressed. It's much easier to protect something than to try to
go back in and help it out afterwards. There needs to be a mechanism built into the Critical Areas
Ordinance to provide protection to the critical areas at a lower threshold than the proposed triggering
applications. Perhaps some sort of Clearing and Grading Ordinance specifically for critical areas.
This might be a way to fill that gap.
On stream buffers and stream types, Chimacum Creek is a type 2 stream from the mouth up
Eaglemount Road. From Eaglemount Road up to Delanty Lake it's a type 3. Tarboo Creek is a
Type 2 from the mouth to Center Road (at the music festival site), and then it's type 3, 4, and 5
above there. Class 4 streams can be very productive and essential to what happens to Class 3
streams, and Class 5 streams feed into Class 4. There needs to be some protection for Class 4 and
5 streams.
Robert Krutenat, Shine, also submitted a written statement and copies of information sheets (see
attached). Mr. Krutenat commended the Board on their actions. While this draft is an improvement
there is a long way to go. He then explained how a definition can be interpreted many different
ways. To be effective an ordinance must be understandable and the judgment of the Planning
Director is not a substitute for a clearly written ordinance. Mr. Krutenat then explained that he will
be speaking about Section 7 - the critical aquifer recharge area. The issue is recharge quantity. The
definition of aquifer recharge area does not talk at all about quantity, however Sections 7.402 and
7.403 do talk about quality and quantity. There is inconsistency in this section. He then explained
information presented on an overhead projector. Any activity that takes place on the surface above
the aquifer that impedes the recharge of it, will seriously affect the ability of the aquifer to sustain
the current population. The Soil Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers have developed
a good methodology for evaluating vegetation and pervious/impervious surface ratios. Their process
then determines the amount of recharge (overhead information).
Mikel McCormick, State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
To ensure stainability of our environment, the Department, the people that live here, and the County
will have to work together to find a common ground and search for accommodation of all interests.
An ordinance is needed that is comprehensive about the relationship of environmental quality to
economic benefits. The fish and wildlife designations were designed and intended in the GMA, to
protect species of local importance as well as endangered species. A buy back shellfish harvest,
marketing and production that exceeds $6 million per year in Quilcene and Dabob Bays alone and
two prominent, world renown shellfish hatcheries, are indications of the very special water quality that
exists in this area. The fact that a five acre plot can support a family of four or five people very
comfortably, indicates that oysters, bivalve shellfish (clams) are species of local importance. The
areas where these shellfish are found are also considered valuable for potential development because
of shoreline views and access. In particular, care must be taken to accommodate these competing
uses, without damaging the outstanding water and habitat quality the shellfish need and yet allow
landowners reasonable use of their property. We recognize the desire of the Commissioners to avoid
duplicative and excessive regulation on these lands. The JeffersonlPort Townsend Shoreline
Management Master Program already covers development within 200 feet of the shoreline ordinary
high water mark, as well as State's specific aquaculture policies as amended this past April. We also
recognize that many active shellfish harvest areas in Jefferson County are adjacent to lands designated
as critical areas due to geological hazards and there might be some argument that protection measures
under this section are fairly well developed to conform with the standard.
Given the coverage in the other County ordinances and regulations, the GMA minimum guidelines
stipulation that says all bedlands and tidelands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be designated as
critical areas, might be duplicative and excessive. .However, the' Department is concerned that no
mention of such a significant, economically, cultl!rally, recreational resource, denies it the total
.V'i; 1.9 fAC~ 00 1986
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 9
protection it requires. To adequately protect it you need to prevent detrimental affects from adjacent
land. The Department is suggesting that in the finding for Section 9, all development in areas
adjacent to public or private beaches that are suitable shellfish habitat shall be reviewed under this
ordinance for potential impacts to the shellfish area. At a minimum the areas listed in the
Washington State Department of Health's Annual Shellfish Inventory of Commercial and Recreational
Shellfish Areas in Puget Sound, should be used as a guide to determine what areas need protection.
Another area of concern is the buffer in riparian wetlands. The Wetland Section (of the Department)
has determined that the buffers proposed for Class 1 and 2 wetlands are wholly inadequate and that
it is totally inappropriate to completely exempt Class 3 and 4 wetlands from any wetland protection.
Staff felt that this actually fails to protect from 1/3 to 1/2 of the remaining wetlands base in Jefferson
County. The proposed standards currently listed for Class 1 and 2 wetlands are actually appropriate
for Class 3 and 4 wetlands.
A further concern is that the ordinance does not mention any mitigation requirements except in the
definition. It mentions mitigation, but for consistency and predictability and fairness to the
landowners, there must be some mitigation measures defined in the ordinance. The Department would
like to remind the County that its mission is to provide local assistance and rather than having to
always hire consultants, perhaps the County can call on the Department more often.
Tom Jay, 2052 Van Troien Road, Chimacum stated that he is a private citizen involved in the
restoration of the salmon stocks of Chimacum and the local watersheds. The salmon stocks of the
watersheds of Puget Sound have precipitously declined in the last 15 years. Salmon are able in their
behaviors to accommodate disasters, but only periodic, geologically timed disasters. The stocks in
our area are declining because they are chronically stressed. They are stressed in every watershed
in the State. The harvest management instituted by the State Department of Fisheries also stresses
the fish. Fish are not designed to take a steady, chronic, debilitating activity. For example the
logging activities in Class 4 and 5 streams impact the Silver salmon in the upper stretches of their
spawning gravel. This activity increases the sediment input in the upper stretches of the streams
where they spawn. Further downstream, wetland areas serve as rearing habitat. Early fall Chum in
this area are already extinct because the sediment in the Chimacum Creek stream has plugged the
gravel in the lower stretches of the stream where Chum spawn. They have also been over harvested.
Buffers must be designed in terms of the life histories of the fish, and not in terms of a line
appropriate for real estate values. The buffers in the Critical Areas Ordinance are inadequate. There
should be buffers of at least 50 feet on Class 4 and 5 streams. The buffers on Class 1, 2, and 3
streams should be extended to at least 150 feet, and in some areas they should be larger. The issue
of takings is always involved. The takings issue cuts both ways. It's not right that a single property
owner should be forced to bear the cost of producing wild salmon, but it's also not right that a
private property owner can impact a resource that belongs to us all. We have to find a middle
ground.
Tom Jay suggested that possibly there is a way that the Critical Areas Ordinance can be designed
so that the functions of wetland areas are valued, not in a speculative fashion, but in a functional
fashion, and the landowners can be compensated for the function of wetlands. We all as a
community, should come together to share the cost of clean resources and wildlife production and
salmon in our area.
Hugh Locke stated that he was born here in 1935. He does not support this draft ordinance. He
stated that the draft ordinance says that the Planning and Building Department will have responsibility
for certain things, and that additionally the Director of the Planning and Building Department will be
empowered to construe or interpret vague or incomplete terms within this ordinance consistent with
the overall intent and the purpose of these regulations. Mr. Locke stated that he feels the Board is
abdicating too much power to the Planning Department. He would like to see the County
Commissioners get the best people for the money to plan for the County. The County Planning and
Building Department is a farce. You cannot interpret what someone else wants. This needs to be
in black and white. This draft ordinance is like all the rest of the drafts presented. He stated that
he doesn't want to kill the environment, but he doesn't want to payout his tax dollars to support
people who move in here and expect the taxpayers to take care of their grandchildren.
Murl Winium, representing the North Hood Canal Shellfish Coalition, stated then submitted written
testimony (see attached). Minimum protection standa~ds is the described goal in establishing the
Critical Areas Ordinance. Presently there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by federal,
state and county agencies in an .attempt to reclaim some of the 40% of the productive shellfish beds
VOl: J!J< rACf 00 :1987
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 10
that are decertified or otherwise restricted in Puget Sound. In Jefferson County we're fortunate
enough to have relatively clean waters and very few downgraded shellfish beds. We are one of the
fastest growing counties in the State and we feel that the 7 to 10 million dollar commercial shellfish
industry as well as the thousands of dollars that we pump into the local economy by recreational
shellfish harvesting cannot continue without more protection than that afforded by the Shorelines
Management Act. We don't feel that it's prudent to allow future generations to bear the burden of
trying to correct, what we in this generation haven't had the foresight to protect. His written
testimony outlines the Coalition's suggestions for altering the proposed ordinance to protect shellfish
habitat in a more satisfactory manner.
Julie Jaman stated that she lives on the west side of the Quimper Peninsula. The Growth
Management Act of Washington State was perpetrated at the best of times and the worst of times.
With GMA the citizens were invited to participate, to become informed, to help shape the community
vision. The citizens did get involved because they believed they could find common ground to help
shape policies that would embrace the ruralness desired by the majority of citizens along with the
sustainable resource based economy. Thousands of hours were spent over a two year period learning
about critical areas, natural resources and population densities. Late in 1992 a draft ordinance was
ready for public hearing, which was aborted by a mob fueled by fear and contempt.
Now, we were invited to participate in this public hearing on the newest iteration of the Critical
Areas Ordinance. This version has been crafted behind closed doors in order to perpetrate the
appearance of non-interference by government on the old individual property rights mores. As the
population of Jefferson County becomes more dense the natural systems we depend on will become
overloaded. It is imperative that we understand our property rights in part as a function of the
community well being. We all live down stream. We ask for government protection and we must
be responsible to our neighbors. We need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which are
defensible. This ordinance should give clear definition to those rights as they relate to critical areas.
This is what responsible developers have asked for. This is what the citizens require for their future.
I think you have failed, as our leaders, to present an ordinance which protects our communities.
Under this ordinance taxpayers would be required to subsidize speculators who would have no
obligation to protect critical areas. This ordinance fails to consider cumulative and long term
environmental and economic consequences of incompatible and poorly designed upland uses. This
ordinance reflects an unwillingness to change a way of thinking to put us on a responsible pathway
to the twenty first century. The vision of the community was to protect everyone's rights from the
ill effects of irresponsible development and inappropriate speculation. More people have come to
understand that without responsible protection of aquifers we would be in a water quality crisis.
Without serious conservation, we are close to a water quantity crisis. Without responsible stewarding
of our woods and forests we are losing a habitat our local species of significance require. Without
adequate buffers on our streams, lake sides and shorelines our salmon stocks will become extinct.
A resource we took over in good working order only a few generations ago. Without the water,
trees, fish and fowl, exactly what would we lose? A quality of life called rural which brings most
of us here with the understanding that we pay taxes to maintain this quality. The shellfish economy,
the tourist economy, the forest economy, the fishing economy, the very sustenance that motivates us
to care, to complain, to participate, to hope and to feel sure this is the best we can do with what we
have borrowed from our children.
Dana Roberts, 438 22nd Street, Port Townsend, stated that he is here to urge a deeper look at what
this ordinance is all about and to recommend changes for its improvement. He said that he will
deliver written comments by November 30. We need to take the long view. Our land is not ours
alone. Ideally we leave it in better shape than it was when we got it. We are obliged to avoid
interfering with the lands vital systems and are obligated to protect them, so that their irreplaceable
functions will be at least as available to succeeding generations as they are to us. Ultimately if we
don't respect and protect our environment it is a sign that we really don't respect ourselves.
We need to respond to reality. Let's examine what draws people to eastern Jefferson County. It's
not acres of stumps, high ticket jobs or deserted farms, and super size shopping centers or streams
where runoff mud replaces native salmon. What lures people here is a sense of place, a sense of
difference, it's not everywhere else. It's a place with pure waters, edible shellfish, real trees,
uncrowded vision and enough wildlife to make hunting and fishing worthwhile. In short, don't
Sequimify Jefferson County.
Let's shape development with an improved version of this (the~ordinance) and other ordinances, so
that slowed growth draws fewer people that can stay and help build a sustainable economy that
works with the irreplaceable environment that w~ have. Long term committed residents who want
vat 19 fAt~ 00 '1988
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 11
solid jobs, who will respond to sensible protection of their environment. In the County's broad based
survey of residents in 1991, three out of four favored protection of shorelines, groundwater> forests,
wildlife and wetlands. Few of them wanted the County to do minimal growth management. Some
of the draft ordinance provisions should never have seen the light of day.
Resource protection saves the public's money by never having to spend tax dollars on complicated
water supply and sewage facilities, or rescuing people from floods, or building fish hatcheries. By
saving the citizens own money, by not having to buy elaborate and costly water treatment equipment
when wells, aquifers and recharge areas are safe guarded from pollution. By not having to insure
against property lose from slumping hillsides, erodible or unstable soils in flood areas or shorelines
prone to extreme high tide damage. Other public money saving probabilities include reasonable cost
construction supplies by safeguarding gravel and sand and other mineral recovery areas from being
covered by conflicting land uses. In Jefferson County we can protect now and avoid ever having to
pay for the mistakes which this ordinance would impose.
With regard to protection in one of many categories - fish - remember that fish need trees. If we're
to save our wild stocks of salmon it will be by saving salmon habitat. Changes to make the
ordinance even minimally consistent with the findings and purpose:
A) Protect all classes of wetlands to at least the buffer widths urged by State DOE guidelines,
thus replacing subsection 6.505 point 5 with a provision for providing buffers from 25 to,
in extreme cases, 300 feet wide, depending on the wetland and/or the intensity of the
proposed land use.
B) Revise subsection 9.507 to protect all stream, lakes, ponds and marine waters with buffer
zones to be determined (by this section) for all those waters which would range from 25
feet for type 5 to 150 feet for types 1 and 2 where wider buffers are necessary.
Mari Phillips, President of the Jefferson County Property Rights Alliance, stated that there has been
no lack of public participation in the history of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance. The
public process has been served in the development of the critical areas ordinance. Some good things
have been put in the ordinance and some bad things have been taken out. Given the inexperience
of the two new Commissioners, Mari Phillips said she believes they have tried to do their best at this.
This has been a very difficult effort.
She added that she has a problem with the inordinate amount of power that this ordinance gives the
Planning Director. There are no less than 20 different places where the ordinance gives power over
everyone's life and land and their children's inheritance. She doesn't agree with that. She has been
a part of this process for over three years and has heard the Commissioners say in word and deed
that they would like to see the minimum guidelines promoted for the health and well being of the
property owners of Jefferson County. Unfortunately she doesn't feel that the County Planner's agree
with that because they don't seem to hear it or to follow through. Substantial progress has been
made on behalf of property owners, but it has been too difficult and too expensive and has taken far
too long> mostly because of an obviously biased and reluctant Planning staff. Has the County left
itself wide open by not allowing the residents of the west end into the public participation process
with this ordinance? She asked that the only areas buffered be those with basis in law for such
buffering. She asked that wildlife habitat be restricted to that which is the absolute minimum
according to law. She thanked the Board: for keeping single family residences exempt, for not giving
into the Chimacum High School Superintendent regarding school impacts to the degree requested, and
for Commissioner Hinton caring enough about public process to hold the hearing in Chimacum where
it is accessible to all.
Wendi Wrinkle, Shine area, stated that she is here to address Section 7 on aquifer recharge. The
purpose as stated is to prevent the degradation of groundwater that is now or is likely to be used
in the future as a source of drinking water. The definition of degradation is described as the
deterioration or degeneration of a designated critical area, or function, or value. The designation of
greater than 60% susceptibility combined with population densities of equal or greater than one
person per ten acres, do not begin to address protection needed for this County. Nor does the
application in Section 7.4 address the specific coverage needed for our County. To be more specific,
here are the areas that fall out or are totally unaddressed by these sections:
· Septic densities less than one acre are allowed by using a gross acre which includes averaging
of open space.
· All forestland activities in conversion to development as subdivisions, fall through the cracks since
there is no existing human population on forestland.
· Deforestation and urbanization can affect recharge of existing aquifers by 30%. This is
unaddressed.
'VOl
19~
fAGf
00 :1989
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 12
.
The issue of depleting aquifers due to overdevelopment, impervious surfaces and resulting
deterioration of aquifer recharge as a result, is unaddressed.
Salt water intrusion in coastal areas is increased by overuse and lack of recharge. This is
unaddressed.
.
These issues common to Jefferson County should be the catalyst for the aquifer recharge section.
Instead they have been totally ignored. The best example is the mapping for aquifer recharge in
the Port Ludlow area. The aquifer recharge is literally unprotected. Meanwhile as a result of the
EIS at Port Ludlow the County's rapidly processing mitigated permits of non-significance and
development is proceeding. The definition of mitigation seems to be deteriorating as well, and can
be best defined today as mitigate - shelf for later dates, staff and administration. It appears that some
people believe the problems can solve themselves over time. Development has already impacted one
aquifer in Swansonville over the last twenty years, to a decline of 30 feet with no recovery. Now
they are in the process of buildout with water rights in the south aquifer near Shine and Paradise still
falling short by 9 1/8th feet (from their statistics), of meeting their needs. The developer is in the
process, overestimating recharge, under allocating to meet Department of Health standards by a
quarter, ignoring prior water users on the same aquifer in surrounding communities, and still insisting
the aquifer is adequate to meet their needs. But, worse yet they are proceeding with mitigation while
monitoring themselves. You are fully aware of all this information and still do not require, through
this ordinance, the protection needed for this aquifer which is in great jeopardy as a result of the
developers greed. This is not a Port Ludlow neighborhood issue. This is a preview of what will take
place countywide as groundwater is exploited in places like Oak Bay, Thorndyke, Discovery Bay, etc.,
and the developers, the biggest users, will not protect the aquifer once you've paid the price for your
lot. As residents of the County you will pay for their mistakes, destruction and replacement of the
resources. Please take the time, Commissioners, to change this section (as follows) to reflect
Jefferson County's unique needs:
1) Automatic triggering of forest conversions.
2) Depletion of aquifers.
3) Salt water intrusion.
4) Strengthening standards for pollution.
For help in taking care of these issues, Wendi Wrinkle referred to Whatcom, Thurston, and Kitsap
County ordinances. The ultimate taking is the destruction or irreversible damage to systems that
we don't take the time to understand or appreciate in order to protect. The ultimate dishonor is to
our children and their children who will certainly ask us why. Why we didn't take the time to
understand? Why we did not protect the environment from those who would not see?
Janet Welch suggested that there is at least one topic (in the critical area ordinance) that there may
not be a lot of disagreement over - flood plains. She stated that she's never met anyone who thinks
that subdivisions belong is flood plains. Efforts to preserve flood plains would probably be the least
contentious point in this ordinance. This ordinance isn't a whole lot different than earlier drafts, in
that for some reason, flood plains have been systematically ignored throughout this process.
She stated that she is a registered sanitarian and septic system designer and a coauthor of the
Coordinated Water System Flood Management Plan for the Big Quilcene and Dosewallips Rivers.
Finding #29 of the draft Critical Area Ordinance says that the existing flood management ordinance
is adequate to protect the flood plains. Some of the things that the Flood Plain Management
Ordinance does not do:
· It does not in any way govern or restrict the placement of septic systems, septic tanks or
drainfields in the flood plain.
· It does not prohibit construction of commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, or other critical
facilities on the flood plain.
· It does not govern or restrict the placement of fill on the flood plain. In truth it actually
encourages the placement of fill on the flood plain. It therefore fails to maintain conveyance
capacity of the flood plain which is integral to its proper function.
· It does not restrict the construction of roads, except in some cases to require that they be placed
on fill.
· It does not govern or restrict clearing, grading or mining on the flood plain.
· It does not protect the clearing of vegetation.
· It does not restrict the construction of residences on the flood plain. It does require residences
to be elevated. The primary mechanism it uses to do that, is to place fill on the flood plain.
What the ordinance (Flood Plain Ordinance) does, is attempt to reduce damage by inundated flood
waters so as to reduce the cost to the federal government. . You have to remember that the driving
force behind this ordinance was flood insurance. The Flood Management Ordinance is an archaic and
short sighted effort to reduce short term flood damage costs. This kind of mind set will lead to
VOL' tIJ He¡ 00 ':1990
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 13
disaster. Conversely, preserving flood plain function would prevent flood plain disaster. It is clear
in this case that the economic and environmental issues are the same. What's economically
justifiable, is environmentally sound and visa versa.
Protecting the values and functions of flood plains is so easily done that most of us overlook it.
What flood plains do is allow water to go over the banks and move along the area near the banks,
thereby stabilizing the flood flows and lessening the impacts downstream. Essentially what flood
plains do, is reduce the flood velocity of the in-channel stream. If you lose the flood plains, i.e.
through filling, you get higher velocity, bank erosion, and channel instability. The velocities also
result in bed scour and loss to fish habitat and keep us adversarial to Tribal and fishery interests.
We see water quality degradation. Instead of having the sediment and wood debris deposit on the
flood plain, they deposit in the channel fouling shellfish beds, spawning areas, cause gravel bar
creation and log jams.
This is a place where the County could win on all counts with fairly little opposition. She concluded
by saying that she will submit written comments specially dealing with areas of this ordinance.
Steve Moddemeyer, Environmental Program Director for the Port Gamble S'Kallam Tribe, read and
submitted his testimony (see attached).
Carol Bernthal. Habitat Coordinator for the Point No Point Treaty Council, explained that the Council
provides fishery and naturalist services to four tribes on the Olympic Peninsula: The Port Gamble,
Skokomish, Lower Elwa and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes. There is a perception that there is already
too much government restriction on private property. Yet, as a society we value clean water, the
privilege of seeing wildlife and the joys of watching the salmon return to the many stream of
Jefferson County. There is a perception that since there is so much national forest and park land in
the County, that protecting habitat in those areas is enough, and that we do not have to on private
lands.
She then explained a series of slides with information indicating that in eastern Jefferson County the
majority of habitat is on private land. There is also the perception that we only need to protect the
habitat that contains fish. Small streams, called Type 4 and 5 waters provide critical functions for
downstream habitats. Ecology tells us that all things are connected and that the smallest streams are
important to the water quality, temperature and formation of downstream habitats. (She then
explained a slide depicting different types of streams). The way smaller streams are treated, clearly
impacts the quality of the fish bearing waters.
Regarding the inadequacy of existing regulations, the Point No Point Treaty Council is concerned
about efficiency, streamlining bureaucracy and making sure regulations do the job. The gap analysis
done was then explained (through a series of slides). Existing regulations were reviewed, gaps were
identified in the proposed ordinance and analysis was done on whether the existing regulations would
fill those gaps. What was found was a maze of exemptions, waivers, weak policies and a general
lack of substantative standards, with the critical areas and the taxpayers the losers. An in depth
analysis of the current state of knowledge on the needs of fish, wildlife, and wetlands will be
submitted to the County Commissioners.
One gap found was inadequate protection for streams. She then presented a slide indicating what
protection are needed from the scientific research and what protection is provided in the critical
areas ordinance. The critical areas ordinance is woefully inadequate in protection for streams and
wetlands. There are other problems such as waivers that can be given if you're away from a
critically important stream. Away is not defined. She concluded by stating that there are a lot of
activities that aren't covered.
Marty Ereth, representing the Point No Point Treaty Council and specifically the Skokomish Indian
Tribe. where he is employed as a Fisheries Habitat Biologist. There is no regulation of intermittent
and perennial type 4 and 5 waters. He then presented slides representing different types of waters.
These waters by definition have no fish populations, but they provide important functions for
downstream fish bearing waters and wildlife species. They are critical for preventing breaks in the
frequency of landslides and preventing accelerated surface and alluvial erosion. In small streams with
adequate riparian zones most of the sediment produced by landslides is stored behind barriers as
woody debris and provides important habitat for unique species. Many type four and five waters are
misclassified. The Point No Point Treaty Council and the Quinault Indian Nation have both
undertaken stream surveys and found classification errors as high as 80% (averaging between 25%
and 50%) of the type 4 waters that actually do have fish in them or are capable of producing fish.n
VOL r1Jl rAg 001991
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 14
Riparian areas provide numerous functions critical to the wildlife and formation stability of habitats
used by fish and wildlife.
Class 3 and 4 wetlands won't get any protection and they have important wildlife and water quality
values as well. They feel that buffers should be 50 to 200 feet on riparian zones around wetlands
and streams depending on the type and some studies suggest up to 500 or 600 feet depending on the
species.
Geological features don't have enough protection. The recommendation is 30 feet and they don't feel
that this amount of protection on this type of hazard area is adequate for water quality protection.
Regarding wildlife, the CAO doesn't recognize species and habitats of local significance, but only
priority habitat species. Wildlife species depend upon a variety of critical habitats, wetland and
riparian areas for feeding, nesting, and rest during migration. Riparian zones of 50 to 600 feet will
be adequate. Class 3 and 4 wetlands are going to need some kind of protection, which they are
not afforded right now.
Important shellfish areas are not listed in the Critical Areas ordinance. They feel that with the
number of people that depend on shellfish resources in the State, it is critical that all of the shellfish
and beach areas are designated critical areas.
Peter Bahls, Habitat Biologist, Point No Point Treaty Council, stated that he has been working in
this County for two years reviewing subdivisions, forest practices, as well as doing research and
surveys on fish habitat and wildlife. He then presented and explained slides which compared the
requirements for a subdivision under the Critical Areas Ordinance and those proposed by the Point
No Point Treaty Council as well as other regulations currently in effect. They would like to see a
wildlife survey and master plan to identify if there are priority species on subdivisions of properties
ten acres or larger. If there are any unstable slopes on the properties, they would like to have a
geotechnical report and at least 50 foot buffers. There are no shoreline buffer protection on lakes
or shorelines in the current ordinance. There may be a misprint where the ordinance says stream
typing instead of water typing.
Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Bahls if he knows what the difference in the acreage of areas
protected in the two examples. Peter Bahls answered that he doesn't know, but the maps are to scale
and he would be presenting them to the Board. He then continued with explaining his slide
presentation.
Steve Hayden, Port Townsend, stated that the ordinance being looked at tonight is based on
philosophy articulated by the two new Commissioners in February of 1993 and is incorporated as a
finding in draft 2 (of the ordinance). That philosophy is "To the maximum feasible extent, the new
draft ordinance should be limited in coverage to those minimum designations and minimum protection
standards permissible under GMA." The first draft ordinance that the staff prepared under that
directive, greatly reduced the overall protection of critical areas that were in the ordinance proposed
in 1992, after two years of public testimony, public hearings, workshops, forums, and Planning
Commission meetings. In draft number 2 the standards were further reduced mostly at the direction
of Commissioner Hinton. The following finding was added to draft 2: "This ordinance is premised
on a perceived community vision that calls for minimum critical area designations and protection
standards consistent with the requirements of GMA. " The intent of this ordinance was to facilitate the
processing of development land use applications. This attitude and language persist in the first five
drafts of this ordinance. It was only after it was sent out for legal review and the County
Prosecutor's review, that this language was taken out. The language was taken out, but the substance
is still there.
Steve Hayden continued by saying that he thinks there is a better measure of public sentiment than
this so called perceived vision. He then explained slides depicting public responses to the Jefferson
2000 survey, done in October of 1991. This was a statistically valid survey which was sent to
everyone in the County. There were 517 responses, which is statistically valid and can be extended
across a County of this population size. There are things that everyone agrees on:
1) The natural environment is important to us.
Reasons for living in Jefferson County -
73% the small town, rural atmosphere.
64% the natural environment.
2) What is most at risk over the next 20 years.
The small town, rural atmosphere .
The natural environment.
, 'JOL
19, ~~G~ 00 1992
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 15
3) What is your attitude toward growth?
0% Grow faster.
46% Grow more slowly.
26% Not grow at all.
19% Grow at present rate.
4) How should the County manage growth?
58% Work aggressively to manage growth.
26% Work moderately to manage growth.
9% Do the minimum required.
That 9% is what is reflected in the ordinance. The question has been raised about surveying the
property owners. The survey was cross tabulated with homeowners in the County and exactly the
same numbers are obtained. The property owners in this County also want growth managed, and
most of them want it managed aggressively. Please respond to the citizens of this County.
Jerry Gorsline, representing the Washington Environmental Council, stated that the WEC has serious
concerns about this draft ordinance and they will be submitting detailed written comments. He
explained that he would be limiting his comments at this time to major deficiencies in the proposed
protection standards for wetlands.
1) The drafted ordinance proposes to exempt category 3 and 4 wetlands from regulation.
Although wetlands differ in resource value all wetlands provide some value and functions.
Wetlands cover 3.5% of the Discovery Bay watershed.
Mr. Gorsline then related his experience over the past ten years conducting wetland plant surveys in
Clallam and Jefferson counties, serving on ill teams to evaluate and mitigate impacts to public
resources resulting from forest practices, including wetland systems and the development of
recommendations for forest practices to protect wetlands on State and public lands. This experience
has demonstrated to him that category 3 and 4 wetlands constitute a majority of the wetlands in the
landscape. Collectively these wetlands provide a significant hydrologic and habitat value including
water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage
conveyance and attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, and erosion control and wave
attenuation.
Another very important function that all classes of wetlands perform is to recharge stream flows. In
eastern Jefferson County, low summer stream flows constitute a critical limiting factor for fish habitat.
Due to our rain shadow hydrology, annual water projection in these watersheds is less than other
areas. Salmon populations in eastern Jefferson County survive in ecologically weak and marginal
habitats. In 64% of the eastern Jefferson County salmon stocks analyzed in a recent report for the
Dungeness/Quilcene project, every 10 are critical or depressed. Given the current condition of the
stocks in eastern Jefferson County the report goes on to say that zero additional impact on the salmon
habitat must be the target to save those stocks.
Rather than exempting any class of wetlands from regulation, he suggested that size limitation would
be a more reasonable approach to limit the extent of wetlands regulated by the County. State policy
recommends that regulated wetlands do not include Category 1 and 2 wetlands less than 2,500 square
feet in size and Category 4 wetlands less than 10,000 square feet.
2) Protection standards for forestlands and wetlands do not meet minimum standards
recommended by resource specialists and State agencies.
The standard buffer widths contained in this draft will not protect the hydrologic functions in steep
topography, and completely disregard habitat values in the wetland buffers. Wetlands buffers are
zones of concentrated wildlife use. According to the Department of Wildlife, 85% of wildlife
specifies depend on wetlands and their buffers. Wildlife use of these buffers can extend hundreds
of feet beyond the wetland edge. We recommend that the County adopt the standards of both the
Department of Ecology and Department of Wildlife, i.e. 200 to 300 foot buffers for category 1
wetlands and 100 to 200 feet for category 2 wetlands depending on the intensity of adjacent land use
and habitat values.
3) The draft ordinance requires use of the 1987 edition of the federal manual for identifying
and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. Use of this manual will reduce the amount of
regulated wetlands, consequently he recommended that the 1989 federal manual be used
because it is more inclusive.
4) The ordinance is lacking in specific policies and procedures to avoid, minimize, reduce and
compensate for impacts to wetlands. In order to comply with the State's no net loss of
~OL
t_tu(,~ 00 1993
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 16
wetlands policy, replacement ratios should be established for compensatory mitigation based
on quality, diversity, rarity, and difficulty of replacement.
5) Applications for building permits are exempted from the ordinance. Building permits
should not be exempted unless the property has already been reviewed under a triggering
application since wetland functions may be damaged or destroyed by single family
dwellings.
Alexandra Bradley, Cape George, said that she feels that times have changed. There was a time
when there was a lot of land and resources and we didn't have to worry about getting to the last of
these valued areas. However, due to population growth there are fewer and fewer of these sensitive
areas. The community wants more protection of these areas, not less. These areas benefit our
community, for example clean water for fish and shellfish, which is an economic benefit, and also
the quality of life. These sensitive areas are part of a system which is systematically being
dismantled by fragmentation and separation of one from another. We need to realize that times have
changed and we are down to the last of these areas. It is unfortunate that the land owners that own
these areas have to have some kind of regulation for the benefit of the rest of the community. We
need to somehow reimburse these owners for what the values of these areas are. It's better to move
forward on our own and not have to be dragged into the future by lawsuits or having to do this
planning again. You have the responsibility to the taxpayers in this County to select a legally
defensible ordinance. I hope you will really evaluate the comments you're getting and strengthen this
document. As County Commissioners you are caretakers of the County lands and not just the County
landowners. Please do your duty and protect the critical areas.
Judith Bendor, Attorney for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, read and submitted her comments (see
attached).
Evan Milliam, Cook Street, Port Townsend, asked for a show of hands from the people present that
support the ordinance and those that don't support the ordinance. This is an issue of regulating
behavior more than anything else. The people in the community are being asked not to do
something. This critical areas ordinance hits a nerve with him because he sat at the original meeting
at the Tri Area Community Center. He heard people speaking about the changes that were being put
forth by Glen (Commissioner Huntingford) and Bob (Commissioner Hinton) that were not
scientifically based. He stated that he doesn't feel that the County will get this ordinance through.
There are many people in this room that don't want regulation, and many people who do not want
to be responsible. He thinks everyone wants protection and wants to respect the land that they own
or are living on. He said he would like to see a clearly written ordinance, based on scientific
evidence.
Toby Thayler, representing the Washington Environmental Council, stated that the WEC is a public
advocacy organization (over 25 years old), which is somewhat proud of being in a good part
responsible for the Growth Management Act. He then read the following quotes:
From the Growth Management Act - "Each County shall adopt development regulations that
protect critical areas. "
From the Eastern Washington Growth Planning Hearings Board Decision from Columbia County -
"This interim ordinance is to protect designated critical areas. This interim ordinance that tries
to protect designated critical areas uses 'minimized impact' as the standard of protection. This
is inadequate. There must be a specific objective standard for review in the ordinance that will
protect with reasonable certainty. The required standard of protection should be to prevent
adverse impacts."
"SEPA and expanded SEPA have exceptions and thresholds that do not provide for protection
envisioned by the Act. "
From the Central Puget Sound Growth Planning Hearings Board Decision of September 7, 1993
concerning designation of Forestlands, which are legal standards identical to those for critical areas
(He read it replacing Forestland with Critical Areas) - "If the intent of the landowner were a
crucial determining factor for designating critical areas there might be far fewer critical areas
designated to be protected, since high density residential or commercial use would be more
lucrative. This would defeat the purpose ,of interim critical area development regulations."
Market forces are no longer the sole controlling factors. That's the legislature's intent. You are
to protect, and the record clearly shows that you have not done it. Please do it.
VOL 19 rAG~ 001994
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 17
O'Neill Louchard, Port Townsend, stated that she opposes the interim critical areas ordinance as
inadequate to protect the natural resources of our area. It is short sighted. When enacted, providing
a short term benefit for a few without taking into consideration a long term impact, everyone
eventually loses. "Mine to do with as I want," seems to her to be a immature, uninformed and short
sighted attitude, that we can't live with very long in this area. Piecemeal destruction will erode the
very basis of what sustains us, which is the earth, that is created, not by man, but by the Creator.
Our stewardship of that creation is essential to honoring what I believe we have been given to nurture
and care for, not to destroy. I see our protection as a sacred trust. If we don't take care of the land
adequately, it eventually will not be worth anything, nor will it continue to sustain us. Degraded
resources eventually become worthless from every standpoint. Please, engage in long term thinking
and draft an ordinance to protect the heritage of future generations and listen to the wonderful
testimony presented tonight.
Eleanor Baxendale, Executive Director of 1.000 Friend of Washington. (Also submitted written
testimony - see attached.) 1,000 Friends of Washington is a statewide organization and has members
in every County including Jefferson County. They serve as a watchdog citizens organization for the
Growth Management Act. They work on education and advocacy programs, and they occasionally
bring lawsuits when they feel ordinances have fallen short of the Growth Management Act standards,
as they did in the Columbia County case. The proposed ordinance the County is considering does
not protect property rights. The issues are property rights and stewardship of the land. All of us
like to think of ourselves as good stewards of the land. We all want the right to enjoy our property
without the threat of a flood caused by careless development upstream. The right to pursue a
livelihood based on the natural resources of the County. The right to pass on to our children a
sustainable environment that will support them in the future. Your constituents have told you why
they believe this ordinance does not protect those property rights and we agree with them. We also
believe that you should listen to and give careful consideration to the expert testimony that has been
offered by the State Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, Ecology, the Point No Point Treaty Council,
the Olympic Environmental Council, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and the Washington
Environmental Council. This is testimony you need to consider and incorporate and make the basis
for your ordinance. The County has said in finding number 30 that it is attempting to find a balance
in the critical areas ordinance. Both the Puget Sound and the Eastern Washington Growth Planning
Hearings Boards have said that the sole function of interim critical areas regulation is to protect
critical areas. It is not a balancing activity. The balancing between protecting critical areas and the
other goals of the Act come at a time when the County adopts the Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations. The purpose of the interim regulation is to protect critical areas as you
go forward with your Comprehensive Plan. An ordinance that is attempting to balance is not
complying with the Growth Management Act.
The County has also said that it is concerned that it cannot afford the monitoring needed to protect
critical areas. This does not justify adopting a substandard ordinance. Critical areas ordinances are
passed to establish how citizens should develop their property without damaging wetlands and wildlife
habitat. Although the County may not be able to pursue every violation of the ordinance, most
people will comply with an ordinance that protects the County's natural resources. We don't ignore
problems simply because we can't afford all of the enforcement measures necessary to make it work
out perfectly.
The recent legal changes to the ordinance don't make it legally defensible. The ordinance still does
not apply to building permits and to exemptions to the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The
standards in the ordinance are not adequate therefore, to protect the critical areas that you are
responsible for protecting. Use the technical advise and consider the testimony of your constituents
on what they consider to be the true values of their County and your County and to go back and
revise this ordinance so that it truly does protect property rights that all your citizens expect to
continue to enjoy.
Marsha Macomber, Port Townsend, read from an article in the Olympic Environmental Council
Newsletter indicating that what is good for the environment is good for the economy, by relating the
results from a study done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The study found that states
with rigorous environmental policy consistently show greater economic gain than states with weaker
environmental policies. For a copy of the study referred to the OEC can be reached at 379-8442.
She suggested that this is the kind of information that should be used in making changes in the
ordinance.
Paul Mackrow, Port Townsend, stated that she will address the aquifer recharge section of the critical
area ordinance. In 1991 a County work group was organized to identify issues to be addressed and
to propose draft language to be included in an interim critical areas ordinance being developed. Many
VOL 19 rAC~ 00 1995
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 18
of the consensus statements and analyses found their way into the final draft of the interim critical
areas ordinance dated December 1992. Sections 6.530 to 6.550 of that draft ordinance appeared to
offer adequate, if somewhat awkward, means to provide interim protection to the aquifers and
recharge areas that supply numerous public and private wells in Jefferson County. Protection of these
aquifers and recharge areas is essential to assure the continued protection of adequate and reliable
supply of groundwater to the thousands of residents of Jefferson County who directly or indirectly
rely on these wells for their drinking water. In 1993 the Critical Areas Ordinance no longer provides
necessary interim protection for these wells, the aquifers which supply them, or for their recharge
areas.
Paul Mackrow then presented and explained slides from a document prepared for the State Department
of Ecology and the Department of Community Development by Robert Palmquist from guidelines for
local ordinances. She then reviewed the following concerns:
1. The preponderance of the areas expected for future development, in single family residences
and currently platted subdivisions, would be exempt from either review or regulations for
impacts to aquifer recharge areas.
2. In the event that a review is required, the burden of proof that harm will be done by a
proposal is placed on Jefferson County. This is clearly in violation of the Growth
Management Act intent to protect designated areas. Under Section 10.403 the responsible
official would be required to review and choose to accept, or challenge the sufficiency
and accuracy of a proposal's aquifer recharge area report within 10 working days. In the
event of a challenge they are required to develop information which demonstrates errors
of fact or omission in the proposal's aquifer recharge area report (again within the next
10 working days) and the County is required to pay for all costs of developing information
to demonstrate errors of fact or omissions within the proponents report. This assumption
that it is the regulators responsibility to prove harm will be done, stands in direct
contradiction to safe, effective, drinking water protection standards and effectively
discourages careful review.
Available within County data are: soils maps, which have been criticized by the people who work
with them the most in the County; and the underlying geology map which is fairly sparse. A third
requirement for minimum data as recommended by the State is a three dimensional model of the
underlying aquifer boundaries developed from well log data. The County does not have any well log
data in its files. The U.S. Geological Survey has a tenth of the data points in Jefferson County that
they have in Clallam County.
Craig Jones, resident of the County and Attorney with Jones and Tracey, stated that his firm is
involved in drafting critical areas ordinances for other counties and has spent 30 to 35 hours
reviewing Draft 6 of this ordinance. He added that he is the Chairman of the legal committee of the
Building Industry Association of Washington and he assists builders and developers in working
through the maze of governmental regulation. The County has made significant strides toward
meeting GMA requirements to adopt a critical areas ordinance. It is a great balancing act among
all the GMA policies. Contrary to the earlier opinion, the balancing comes into play with regard to
determining the extent of the critical areas. The Federal government has not mandated any specific
critical areas to be regulated. The State Legislature has adopted the GMA but has not designated
absolute, specific mandates for critical areas. But, instead has left it up to each jurisdiction including
Jefferson County to address these issues, to rationally consider all of the various environmental,
critical area issues. And then, based upon that consideration, to determine for Jefferson County what
are critical areas and what is the extent of coverage of critical areas.
The implementation of the Ordinance once it's adopted: More work needs to be done on this
Draft 6. There are many vague and confusing definitions in the existing draft that must be resolved
before the final draft is adopted. Litigation in this ordinance will do no one any good. It won't do
the developers any good, and it won't do the environmental concerns any good. It will stop all
critical area protection until the issue is resolved. It will go to Court.
The process requirements: The Director in this particular situation has 10 days to review reports.
That period of time is not adequate. There are two series of administrative reviews - it has to go
to the Public Works Department for issues within their technical expertise, and then it's got to go to
the Planning Director. If they have to hire an outside consultant there is no way it can be done in
10 days. To determine whether or not any special reports that have been prepared are adequate.
Once the adequacy determination is made by the Director, there is no time period at which they have
to come to a conclusion with regard to conditions or recommendations. That is totally left open in
this ordinance, but at the same time you have completely stopped all processing of the triggering
permit. You have the situation where there is a rush to come to a determination with regard to the
adequacy of the report, but yet the next step isn't there, having the Planning Director complete the
VOL 19 rAr;~ 00 1996
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 19
processing of the critical areas review and send on the recommendation. The Director under this
ordinance has the right to revoke the triggering permit, if the critical areas conditions are not initiated
within a year. This is totally out of line with the triggering applications. For example, Washington
State Law under the Platting Ordinance, gives you 36 months from preliminary plat to final plat. If
you get a preliminary plat approval you have 3 years to go for your final plat approval. Under this
scenario if you decide you're going to wait for two years to start, because you need to wait from
many different reasons, you would still have the possibility of having your preliminary plat revoked
after one year if you haven't gone in and done this critical areas initiation. That needs to be looked
at because it probably violates due process and State statutes. There are three administrative reviews
altogether - Department Heads, Hearing Examiner, and the Commissioners. He suggested that the
Hearing Examiner appeal be circumvented and have it go directly from administrative review to the
Commissioners. (See additional written comments attached.)
Alicia Bates, Port Townsend, stated that she is definitely against this ordinance. She finds it a
nightmare. It is the same mentality - growth for growths sake, without taking into account anything
around you. It's 1993 and the environment has already been destroyed a lot. We're looking at no
fish in the rivers, no old growth forest left, wildlife and plant life degradation. You have to wake
up and listen to what you are hearing tonight. You shouldn't be stubborn. You have been put in
office to represent the majority of people. As elected officials, if you aren't going to represent the
majority of the people and be good leaders then you need to step down and give up your post. You
haven't done your homework. It sounds like you need to sit down with the experts and tear up the
draft of the ordinance and start all over again.
Doug Milholland, stated that the current Commissioners have been successful in taking a long time
to produce very little. He then related a story from when he lived in Panama on a boat. He stated
that the Commissioners have got to do their duty. Their duty is to this wonderful crowd of people
with profound respect for the environment which we all share. Eternity works in both directions -
you can look forward and think about what things will be like if we act or don't act or you can look
into the past where this area was an incredibly beautiful, profoundly balanced, harmonious place.
We are all in the same boat, we breathe the same air and drink the same water. We have got to
look to the future and to the past for examples. He concluded by saying "I leave you to the memory
of it, I leave you to the hope of i~ and I leave you with the burden of it. It is a burden. I wish you
well."
Ryan Tillman, stated that he is speaking as a professional local engineer who has worked in this
County for 3 1/2 years. He stated that the developers that he works for are just normal people. The
bad things that they (the developers) do are bad development practices. They are not bad people.
Everyone lives in a house a developer did, whether it was themselves or someone else. The critical
areas should be a quality planning aid and not a triggering device that makes up for poor or non-
existent data. The SCS (Soil Conservation Service) data is no good, which is what most of the maps
are based on. He explained that he works with this data on a daily basis. They made the SCS maps
from a 150 mile high satellite fly by in 1968. This information doesn't reflect the topography in
rural areas due to tree cover. In 1968 to 1975 when this document was done, Jefferson County was
even less accessible than it is now, so the sampling was non existent. It's totally inadequate data to
base studies or a designation, or a potential taking on, and is wrong. It's also inadequate to say that
someone next door that isn't designated, can pollute where someone else can't.
The CAO is weak in clearing and grading. Clearing and grading is currently being addressed by
another volunteer committee. The stream buffers are inadequate and weak. In Section 3.30 there is
a reference to shoreline permit exemptions, and that language should be cleaned up back in
Shorelines. Revocation of permits with a one year limit is terrible and is not practical at all. He
added that he has short plats that can't even get through the County in a year. With regard to the
designation of critical aquifer areas in Section 7, the County has no data and even in areas that have
been studied (Marrowstone Island) the data is inadequate. Section 7.401 paragraph 5, has no
correlation to the definition. The one acre should be larger or smaller. There is no basis for the one
acre size. There is a difficulty with the lack of proven contamination of aquifer areas. It's all well
and good to designate large areas as susceptible soils potential, but there are very few areas of the
County that have any kind of proven contamination. It puts the burden of proof in the wrong place.
A critical aquifer report is an amazingly expensive thing. A small one is a minimum of $20,000 plus
monitoring wells. Without the data no scientific or engineering basis can be made.
Wade Johnston read and submitted his testimony (see attached).
Doug Humes, Port Townsend, stated that he has done commercial salmon fishing in Oregon and
Alaska and has studied fisheries management in Washington State. He reported that he has been
VOL 19 rAC~ 00 1997
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 20
working on salmon restoration projects in east Jefferson County and Clallam County for the past two
years. Based on that experience and what he understands about the condition of east Jefferson
County salmon stocks, he commented on buffers and triggering mechanisms. The entire watershed
must be considered, not just individual streams. The current draft ordinance provides buffers on the
larger streams and wetlands, but what we find is what's upstream affects what's downstream. There
needs to be protection for the smaller water systems upstream. Everything upstream comes
downstream eventually. Buffers are important for salmon habitat for sediment traps. These traps,
trap dirt and chemicals that might be washing down into the streams. The vegetation around streams
or water systems keeps the water temperature down, which is good for fish. The buffer zones
provide habitat for the food the fish eventually eat. The buffer zones also absorb and dissipate heavy
rains. Buffers need to be wide enough to do the job and it appears that the buffers in the draft
ordinance are not adequate, based on what the current scientific information shows. There needs to
be some requirement that any proposed clearing of land near a wetland, stream or river, be reviewed
before the clearing work occurs. In the current draft there is nothing to prevent a landowner from
clearing his land right up to the very edge of any wetland stream or river, just to put in a lawn, or
just to do some clearing. Provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance wouldn't come into play until
certain permits are applied for. Based on his understanding of the ordinance the issue of buffer is
irrelevant unless there is some requirement that land clearing near wetlands be reviewed before the
clearing work begins. Based on recent work on salmon and steelhead stocks in this area, 43% of the
fish stocks in east Jefferson County are depressed or critical. More attention should be given to
salmon stocks in this area. The Commissioners can protect fresh water habitat. He asked that the
Commissioners do something more for our local salmon stocks.
Janeen Hayden, Port Townsend, stated that everyone here (at this meeting) has enjoyed dining and
feasting on salmon and that is something that she believes we should leave to our children and their
children and that is what the GMA and resource protection is about. The commitment that those
that are asking that this ordinance be something meaningful, is a commitment to the real world. She
feels that the County has really strayed from reality in regard to this ordinance. First with the
purposes of GMA - to protect critical areas. This means there would be water into the future - clean
aquifers and available water. Agricultural land and timber land into the future. Salmon into the
future. We have no right to diminish these resources and this ordinance will allow these resources
to be damaged. She stated that she hopes the County will re-write the ordinance so that it will
indeed protect the real world and fulfill the purposes of GMA. The process so far has cost a lot of
time and a lot of money. Citizens participation has been thousands of hours. This ordinance
basically ignores all of the work that the citizens groups did. The critical area workgroup agreed that
the maximum protection be granted to aquifers. They agreed to use the 1989 wetland manual for
delineation, the DOE model ordinance for wetland buffers, and that protection for locally significant
areas is important. All of these things have been dropped (from this ordinance) for no reason. The
County has received $220,000 of tax money in the form of grants to implement GMA and what we
have with this ordinance, is an ordinance which protects less than the SEP A ordinance that we have
in place now. The ordinance will not do, in many instances, what the State Environmental Policy
Act already does.
The biggest problem is that building permits are exempt and that loophole will result in no protection
for critical areas in all of those projects. There were over 700 building permits in 1992, and 775 in
1993. Every single one of those has the risk of damaging a resource that this community wants
protected. There are inconsistencies in the ordinance and loopholes for clearing and grading. She
asked that the ordinance be brought back in touch with reality.
Mark Stevenson, Martin Road, Port Townsend, stated that the buffer zones for the wetland in the
proposed ordinance are very inadequate. Class 1 and 2 should be increased and Class 3 and 4 should
be given buffers. If we don't protect the wetlands for all their natural functions now, we're going
to pay later, by having to have the functions provided by nature, artificially provided. In the wetland
section Alder is still listed as an undesirable specifies. Alder is an important nitrogen fixer and
without that, the desireable species (Douglas Firs, Cedar, etc.) are limited in their growth. Under the
critical aquifer recharge areas (under applicability) we should add "significant grading or recontouring
of soil, or paving, or non-selective timber harvesting," in these recharge area. Under fish and wildlife
habitat areas, the buffer widths are again inadequate. Type 3 streams are listed as being less than
five feet in width and that's most of the streams in the County. 25 feet is not enough of a buffer
to protect our salmon streams. The quality of the water coming from Class 4 and 5 streams is
necessary for the health of the Class 1, 2 and 3 streams.
If building permits don't trigger this ordinance and significant grading, or re-contouring or clearing
doesn't trigger this ordinance then we're not really protecting our critical areas. We need to add
these triggering reasons. Another point is protection from people who own lands only briefly for
IJOL 19 rAr,~ 00 1998
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 21
speculative reasons, whose children won't grow up here and who don't have care for the land.
Finally Mr. Stevenson reminded the Board that this is an interim ordinance. If errors are made they
should be made on the side of more protection, not less. There is inadequate data on how our
aquifers work and this ordinance as written will not provide protection for things that we really don't
know anything about. We need to err on the side of more protection.
Kathryn Jenks stated that the definition section of the ordinance does not include a definition for
freedom. The purposes section of the ordinance says "the intent of this ordinance is to facilitate the
processing of relevant land use applications in a timely fashion with minimum intrusion on individual
freedom and with maximum consistency and predictability in the pursuit of fairness and equity toward
balancing individual and collective interests. This ordinance is dedicated to enhancing the quality
of life for the citizens of Jefferson County." She asked how freedom would be defined in this
ordinance? Would it be defined as degradation is, which is that basically you can do anything you
want? Would you define freedom as the ability to have you do anything you want, but not the
40,000 people who are going to move here because they see this as a free and easy place to develop?
Are you going to define freedom as the ability to do what you want, but not to let your next door
neighbor do what he or she wants because they might impact your freedom? She said that she finds
this political statement offensive and political. Growth management has nothing to do with politics,
it has only to do with protecting the environment and she believes that a vast mistake is being made
by interpreting it as a way to implement an agenda that has nothing to do with the quality life for
the maximum amount of citizens and the species of this County.
Pete Harris, 601 Martin Road, stated that he feels the people should be making the decision for the
people of the County, not the elected officials. He stated that he would like to have a forum where
the County officials tell why they changed this, that, and the other things. He would like to also
involve some children from the schools. If we cut all the trees and take all of the rivers and streams
and pollute them, people won't be coming here any more and the land values will skyrocket
downward. He suggested that the Board ask their children about this. We have to protect the critical
areas for hunting and fishing or we won't have it.
Lisa Inman, 2591 Hastings West (Middlepoint), stated that she is very dismayed at the weakness of
this draft ordinance. She hopes the Commissioners will listen. This process has been going on for
two years and the current majority of the Commission has chosen to ignore the information and
provided by minimum protection of critical areas. She asked the Commission majority to turn around
and consider maximum protection for critical areas. She asked that they change their point of view
because the information is the same. These designations are relative. What are considered
maximum protection right now, will in just a couple of decades be viewed as very, very minimal
protection. You've heard lots of testimony about erosion control and she urged that those protections
be made at the maximum level. These protections are almost useless if the triggering applications
are as broad as they are. Her understanding is that a major development is what will bring these
factors into play. If we decide a stream needs the protection of a certain buffer or erosion control,
then it needs it whether anyone is living there, or one person per acre is living there, or whether I
want to clear it to be my lawn or an industrial area. The triggering level is very high and will not
come into play in most situations. If there's no enforcement or if the enforcement is very little, what
does all this mean? She urged the Commissioners to have the personal determination and courage
to change their stance and go for maximum protection.
John Lockwood stated that he is going to discuss the political situation that got us to this point. He
stated that the solutions to the current problems are political. The problems themselves were caused
largely by individuals. Individuals clear lands for farms, for homes. No one asked us to vote on
whether or not there were would be thousands of toxic waste dumps in the United States or whether
or not the Kent valley would be paved over. Planning and political process is critical. The solution
is political. The Jefferson 2000 survey pointed out that the vast majority of the people surveyed
wanted the growth in Jefferson County managed and wanted the environment protected. The 1992
election was the next political occurrence in this issue. In the 1992 election there was a three way
race in the democratic primary which was won by a someone who was a registered republican. In
the general election Bob Hinton lost District 1.
Commissioner Huntingford asked that Mr. Lockwood address his comments to this draft ordinance.
Mr. Lockwood stated that the County should scrap draft 6 of the ordinance because it does not
represent the desires or the interest of the people of the County. He stated that the Board should
look again at the Jefferson 2000 survey, to try and find out what the people of the County want.
He advised that the County shouldn't take this draft ordinance before the State Hearings Board
because they would embarrass themselves. He added for the public at the meeting that he feels they
were misled, and manipulated in the political process and that they need to show up at the State
VOl ,19 rM/ 00-1999
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 22
Hearings Board to tell them that they feel they are not being properly represented and that the
democratic political process was manipulated.
Robert Greenway, stated that he will give the table of contents of what he will be delivering to the
County between now and November 30. He is going to put into the record a summary of the work
of the forums held at the beginning in April of 1991. He is also going to put into the record the
summaries of the critical areas workshops, the hearings held by the PlanniIÌg Commission for
hundreds of hours, the documentation of the flip that happened in the late spring of 1992 when the
work of the stand alone ordinance was abandoned because it couldn't be administered and they began
to work on a SEP A ordinance. The summary of the hearings the Planning Commission had on the
SEP A ordinance will also be put in the record. These will only be the barest of summaries which
will not include the debates, the discussions or the passion and concerns for hour after hour that was
spent. Conclusions and consensus was reached in these meetings. This process was brought to a
conclusion in the fall of 1992 with a draft SEP A ordinance. In the winter of this year that ordinance
was then cut by a third to a half. He added that he will put the expert testimony in the record and
ask that it be considered in this ordinance. The County can afford it. It is cheaper than to consider
this year after year.
Judy Friesem, Hastings Avenue West, stated that she is a marine and wetlands educator. She has
chosen to dedicate her life to instill in others a sense of respect and understanding and care for the
natural world. She believes deeply that is critical. What she sees in this ordinance is upsetting and
she stated it feels like we're going backwards, not moving forward. We're talking about our quality
of life and about our ability as a community to build a spirit together and a sense of place. She is
not sure what is more disturbing - a lack of understanding of the environment, or the absence of any
sign that this community believes it has sinned and has a disregard for what has gone before. When
will we remember that we cannot have a healthy economy without having a healthy and thriving
environment? Over a hundred genetically distinct strains of salmon are lost or gone from here in the
northwest and every year two hundred more move towards extinction. Not one species placed on the
endangered species list in 1979 has made it off the list by 1989. Salmon are indicators of a viable
watershed, they are food, they are poetry and we're all losing if we lose our resources. The time
has come for all of us to put aside our differences and realize our common ground. To work
together to enhance our quality of life and not be in such haste to destroy it. It's time to come to
our senses, to see further and hear more clearly. It's already embarrassingly late. Perhaps if we
can begin to recognize the world of diversity in nature, then we could begin to honor it in each other.
She challenged the Commissioners to take a risk and trust that protecting our resources will prove
beneficial for absolutely everyone.
Mike Fleming, resident of Marrowstone Island, said that he spent nine years on the County Planning
and Shoreline Commissions. He urged the Board to reconsider draft 6. He has reviewed it and found
it inadequate in identification of critical areas and standards for protection. He doesn't feel it is what
the majority of people want.
John Hulburd, Umatilla, Port Towsend, stated that he is a mechanic. There is a lot of talk now
among scientists, mechanics and thinkers of the world that the future is using biological machines,
things that use microbes and enzymes and living plants and animals to manufacture goods, to clean
water, and clean sewage. We already have a working biological machine here in Jefferson County.
What a lot of us are imploring you to do is to protect what's left of that biological machine that
can work so well to serve our needs. It serves us inexpensively because it's so vast and complex.
A lot of money will be saved over time if we continue to protect our resources.
This ordinance is not scientifically based. The hard work and much of the analysis of earlier drafts
of this ordinance has been cut to suit the business needs of the minority. I don't understand who
the County Commissioners represent. Not me and not anybody that I know. Not the majority of the
people who were surveyed and listed environmental values as highest in the values for living here.
He is amazed at the malfeasance and arrogance of the way that this ordinance is written now in that
it strips so much of the protection. There is such an opportunity to build protection in that is flexible
and yet clear. He stated that he hopes that the Commissioners will go back to the drawing board
and put in the kind of details that err on the side of caution, err on the side of protection so that we
will have the cushion for making mistakes and still have something left to work with in the future.
Phil Akridge, Hadlock, stated that he will address procedures. Section 4.30 Hearing Examiner, he
asked that this be eliminated from the procedures. Since he is only going to use the ordinance
itself, the ordinance would have' to be extremely specific, which it is not. He would just be another
level of inspection that is unnecessary, because the power, will really reside in the Commissioners
ultimately and the Planning Director will be doing most of the work. It will be important to reduce
'JåL
19 002000
r~(;~ .
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 23
the Planning Director's power to some extent because his opinion, is one man's opinion. The real
issue is what number of people can Jefferson County support in the eastern side of the County. We
do have the power to either force its growth or slow its growth. We have to think about Hood Canal
as well as the areas above. If concentration of people through forced growth means that we'll all
have the amenities that go along with growth, then that effluent has to go somewhere. It's going to
go into the Sound or somewhere. What we're talking about is controlled growth not forced growth.
Julie McCullough, City Council Member and Chairperson of Water Advisory Committee for the City
of Port Townsend, she read a letter that was submitted (see attached.)
Bob VanEtten, 310 Smith Road, Marrowstone Island, stated that he is a retired Wildlife Biologist and
as such he has been observing the fish and wildlife and wetlands of Killisut Harbor. As a result of
his background and interest he looked carefully at the fish and wildlife and wetlands maps. He said
that he assumes that these maps are part of the interim ordinance, but they are not referenced in any
way in the ordinance, and that needs to be looked at. The only places noted as fish and wildlife
habitat areas are Eagle nests and roosting sites, Great Blue Heron nest areas, salmon spawning
streams and the Spotted Owl areas. If this is all these maps contain, then that should be stated.
These maps are far from complete. He urged that estuarine coastal wetlands be included on these
maps. These areas, including eel grass beds, are very critical areas to many of our species, including
Heron, Candlefish, salmon, and Eagles. You can't draw a circle around an Eagle's nest and consider
that it's habitat. It has to have something to eat besides the nest. The fish and wildlife maps needs
to be reviewed because there are a lot of sensitive species in eastern Jefferson County. The
information is available and this is a tool that developers and anyone that is going to modify the land
in Jefferson County is going to go to. This information should be as complete as possible. The
same problem applies to the wetland maps. All coastal wetlands have been left out. You need to
take into consideration these extremely important wetlands.
Phil Akridge added that what is being talked about here is going to take some funding. Somebody
has got to pay for it. The burden shouldn't be put on just the property owners of the land that is
effected. The costs are going to have to come out of taxes and he is not certain how to do that
equitably. A head tax or property tax alone will not do. Someone has to do some thinking on how
this will be paid for because it is going to cost a lot.
Janeen Hayden asked what the status is of the maps that were prepared for the 1992 ordinance?
Commissioner Huntingford answered that he would assume that they are stored upstairs in the
Courthouse (planning Department). Janeen Hayden asked that they be included in the record for this
hearing.
Robert Krutenat then completed his presentation of overhead slides. He urged that the County obtain
and maintain a database of the limited aquifers in eastern Jefferson County including the vegetative
cover, and the ratio of pervious to impervious surfaces. The help of the Soil Conservation Service
and the Army Corps of Engineers might be useful. Any project that reduces the quantity of recharge
must be mitigated by changing the vegetative cover, changing the pervious to impervious ratio, or if
necessary piping water in and pumping it into the aquifer through injection wells.
Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed that portion of the hearing. He explained
that written testimony will be accepted at the County Commissioners Office until 5:00 p.m. on
November 30, 1993.
The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the hearing at the Chimacum School
Auditorium and reconvened on Wednesday morning at the Courthouse for the following business.
All three Board members were present.
Consideration of Adoption of the Interim Urban Growth Areas Ordinance: After
discussion of the testimony received, the Countywide Planning Policies, and the issues involved with
the designation of interim urban growth areas in the County, Commissioner Huntingford moved to
rescind his motion of November 1, 1993. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. The Chairman
called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton voted in favor
of the motion. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion carried.
Commissioner Huntingford then moved to acknowledge Port Townsend as an Urban Growth Area and
their request for a study area outside the City limits; to designated Port Ludlow as an Urban Growth
IJOL 19 rA~' 002001
...
Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 22, 1993
Page: 24
Area with the boundary as recommended but excluding the portion of the area north of the Fire Hall
(Mats Mats); to designate the Tri Area as an Urban Growth Area with the boundary as recommended
but excluding Kala Point; and to adopt the Urban Growth Area Ordinance as presented.
Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner Hinton stated that he has concerns about the area outside of the Port Townsend UGA
as a study area until that area is defined clearly by the City. Commissioner Huntingford then
amended his motion to leave out the study area outside the City limits. Commissioner Hinton
seconded the amended motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment to the motion.
The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The Chairman then called for a vote on the amended
motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton voted for the motion, Chairman Wojt
voted against the motion. The motion carried.
Five (5) Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund:
Commissioner Hinton moved to approve five applications for assistance from the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Relief Fund submitted by the American Legion Post #26 in the following amounts: $500,
$500, $425, $500 and $500. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
MEETING ADJOURNED
I'>
.... J"'/
',- .. ..sOIt~~/A
'2icY#{:':J~r0
Lorna L. Delaney,
Clerk of the Board '
VOL 19 rMí 00 2002