The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM112607Ol AQ oft IN District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of November 26, 2007 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioners David Sullivan and John Austin. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made by citizens: A request was made that Department of Community Development staff work with a property owner in the proposed Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA who can't expand an existing mini - storage business because there is currently a moratorium on mini - storage units in that area; replacing the ferry boats on the Port Townsend - Keystone run should be a top priority for the State Department of Transportation; the preferred storage medium for County records should be an electronic format and not paper; the County can recruit citizen volunteers to scan documents; the Planning Commission's recommendation on the draft Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is due out this week and the Board is expected to adopt it within the next five weeks; a citizen requested that the Board reconsider the draft CAO from the Planning Commission and re- evaluate the schedule for adoption; the Security Services NW business owner was tested for lead and had the well, stream and waterfront near the facility tested and the tests came back negative for any contaminants; and concerns were expressed about expenditures by the Marine Resources Committee, the 4 -H program, and the Weed Board. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan stated that regarding Item #3, his wife's family owns property in a trust at Beckett Point and approving the resolution has no fiscal impact on him. He moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 101 -07 re: Naming a Private Road Tall Tree Lane; Dawn and Jeff Pryde, Petitioners 2. RESOLUTION NO. 102 -07 re: Naming a Private Road Hollybrook Heights; Mariah Meriam, Petitioner 3. RESOLUTION NO. 103 -07 re: Establish an Assessor's Plat; Beckett Point Fishermen's Club 4. AGREEMENT re: Open Space Taxation to Transfer and Designate 15 Acres as Timber Open Space for Current Use Assessment, CUA07- 00002; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Mariah Meriam, Applicant Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 q5,' NCtO 5. AGREEMENT re: Open Space Taxation to Transfer and Designate 59 Acres as Open Space for Current Use Assessment, CUA07- 00001; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; Greg and Heather Reseck, Applicants 6. AGREEMENT re: Radio Maintenance Services; JeffCom; Greentree Communications 7. Final Plat Alteration; Thornburg Short Plat Located Off of Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock; Rainshadow Real Estate, Applicant 8. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 19, 2007 Totaling $962,890.63 Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated November 15, 2007 Totaling $91,681.97 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated November 15, 2007 Totaling $17,083.19 9. CANCELLATION NOTICE re: County Commissioner Regular Meeting; Scheduled for Monday, December 24, 2007 10. Letter Requesting Support for the Tarboo -Dabob Conservation Project; Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. County Administrator John Fischbach reported on the following items: • He will be out of the office most of this week on personal business. • The County Administrator recommended that the Board cancel their Special Meeting scheduled on November 28, 2007 with the Quinault Indian Nation and the Grays Harbor County Commissioners because Chairman Johnson, Director of Community Development Al Scalf and he will not be able to attend. The topic of the discussion on the agenda is land use issues. Commissioner Sullivan agreed that the meeting can be postponed until after the beginning of the year. There was a discussion about the land use agreement that was approved by the County in 1992. Commissioner Austin requested that a briefing be scheduled with DCD staff to review the agreement to see if it is still applicable. • The Board needs to schedule a Special Meeting sometime this week with the Elected Officials and Department Heads to discuss 2008 budget cuts. • The Board agreed to meet from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Saturday, December 1 to work on the budget. They have a joint meeting with the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council scheduled at 11 a.m. that day. This is also a Special Meeting. HEARING re: Proposed Resolution setting 2008 Ad Valorem Tax Levies for Jefferson County for levy in 2007 and collection in 2008: The Chair opened the public hearing. Assessor Jack Westerman explained that the resolutions before the Board authorize a I% increase over last year's budgeted amount, however, this does not include new construction, State utilities and other items included in the budget. The Assessor and Board discussed the overturn of I -747 and how that could affect banked capacity. The Assessor added that these resolutions must be approved by the Board before November 30, 2007. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the proposed resolutions, the Chair closed the public hearing. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 a. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 104 -07 to increase the Jefferson County General Fund levy for 2008 taxes by 1 %. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 105 -07 to increase the Jefferson County Road Levy for 2008 taxes by 1 %. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 106 -07 to increase the County Conservation Futures Levy for 2008 taxes by 1 %. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. John Vidia, Washington State Department of Natural Resources re: County Income Report and Presentation on Forest Funds: John Vidia, DNR Olympic Region Manager, reported that the Forest Board Land income for Jefferson County to date this year is $276,464. The total for the year should be approximately $400,000. The Central Services Director noted that the County receives about 30% of this amount and the remainder is divided among the junior taxing districts. There was a discussion about how the current drop in the timber market will affect timber sale bids for next year. David Roberts, Assistant Region Manager for Aquatic Lands, updated the Board on the following issues. • DCD staff and consultants are doing a great job on the Shoreline Master Plan update. • DNR is continuing their creosote removal project in the area. They will finish up with several sites on the waterfront beginning in July including removal of pilings at Port Townsend Paper, Old Fort Townsend, the dock at the NW School of Wooden Boatbuilding, Fort Flagler, and the old railroad wye. The second phase of the project will focus on Hood Canal. Currently the pilings are shipped to a secure landfill, but they recently learned that pulp mills in Everett and Tacoma may be able to burn the pilings if they are treated to remove the salt. • The auction on a two acre geoduck aquaculture site at Shine closes this week. Several people have written to the DNR with concerns about the operation. A few years ago the State Legislature released funding for a geoduck pilot project to plant fifteen acres of geoduck per year for a ten year period in several Puget Sound locations. There is currently a site across from Bangor and the Shine site will total about five acres in Jefferson County. He would like to schedule a briefing with the Board on geoduck aquaculture and best practices for growing geoduck. The Board met in EXECUTIVE SESSION froml 1:00 to 11:30 a.m. with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County Administrator, Director of Community Development, Planning Manager, Associate Planner and Central Services Director regarding potential litigation (RCW 42.30.110(1)). Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 County Administrator Briefing Session: Central Services Director Allen Sartin and the Board discussed the following items during the County Administrator Briefing Session. • Designation of "Interim County Administrator ". Allen Sartin noted that it is County policy to designate an Interim County Administrator in the absence of County Administrator John Fischbach. Commissioner Austin moved to designate Allen Sartin as Interim County Administrator. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. • The 2008 Budget. Special Meeting with Elected Officials and Department Heads on the 2008 Budget: Commissioner Sullivan moved to direct staff to set up a Special Meeting on Thursday, November 29 at 2 p.m. with Elected Officials and Department Heads to discuss proposed 2008 budget cuts. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications (Excluding the Master Planned Resort at Black Point, Brinnon): Approximately thirty citizens were present in the Superior Courtroom when Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing and read the hearing procedures. MLA 07 -70 Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner, stated that the applicant is Tukey Investments LLC. This is a 20 acre parcel located on the west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay Road and Old Oak Bay Road. It is zoned Rural Residential, 1 unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20.) The application is for a rezone to RR 1:5 (1 unit per 5 acres.) The Planning Commission's recommendation is to approve the rezone with a condition recommended in the September 5 staff report. The vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained, and 1 excused absence. The final staff recommendation concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the rezone with the condition that future development be set back from the Commercial Forest 1:80 (CF 1:80) located adjacent and to the south. The parcel meets the Comprehensive Plan criteria for the RR 1:5 designation and is surrounded on three sides by zoned or platted densities of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or greater. The adjacent property to the west is zoned RR 1:20 but a 1910 plat of Irondale Acre Tracts suggests that the legal lots of record may be higher density, i.e. 1:4. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -70. Hearing no comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on this amendment. MLA07 -79 Karen Barrows stated that the applicant is Jan Gillanders. The two parcels, which total 40 acres, are located on Big Leaf Lane, west of Highway 101, north of Quilcene. The original application is for a rezone of both parcels from Rural Residential, 1 unit per 20 acres (RR 1:20.) to RR 1:5. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 ' y ;rpK+to The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve with modifications. The vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained, and 1 excused absence. The final staff recommendation is to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation with modifications specified by the Planning Commission. The two twenty acre parcels are divided by the Little Quilcene River. Due to the fact that the parcels in the application are surrounded by zoning densities identical to, or lower than, RR 1:20, staff's preliminary recommendation was to deny the rezone request. Through the Planning Commission process, the conclusion was reached that a boundary using the river was appropriate. A boundary line adjustment (BLA) application may be submitted in the future to relocate the property boundary to match the river and the proposed zoning boundary. If the Board adopts this amendment, this recommendation will result in a "split- zone ". The area to the west of the river (28 acres) will retain zoning of RR 1:20, and the area to the east of the river (12 acres) will be rezoned at the higher density of RR 1:10. There is a parcel to the northeast of these parcels that is also a "split - zone." The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -79. Hearing no comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on this amendment. MLA07 -90 Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner, stated that the applicant is Richard Broders and the Broders Family Partnership. The property is located on the west side of Highway 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay and is approximately 396 acres. The request is for a Mineral Resource Land Overlay on land that is zoned Commercial Forest Land (CF 1:80.) The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve this application. The vote was 7 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention, and 1 excused absence. The final staff recommendation is to approve with the condition that a habitat management plan is conducted. If this amendment is approved, the maps in the Resource Lands Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code will be changed to allow mineral extraction in the area. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Jefferson County Code, and the Growth Management Act. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -90. Hearing no comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on this amendment. MLA07 -93 Joel Peterson stated that the applicant is Rayonier Forest Resources L.P., represented by Terra Pointe Services. The property is 42.91 acres and is located in the Westend of the County on Clearwater Road. It is currently zoned Rural Forest Land, 1 unit per 40 acres (RF 1:40). The application is for a rezone to Rural Residential, 1 unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5). Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 49 xUt`j The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny this application. The vote was 5 in favor of the denial, 3 opposed to the denial, 0 abstentions, and 1 excused absence. The staff recommendation is to deny the proposal because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan narrative, designation criteria and it may also conflict with the Natural Resource Goal of the Growth Management Act. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -93. Hearing no comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on this amendment. MLA07 -94 Joel Peterson stated that the applicant is Rayonier Forest Resources L.P., represented by Terra Pointe Services. The property is approximately 120 acres and is located west of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road. It is currently zoned Commercial Forest Land, 1 unit per 80 acres and Rural Forest Land, 1 unit per 40 acres. The proposal is to rezone the CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and the RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny this application. The vote was 7 in favor of the denial, 1 opposed to the denial, 0 abstentions, and l excused absence. The staff recommendation is to deny the proposal because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan narrative, designation criteria and it may also conflict with the Natural Resource Goal of the Growth Management Act. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -94. Bud Schlinder, Brinnon, stated that Jefferson County seems to look for reasons to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests rather than work with applicants to find ways to make the request acceptable. The applicant, in this case, proposed a new form of land use that serves as a transition between forest land and residential land. This type of land use is practiced in other counties. The only type of creative form of land use in Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan is the Planned Rural Residential Development (PRRD). The Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated so that it will be consistent with other counties. The Planning Commission Minority Recommendation is to approve the request with a condition that it be restricted to the provisions of a PRRD until the Jefferson County Code is updated to allow more creative land uses such as suggested by the applicant. Hearing no further comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on this amendment. MLA07 -96 Karen Barrows stated that the applicant is Hill Timber and Joseph D'Amico is the authorized agent of property owner. The property is west of Highway 101. The original request has been changed to consider only the easternmost parcels. The request is for a rezone from Rural Residential, 1 unit to 20 acres to Commercial Forest (CF 1:80.) Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 n °t °� w��s°' ., K asN The Planning Commission recommendation is to deny this application. The vote was 5 in favor of denial, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions, 3 absent, and 1 recused. There is an extensive Minority Report on this amendment. The final staff recommendation is to approve a downzone from a RR 1:20 designation to a Rural Forest Land designation (RF 1:40.) This is because there are only 40 contiguous acres and the Comprehensive Plan specifies 80 contiguous acres are required for a Commercial Forest Land designation. A condition of the staff recommendation to approve is that either a restrictive covenant or a boundary line adjustment be completed to ensure that the minimum 40 acre parcel size criteria for RF 1:40 is satisfied. The Chair stated that the applicant has 5 minutes to present their proposal. Joe D'Amico, Security Services Northwest (SSNW), stated that there is a great deal of information in the record and he doesn't have a lot to add. He thanked Karen Barrows and the Department of Community Development for having the courage to move forward with this amendment. He knows that it hasn't been easy and it will be a difficult decision for the Board. This whole process has been difficult for everyone. He thinks the best option for the County is to look at relocating the firing range in the mountains. He feels, from a legal point, that Security Services is grandfathered by the courts to discharge firearms. He thinks this is the best viable option for everyone. There is a lot of concern about the environment and he cares about it too because he has lived here for 20 years. The well water system, creek, and the shoreline were tested. He was also tested. No contaminants were found. He hopes that the Board makes a good decision on this amendment. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -96. John Peterson, Discovery Bay, urged the Board not to approve the zoning change for SSNW. He doesn't think that they started pumping a lot of lead and brass into the environment until 2005. If those metals are in a watershed, eventually they will go into the bay. In 2005, there were thousands of rounds expended every day. Protection of the water quality of Discovery Bay should be very important to everyone no matter where they live. There is a considerable amount of shellfish farming on the bay and those business owners should be very concerned about what is going into the watershed. SSNW is a grandfathered business, but the Courts decided that it is limited to a business that Joe D'Amico ran prior to zoning changes. SSNW is appealing that decision. The website for SSNW offers training for " basic, intermediate, advanced and tactical police, patrol rifle operator, water survival, and bomb awareness in a remote strategic location that assures privacy." The limitations on the business are ten acres and it is being promoted as 3,000 acres, terrain from sea level to 3,000 feet, rifle and handgun firing ranges, crew weapons, helicopter landing zones, and an explosive range. He asked the Board not to approve the zoning because this type of business would be the result of the rezone. Margaret Bailey, Craig Road, stated that she is a nurse. She would be able to hear shooting from the proposed property which is also in her watershed. She has been researching toxicity in humans and it is more than lead and includes chromium, copper and cadmium. Rainwater flows into Discovery Bay. It takes hundreds of years for this toxicity to show up in the water. The Department of Defense has had to spend billions of dollars cleaning up toxic waste sites. Bruce Fitzgerald, who has lived on Discovery Bay for quite Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 4, o a while, is positive for heavy metals. Rain washes all the metals from the shooting range into the bay. She thinks that Joe D'Amico has bullied the community with newspaper advertisements to report a neighbor if you find them doing something immoral or illegal. She doesn't think he is protecting the community from terrorists. She doesn't eat the shellfish or seafood from Discovery Bay any more and she encouraged others to stop because a neighbor is sick from heavy metals already. SSNW has been shooting for 20 years. She begged the Board not to do this to Discovery Bay. Michael Felber, Discovery Bay, read and submitted his testimony. (See permanent record.) Jim Hagan, Port Townsend, stated that the idea for this rezone came from the Department of Community Development and was not brought forward by Joe D'Amico. It was the County's attempt to try and mitigate a problem in good faith. He supports the staff recommendation for this proposal. It is a simple change of land use designation from rural residential to commercial forest. The staff report addresses all the Growth Management Indicators to show that the application meets the criteria to qualify for the change in use. If there are concerns about noise and increased intensity of use, they can be addressed when it gets to the actual project level and through other enforcement mechanisms. As a former Planning Commission member, he has seen many non - project type requests for land use changes jumping ahead to the actual project level and he thinks that is a misuse of the process. He never heard the Planning Commission address the Growth Management Indicators in their deliberations. He supports the staff recommendation because it is very thorough and it identifies the exact issues of the request. John Swearngin, Craig Road, stated that he doesn't know a lot about the proposal, but he has noticed that Joe D'Amico has said quite often that this move will affect less people. He is one of the people who will be affected by the rezone and he has as much value as the other people who were affected by it before. The people who will be affected should have a say in this. At another meeting, Joe D'Amico pointed out that there is no noise ordinance in Jefferson County and he said it in a way that indicated that there isn't anything people can do about it. Mr. Swearngin doesn't think that Joe D'Amico is really trying to help out the residents. He strongly encouraged the Board to vote against the proposal. Roger Beck, Port Townsend, stated that he lives in Port Townsend and has property on Discovery Bay that is impacted by Joe D'Amico's proposal. Joe D'Amico has said that his request for a rezone is a simple issue. The Planning Commission also determined that the request is a simple issue. Joe D'Amico told us what his plans are for the site and it is not that simple. Another issue is the pending litigation. He suggested that the Board not approve the rezone request because of the pending litigation that will influence the Board's decision. Sheila Khalov, Gardiner, stated that she doesn't consider this a simple land use change. She represents over 200 people who signed petitions against this rezoning last summer. Joe D'Amico wants to move the shooting range up the mountain because of complaints about his current operation. Enforcement didn't work when those complaints were made and the Sheriff has done nothing to stop the operation. The people on the east side of the bay have suffered for a long time. There are people who live on the mountain who Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 y "t 9Ni NG�c� will be burdened by Joe D'Amico's enterprise. This would grossly affect the lives of 200 people who live in the area. She recommended that the Board vote against the rezoning. David Jenkins, Discovery Bay, stated that he lives directly across the bay from the shooting zone. He said that this rezone is tied directly to a paramilitary activity which is not just a shooting zone. There have been major explosions that weren't firearms alone and heavy weapons. Everyone is expected to abide by the laws of Jefferson County and most people do. Joe D'Amico has violated County laws over and over again. After he received the injunction against the shooting, he continued to shoot. He agrees with Michael Felber that this disturbs the peace and tranquility of the area. There has been a somewhat successful Superfund cleanup on Indian Island but the final report from the Washington State Department of Ecology shows that some of the groundwater wells are contaminated with toxins from exploded and disposed ordinance. Those wells will never be usable again and the toxins are also leaching out into clam beds. It's not just a matter of heavy metals, but also organic phosphates and organic hydrocarbons which are highly toxic. Explosives on Discovery Bay will leach into the groundwater and the bay. He urged the Board to vote against the proposal. Bud Schindler, Brinnon, stated that he sympathizes with the people who find the activity offensive but he feels that this is the wrong venue. This is a land use downzone request. He doesn't see any Growth Management Indicators that say a decision should be based upon public opinion. The Planning Commission didn't discuss the Growth Management Indicators and their decision was based on the passion against the project. The Planning Commission is supposed to look at the letter of the law and the findings of fact. The proposal should be approved and Community Development can figure out how to deal with use of the property. He supports the staff recommendation. Hearing no further comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on MLA07 -96. MLA 07 -99 and MLA 07 -100 Karen Barrows stated that the applicant is Sharon McCarthy. The two 20 acres parcels are located west of South Jacob Miller Road. The request is a rezone from RR 1:20 to RR 1 :5. The Planning Commission recommendation is to approve both amendments. The vote was 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained, with 1 excused absence. The final staff recommendation is to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve as recommended in the September 5, 2007 staff report. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -99 and MLA07 -100. Hearing no comments for or against the two amendments, the Chair closed the comment period on MLA07- 99 and MLA07 -100. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 26, 2007 9t�„1 NUt °� MLA07 -104 Joel Peterson stated that this is a suggested amendment to incorporate up to two site specific rezones for an Industrial Land Bank. He explained that the amendment is not fully prepared at this time for review or adoption. It is recommended that a final legislative decision on the proposal be deferred and that the matter be included on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket. On March 30, 2007, the County entered into a professional services agreement with E.D. Hovee and Company to prepare some of the elements that the County will use for the industrial land bank determination. Staff is working on an economic futures report and a searchable data base report of potential commercial properties and will be running some industrial and commercial land use scenarios with the data. The Chair opened the public testimony portion of the hearing on MLA07 -104. Hearing no comments for or against the amendment, the Chair closed the comment period on MLA07 -104. The Chair closed the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Deliberations on these amendments are scheduled for December 10, 2007 at 5 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:56 p.m. to a Special Meeting on November 29, 2007. Commissioner Austin seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting on November 29, 2007 is scheduled at 2 p.m. in the First Floor Conference Room at the Courthouse. MEETINJOURNED SEA F CA C. 4ulie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Phil John on, Chair David . ul ivan, em e Jo Austin, Member Page 10 COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE Introduction: The public hearing is now open regarding the proposed 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket for eight site specific amendments and one suggested amendment. This is a fact finding forum from which a decision must result. Both oral and written testimony is allowed. The Deputy Clerk of the Board will be recording what is said, therefore when you speak, begin by stating your name and address. Each person will be allowed to speak for up to 3 minutes. The bell will ring once when 2 minutes and 30 seconds has passed and will ring twice at 3 minutes. Unruly behavior cannot be an element of the hearing. This is a legal process in which facts and opinions are presented to decision makers. Common courtesy is expected from all participants. All written and oral testimony generated since the submittal of the applications and through the Planning Commission's public process are incorporated into the public record. The amendments will be heard in numerical order. Staff will give their report first, the applicant will have 5 minutes to make a presentation and then we will take public testimony. These are legislative proceedings. These decisions affect specific parties and we will consider all evidence for or against a proposal. Procedural due process is followed in order to ensure a fair hearing. The concern is that this hearing be fair in form and substance, as well as appearance. i We will start with a staff report on each case. Chair: Turn to the Project Planner STAFF REPORT: (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -70 Tukey. Back to the Chair The applicant will have 5 minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07 -70. STAFF REPORT: (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -79 Gillanders. Back to the Chair The applicant will have S minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07 -79. 2 STAFF REPORT. (Joel) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -90 Broders. Back to the Chair The applicant will have S minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07 -90. STAFF REPORT. (Joel) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -93 Rayonier. Back to the Chair The applicant will have S minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07 -93. 3 STAFF REPORT. (Joel) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -94 Rayonier. Back to the Chair The applicant will have 5 minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07-94. STAFFREPORT. (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -96 D'Amico. Back to the Chair The applicant will have 5 minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. COQ, ' D Ctmicz p� ;grg �cc�,caQ Back to the Chair c5%7P �O�Q'�nk /�i % The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07 -96. STAFF REPORT: (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -99 McCarthy. Back to the Chair The applicant will have 5 minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07 -99. STAFF REPORT: (Karen) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -100 McCarthy. Back to the Chair The applicant will have 5 minutes to present their proposal, technical data, and issues relating to any recommended conditions. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07- 100. 5 STAFF REPORT: (Joel) Presentation of the facts for MLA 07 -104 Industrial Land Bank. Back to the Chair The floor is now open for public comment regarding MLA 07- 104. Back to the Chair The public hearing on these Comprehensive Plan amendments is now closed. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT L JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington 98368 360/379 -4450 • 360/379 -4451 Fax http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST 5'C0 Pm TO: Board of County Commissioners John Fischbach, County Administrator FROM: Al Scalf, Director, Department of Community Development (DC Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, DCD kw Joel Peterson, Assistant Planner, Long-Rahke Planning, DCD Karen Barrows, Assistant Planner, Long -Range Planning, DC W5 DATE: 26 November 2007 SUBJECT: Final staff recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations for 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On June 18, 2007, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) established the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket following a public hearing. Originally there were twelve (12) Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications received, including three (3) suggested and nine (9) site - specific amendment applications. The public hearing was held because staff and the Planning Commission (PC) did not concur about the inclusion of two of the three suggested amendment applications on the Preliminary Docket. (It should be noted that one of the site - specific amendment applications, MLA06 -87, is a carry -over from 2006.) The 2007 Final Docket consists of nine (9) site- specific applications for amending the map of land use designations and one (1) suggested amendment for the establishment of an Industrial Land Bank. Site - Specific Amendments: 1. MLA07 -70; Tukey Investments LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel number 921182003); RR 1:20 to 1:5. DCD and Planning Commission Recommendations 1112012007 Page 2 of 6 2. MLA07 -79; Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane, west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113002); RR 1:20 to 1:5. 3. MLA07 -90; Richard Broders and Broders Family Limited Partnership; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition)); request for Mineral Resource Land Overlay on CF 1:80. 4. MLA07 -93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5. 5. MLA07 -94; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; approximately 120 acres (tax parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned) & 921321004); CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. 6. MLA07 -96; Hill Timber Partnership (Joseph D'Amico, authorized agent of property owner); west of US 101 in S 11, T29N, R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 902111008 & 902114001); RR 1:20 to RF 1:40. 7. MLA07 -99; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005); west of South Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 8. MLA07 -100; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. 9. MLA06 -87; Statesman Group of Companies; approximately 251 acres as 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor/Black Point area of Brinnon; east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road; RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to master planned resort. Suggested Amendment: 10. MLA07 -104; Jefferson County; initiation of the process and analyses necessary to designate up to two sites located in east Jefferson County under the Industrial Land Bank provisions of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional employment opportunities for county residents. Department of Community Development (DCD) Staff presented analysis and preliminary recommendations through an Integrated Staff Report and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Addendum on September 5, thereby initiating an associated public comment period. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on eight (8) of the nine (9) site - specific amendment applications (the exception was MLA06 -87, which was heard at a later date), and one (1) suggested amendment on September 19, and accepted written comments through September 21. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposals during meetings September 26 and October 17 and completed findings to support its recommendations on November 20. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on one site - specific amendment application, MLA06 -87, on October 3, following the publication of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on September 5, and an associated public comment period that ended October 24. The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposal on October 31 and November 14, and completed findings to support its recommendations on November 20. DCD and Planning Commission Recommendations 11/20/2007 Page 3 of 6 A. The following documents are attached: 1. Memoranda from the Planning Commission re: Recommendations on the 2007 Docket. 2. Planning Commission Minority Reports B. The following documents are incorporated by reference: 1. Original applications 2. DCD Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum (September 5). The documents listed under B. above have been previously distributed to the BoCC as Planning Commission correspondence. Furthermore, these documents and additional information related to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle are available on this County webpage: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2007cycle.htm Planning Commission meeting minutes can be accessed from this County web portal: http: / /www.co.j efferson. wa.us /Meeting &Minutes /Meetings &Minutes.htm DCD staff will present the Planning Commission recommendations and department recommendations on nine amendments at the scheduled public hearing on Monday, November 26. DCD staff will present the Planning Commission recommendations and department recommendations on MLA06 -87 (the proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort) at the scheduled public hearing on Monday, December 3. ANALYSIS /STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and CONS: The BoCC is expected to take legislative action on all ten (10) proposals which comprise the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket no later than Monday, December 10, the second regular BoCC meeting in December, per Jefferson County Code 18.45.080 (2)(d). FISCAL IMPACT /COST- BENEFIT ANALYSIS: Staffing resources have already been committed from the general fund in support of Long -Range Planning. Applicants have paid fees for this review process. Additional cost recovery for environmental review has been billed for the EIS on the proposed Brinnon Master Planned Resort (MPR). RECOMMENDATION: First, staff recommended that the BoCC hold two (2) public hearings on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, as numerous proposals make up the whole of the Docket and the breadth, complexity, and gravity of the issues warrant careful consideration and full and "early and continuous "' public participation. The public hearings have already been scheduled and noticed, and are referenced above. Second, please find in this section the fmal DCD staff recommendations for the 2007 Docket. DCD presented analysis of individual proposals and of potential cumulative impacts of the whole of the 2007 Docket, together with preliminary recommendations for each proposal, in a staff ' RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive plans— Ensure public participation. DCD and Planning Commission Recommendations 11/20/2007 Page 4 of 6 report and EIS dated September 5. In general, analysis presented in the September 5 document and subsequent memoranda to the Planning Commission is referenced rather than repeated here. Additional comments are provided where appropriate to augment or highlight staff findings. Following are brief descriptions of each of the ten (10) proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, followed by the recommendations of the Planning Commission and DCD. Each case has a Master Land Use Application (MLA) file number for reference. SEPA REVIEW: Cumulative environmental review of nine (9) amendments was examined through an environmental analysis called an Integrated GMA/SEPA Staff Report issued on September 5. Additionally, a non - project EIS was performed on the proposed Brinnon MPR, and issued with existing environmental documents. This document and the final EIS fulfill the requirements for environmental review under WAC 197 -11 in consideration of cumulative impacts for the county- wide amendment cycle. 2007 Site - Specific Amendments: MLA07 -70 Applicant: Tukey Investments LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel number 921182003); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve. Vote: 8 -0 -0 (8 favor, 0 oppose, 0 abstain). Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. MLA07 -79 Applicant: Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane, west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113 002); RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Planning Commission recommendation: Approve with modifications. Vote: 8 -0 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Approve with modifications. Explanation: The two (2) twenty -acre parcels in this application are divided by the Little Quilcene River. Due to the fact that the parcels in the application are surrounded by zoning densities identical to or lower than RR 1:20, staff s preliminary recommendation was to deny the RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 rezone request. Through the Planning Commission process, the conclusion was reached that a boundary using the river was appropriate. A boundary line adjustment (BLA) application may be submitted in the future to relocate the property boundary to match the river and the proposed zoning boundary. If adopted by the BoCC, this recommendation will result in a "split- zone ". The area to the west of the river will retain zoning of RR 1:20, and the area to the east of the river will be rezoned at the higher density of RR 1:10. DCD and Planning Commission Recommendations 11120/2007 Page 5 of 6 MLA07 -90 Applicant: Richard Broders and Broders Family Limited Partnership; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition)); request for Mineral Resource Land Overlay on CF 1:80. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve. Vote: 7 -0 -1. Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. MLA07 -93 Applicant: Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax parcel number 412182020); RF 1:40 to RR 1:5. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 5 -3 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Deny, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. MLA07 -94 Applicant: Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; approximately 120 acres (tax parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned) & 921321004); CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 5 -3 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Deny, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. MLA07 -96 Applicant: Hill Timber Partnership (Joseph D'Amico, authorized agent of property owner); west of US 101 in 511, T29N, R2W W.M.; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 902111008 & 902114001); RR 1:20 to RF 1:40. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny. Vote: 5 -0 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. MLA07 -99 Applicant: Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005); west of South Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve. Vote: 8 -0 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. DCD and Planning Commission Recommendations MLA07 -100 11/20/2007 Page 6 of 6 Applicant: Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob Miller Road; RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve. Vote: 8 -0 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Approve, as originally recommended in September 5 staff report. MLA06 -87 Applicant: Statesman Group of Companies; approximately 251 acres as 13 parcels in the Pleasant Harbor /Black Point area of Brinnon; east of Highway 101 and south of Black Point Road; RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 to master planned resort. The Planning Commission recommendations, and the staff recommendations (including the final EIS) on this application will be reported in a separate document. 2007 Sueeested Amendment: MLA07 -104 Applicant: Jefferson County; initiation of the process and analyses necessary to designate up to two sites located in east Jefferson County under the Industrial Land Bank provisions of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.367) in order to provide additional employment opportunities for county residents. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deferred until the 2008 cycle. Vote: 7 -1 -0. Final Staff Recommendation: Deferred until the 2008 cycle. REVIEWED BY: �. QL2 1) l:?/ a -7 John Fisedda ch, County Administrator Date �rsOT C`O G� ® K �qs�° JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379 -4450 Planning Commission Recommendations: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications The Board of County Commissioners placed nine site - specific Comprehensive Plan amendments and one suggested amendment for establishment of the Industrial Land Bank on the 2007 Final Docket. Due to the heavy work load anticipated from the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance amendments and the controversial nature of some of the proposed site specific amendments, the Planning Commission chose to defer action on the Industrial Land Bank until 2008. The Planning Commission reviewed and is recommending action on the following Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the 2007 planning cycle. MLA07 -70; Tukey Investments LLC; west side of Oak Bay Road, immediately north of the junction of Oak Bay and Old Oak Bay Roads; 20 acres (tax parcel number 921182003) Applicant request: Rezone of a 19.75 acre lot from RR1:20 to RR1:5. Findings: This property abuts the western side of Oak Bay road and there are currently no improvements on the property. The Planning Commission found that the rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was in character with the adjoining lots. Recommendation: Approve 8 -0 with 1 abstaining. MLA07 -79; Janet Gillanders; Big Leaf Lane, west of US 101, north of Quilcene; 40 acres (tax parcel numbers 702113011 & 702113002); Applicant Request: Rezone of two 19 acre lots from RR1:20 to RR1:5 Findings: This property is bisected by the Little Quilcene River with about 28 acres on the west side of the river and a little more than 10 acres on the east side of the river. The Planning Commission found that the original requested rezone was not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as it would have put greater pressure to rezone other lots on the west side of the Little Quilcene River. However, after communications with Mrs. Gillanders the Planning Commission reached a compromise position to rezone the eastern portion of the parcel at RR1:10. While this creates two different zoning overlays on a single parcel, it is anticipated that the eastern portion of the parcels will be divided into a single separate lot through a boundary line adjustment . Recommendation: Approve proposal with modifications 8 -0 -0 (1 excused) MLA07 -90; Richard Broders and Broders Family Limited Partnership; west side of US 101 on the west side of Discovery Bay; 396 acres (tax parcel numbers 902124002 & 902121002 (partition)) Applicant Request: Mineral resource land overlay on a 396 acre commercial forestry parcel to create a gravel yard including some on site processing (rock crushing). Findings: This acreage is on the western side of US 101 above Discovery Bay. Sufficient land is available to ensure visual screening from the highways and no houses are located in the proximate location of the proposed gravel yard. Access to the gravel yard would be from US 101 and an access For publication on County Web site permit must be received from WSDOT. The Planning Commission found that the requested mineral overlay for a gravel yard was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Approval ? -0 -1 (1 excused.) MLA07 -93; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); Clearwater Road, west Jefferson County; 42.91 acres (tax parcel number 412182020). Applicant Request: Rezone RF 1:40 to RR 1:5 Findings: This parcel, located south of Forks, is divided by Clearwater Road and abuts the Clearwater River to the west and Commercial Forest property directly to the east. The Planning Commission found that the proposed rezone was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel still meets the criteria for Resource Lands. The Planning Commission did discuss a scenario of creating two separate zoning overlays on either side of the Clearwater Road. However, the parcel does not lend itself to this solution because the area between Clearwater Road and the adjacent Commercial Forest parcel is too small to support a RR1:20 zoning overlay. Recommendation: Deny 5 -3 -0 (1 excused). MLA07 -94; Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. (represented by Terra Pointe Services, authorized agent of property owner); West of Oak Bay Road and north of Mats Mats Beach Road; approximately 120 acres (tax parcel numbers 921322002 (partitioned) & 921321004); Applicant Request: CF 1:80 to RR 1:20 and RF 1:40 to RR 1:10 Findings: The applicant proposed a unique rezone with an emphasis on residential forestry. While the Planning Commission saw merit in the rezone request, currently such zoning is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Deny 5 -3 -0 (1 excused). MLA07 -99; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081005); west of South Jacob Miller Road; Applicant Request: RR 1:20 to RR 1:5. Findings: This parcel is adjacent to lots with an RR1:5 zoning overlay. The Planning Commission found that this proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Approve 8 -0-0 (1 excused). MLA07 -100; Sharon McCarthy; South Jacob Miller Road; 20 acres (tax parcel number 001081001; adjacent and to the west of Jacob Miller Road; Applicant Request: RR 1:20 to RR 1:5 Findings: This parcel is adjacent to lots with an RR1:5 zoning overlay. The Planning Commission found that this proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Approve 8 -0 -0 (1 excused). Peter Downey, Chair Jefferson County Planning Commission //- -2-c-7) -o7 Date �9gyJ�0 V �4SON COG2 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379 -4450 20 November 2007 Planning Commission Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application MLA07 -096 Proposed by Security Services Northwest, Inc. The request was to change two parcels from the current zoning of "Rural Residential" (RR 1:20) to "Commercial Forest" or "Rural Forest" of (1:40). Deliberations of the planning commission would suggest that this issue has: - No relevance with regard to the rate of growth in the county; - No increase on demand for county services; - No impact on the designation of urban land; - Not invalidated assumptions in the county's Comprehensive Plan; - Not demonstrated inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act and the County Wide Planning Policy; - Not created pressure to change nearby land uses: - Raised the possibility of a subsequent issue that definitely presented a significant challenge to the attitudes and values of the local citizens. However, a statement in the proposal noting "tree farming" (in the section regarding "Overall Plan ") led to the following: Keeping the current designation (RR 1:20) of the two (2) parcels would not adversely affect the provisions available to the land owner, as identified in the Jefferson County Code (JCC), for authorized forest practices. See JCC 18.15.095, titled as "Right to farm and forestry provisions ". Refer to item (1) which states: "Applicability. Right to farm and forestry provisions apply to all resource and rural land use districts except rural residential 1:5 ..." Also, refer to item (3) that states: "Nuisance. The following shall not be considered a nuisance; agricultural and forestry activities, - conducted or maintained for commercial agricultural or forestry purposes on land designated as rural residential 1:10 and 1:20, rural industrial, rural commercial, agricultural resource or forest resource ". The parcels as currently zoned allows for forest practices that are consistent with the policies of Washington State and Jefferson County. Jr, , PC Recommendation: MLA07 -096 November 20, 2007 Page 2 Because of the above and in consideration of the significant public comment opposing the proposal: The Planning Commission recommendation (5 -0 -0) is to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment MLA07 -096. Additional comment to the Board of County Commissioners: It should be noted that the initial Planning Commission vote on September 26, 2007, to deny MLA07 -096, was (4 -3 -0). Only seven members voted because of the excused absence of Mr. Werch and the recusal of Mr. Downey. Because it was determined that five (5) votes are required to forward a Planning Commission recommendation regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, a motion, by Ms. Farmer, was made to take another vote on the issue, but when all members would be available to vote. It subsequently appeared that that motion may have been presented in language that may not have been clear or fully understood. Nevertheless, at the first meeting after the return of Mr. Werch, October 17, 2007, Mr. Downey again ceded his responsibility to the Vice Chair, Mr. Schindler, to conduct the vote for MLA07 -096. At that point, Mr. Schindler read from a prepared statement and declared that there would be no further voting on this issue and that no motion to do so would be allowed. As it is not the role of the Chair or acting chair to deny the making of a motion the Commissioners, moved, seconded and voted (5 -3 -0) to remove Mr. Schindler as acting Chair. Subsequently, Mr. Miller was installed (5 -3 -0) as a temporary Chair for the purpose of conducting a vote on MLA07 -096. A motion to deny MLA07 -096 was made, and seconded. However, because Ms. Sokol, Mr. Whittaker, and Mr. Schindler got up and walked out of the room, the motion was passed (5 -0 -0). Mr. Miller then ceded his position and gave the gavel back to Mr. Downey. Sincerely yours; William Miller, I porary Chairman Date Re: File Number: Applicant: Planning Commissioners: Property Description: w�sen C O G� �qsH° JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379 -4450 Dissenting Report To Board of County Commissioners November 19, 2007 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments MLA07- 96 Submitted February 28, 2007 Hill Timber and Bay Mountain Timber, Joseph D'Amico, Authorized Agent Bud Schindler, Edel Sokol & Mike Whittaker The property is located upland of Discovery Bay West of US 101. The area contains two twenty area parcels zoned as Rural Residential (RR 1:20). The property is surrounded on two sides by lands zoned as Rural Residential. (RR 1:20) and the other two sides by lands zoned as Rural Forest. (RF 1:40). Applicant Request: The proposal as presented is a downzone of the two parcels from RR 1:20 to RF 1:40 changing the nature from rural residential to rural forest. Planning Commission Majority: The Planning Commission majority make the argument that this request has resulted in an overwhelming amount of opposition from neighboring property owners that are experiencing excess noise from existing shooting and a concern about lead poisoning and other environmental damage resulting from expended bullets and explosives. They have openly stated that their main obligation as Planning Commissioners on matters such as this is to assess the opinions of stakeholders, experts, the public, etc. DCD Staff and Planning Commission Minority Group: Staff and the Planning Commission minority group agree that this request be approved and that down - zoning is always preferred to up- zoning. Staff recognizes that if should such a downzone were approved, the authorized agent may apply for a conditional use permit to site a shooting range on the rezoned land. The intent of the applicant is to further the distance of the shooting such as to reduce the noise level to the neighboring properties. However, to do this, it is understood that the applicant must apply for a conditional use permit. Such a permit is not part of this rezone request nor would approval of this rezone request bind the County to either approve or deny such a permit application. Planning Commission Minority Group: The Planning Commission minority group makes the argument that the majority's obligation is flawed. Our bylaws state that the role of a Planning Commissioner is to (1) act as policy advisors in matters concerning general land use and shoreline use within the county and (2) recommend planning and shoreline policies consistent with the goals and policies of the community as expressed in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Shoreline Management Master Program and amendments to such plans. Their understanding of their obligation fails to recognize that as policy advisors they can, indeed, recommend policy as long as they are consistent with the elements of Comprehensive Plan. The RCW's (RCW 36.70.040) state that the role of the Planning Commission is to assist the planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the adoption of official controls and /or amendments thereto. The GMA, our own Comprehensive Plan and our bylaws tell us that public involvement is the cornerstone of long range comprehensive planning for any community. However, it states that this planning must be carried out in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (Page 1 -11). The minority questions how the majority can combine a proposed usage with a request for a zoning change. These are separate issues and should be treated as suggested by DCD. The minority group would also like the BoCC to recognized that several violations of the rules of order occurred that have compromised the integrity of the Planning Commission decision process. The following statement was read into the record at the Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2007: CPA MLA07 -96 Planning Commission results following Deliberation Statement by Bud Schindler, Vice Chair On September 26, in a legal meeting of the Planning Commission, deliberation took place on CPA No. MLA07 -96 known as the D'Amico request. The motions made to approve or deny this CPA failed because a majority vote of the active Planning Commissioners could not be obtained. If allowed to go forward to the BoCC, the decision from the Planning Commission would be "No Recommendation ". The Planning Commission carried a motion for reconsideration of this recommendation to the meeting of October 3 when an additional commissioner would be available to possibly break the deadlock. After a review of Roberts Rules, it is my position that the rationale for a motion of reconsideration sets a dangerous precedence for the Planning Commission. (Point No.1) Roberts Rules states that a motion to reconsideration enables a majority in an assembly, within a limited time and without notice, to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. The motion made was to consider the entire recommendation and not any particular motion. (Point No. 2) Roberts Rules states that "The purpose for a reconsideration vote is to permit correction of hasty, ill- advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote ". The motion for reconsideration was based on the fact that an additional commissioner would be available to either approve or deny the CPA and thus a recommendation could be made to the BoCC. (Point No. 3) Roberts Rules states that a motion for reconsideration must abide by the following unique characteristic: It can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. In other words, a reconsideration can be moved only by one who voted 'aye' if the motion involved was adopted, or'no', if the motion was lost. We had no prevailing side on this issue. We were deadlocked. As a reminder, our by -laws call for matters such as this CPA, to be decided by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total active members of the Planning Commission. (Point No. 4) At the meeting of October 3, the additional commissioner required to call up the motion to reconsider was on an excused absence and as such, the presiding officer of the assembly declared that no action would be taken on the D'Amico issue. For actions such as this; a motion of reconsideration that has a definitive time for the debate to continue, Roberts Rules calls for a more formal process. The motion must first be called up and recognized by the assembly, followed by any member of the assembly motioning to Postpone to a Certain Time, to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate or simply to Lay on the Table. A debate on this motion then ensues followed by a vote and the results announced by the presiding officer. As a result of these violations of order, it is my decision as the presiding officer of this assembly that the final vote taken at the meeting of September 26 stands and that the message going forward to the BoCC on this issue will be "No Recommendation ". The above message rather than being recognizing for the good of the order was recognized as being an attack on their democratic rights. The minority group continues to feel that these violations set a dangerous precedent for the Planning Commission and compromises the integrity of the Planning Commission process. Proper rules of order are critically important should an applicant appeal any Jefferson County ruling to either the courts or the Growth Management Hearings Board. Following the reading of the above decision by the presiding officer, the Planning Commission majority proceeded on the following course of action: • Rescinded the decision of the presiding officer (Bud Schindler) • Temporarily rescinded the presiding officer (Bud Schindler) • Elected a temporary presiding officer (Bill Miller) • A motion was made and seconded to deny the D'Amico CPA • A vote was taken (the minority briefly excused ourselves for a discussion) • The presiding officer announced the voting results as five in favor, four apposed (5:0) • A motion was made to continue the meeting on the COA The Planning Commission minority group concluded that the majority, again, violated the rules of order. Roberts Rules states that: a vote to rescind except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, requires (a) a two - thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting, or (c) a vote of the entire membership - - -- whichever is most practical to obtain. A vote to rescind the decision of a presiding officer and the ensuing vote to rescind the presiding officer requires a two- thirds vote (six in favor rather than five). Another violation of the rules of order occurred when the motion to elect a temporary presiding officer was not conducted by the secretary of the Planning Commission as called out in our by -laws. At no time prior to the above course of action did the majority call for a motion to appeal the decision of the presiding officer. Robert Rules clearly states that by electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to appeal from his decision on such a question. By one member making (or "taking ") the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision. Had this process been properly followed, this issue could have been discussed and possibly resolved in an orderly fashion. These actions proved to the minority that the majority group bends the rules of order to their advantage but ignores them (or doesn't fully understand them) when not to their advantage. All invalid motions described above nullify any action taken after the September 26h vote. As such, the decision of the presiding officer as stated in the October 17 I" meeting should stand. Minority Response to MLA07 -96 "Indicators" Growth Management indicators were not discussed during deliberations. Nevertheless, the following are our responses: "No relevance with regard to the rate of growth in the county." Down - zoning from residential to Forest Land affects growth in the county because less land is available for residential use. "No increase on demand for county services." Not true! Services to include fire, transportation, etc. are based on residential land available. "No impact on the designation of urban land." Not true! Diminished growth in urban lands. "Not invalidated assumptions in the county's Comprehensive Plan." Not relevant! "Not demonstrated inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act and the County Wide Planning Policy." Not true! This further protects Forest Land and discourages up- zoning by neighbors. "Not created pressure to change nearby land uses:" Not true! Down- zoning reduces pressure to up -zone adjacent land. "Raised the possibility of a subsequent issue that definitely presented a significant challenge to the attitudes and values of the local citizens." Not true! Hunting and shooting are part of rural values. Subsequently, this land use change would move shooting activity further inland away from complaining neighbors. Minority Group Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners not consider the recommendations of the planning commission majority and approve proposed amendment MLA07 -96 Respectfully, Bud Schindler Edel Sokol Mike Whittaker /l Za 7 Date // %0 /d Date Date Another violation of the rules of order occurred when the motion to elect a temporary presiding officer was not conducted by the secretary of the Planning Commission as called out in our by- laws. At no time prior to the above course of action did the majority call for a motion to appeal the decision of the presiding officer. Robert Rules states that by electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to appeal from his decision on such a question. By one member making (or 'taking") the appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the assembly for final decision. Had this process been initiated, the issue could have been discussed and possibly resolved in an orderly fashion. All invalid motions above nullify any action taken after the September 26"' vote. As such, the decision of the presiding officer as stated in the October 17'" meeting should stand. Minority Group Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners not consider the recommendations of the planning commission majority and approve proposed amendment MLA07 -96 Respectfully, C Bud Schindler Edel Sokol Mike Whittaker 4 Re: File Number: Applicant: Planning Commissioners: Property Description: Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners November 19, 2007 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments MLA07- 93 Submitted February 28, 2007 Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. represented by Terra Pointe Bud Schindler, Edel Sokol & Mike Whittaker The property area contains a total of 48.78 acres and is mixed zoned with 5.87 acres (two separate locations) in Rural Residential (RR 1:20) and the remainder of 42.91 acres in Rural Forest (RF 1:40) The property is surrounded on three sides by lands zoned as Rural Residential. (RR 1:20). The fourth side is zoned Rural Forest. Applicant Request: The petitioner's request for adopting their amendment should be granted because it clearly meets the criteria set out in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan LNP 3.3.1 "A residential land use designation of one dwelling unit per 5 acres (RR 1:5) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the county with: a. an established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e., 5 acres) or smaller sized existing lots of record;" Staff and Planning Commission Majority: Staff and the majority make the argument that this request be denied contending that removal of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land base of Jefferson County an action that is strongly disfavored under both GMA and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. They also contend that it would likely increase pressure to up -zone and convert RF 1:40 parcels to the northwest of the site and that this would also be inconsistent with the overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Minority Rebuttal: The Planning Commission minority agrees that there would be a reduction of forestland and the total forest resource land base but to put this into perspective this amounts to a reduction of 43 acres out of 8,645 acres ((0.5 %) for Forest Land and a reduction of the same amount (43 acres) from a total forest resource land base of 383,487 acres (0.011%). This is insignificant. In fact, if the acreage for the total number of conversions since 1999 were considered, it would also be insignificant. The minority also contends that if the subject property were zoned in a similar manner as the surrounding residential properties (RR 1:20) that there would be no increased pressure to up -zone the property to the northwest which is surrounded by Rural Forest and is not located with the Clearwater Road running through it. If zoned in this manner, only one additional residential unit could be located on this property, this being located on the East side of the road. Staff and the majority contend that approval of this request is inconsistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. However, a change to Rural Residential is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan Policy LNP 3.3. Staff and the majority also contend that a change such as requested is strongly disfavored under with GMA. However, the goals of GMA are meant to serve as guidelines (RCW 36.70A.020) where a sense of balance must be realized. GMA does recognize the value of rural lands and rural character to Washington's economy, its people, and its environment. (RCW 36.70A.011). To sustain this rural character, the county should provide for reasonable expansion of residential growth. How else can the economy change without residential growth? However, there exists a flawed assumption that there is an "over supply" of buildable lots in Jefferson County. Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and staff have both made this assumption and as such, have likely led to the denial of the petitioner's request. There should always be more lots then the projected population growth. It is absurd to think that family units should equal buildable lots. There is no such thing as the 'correct' ratio between supply and demand of rural residential lands. The following profile of Jefferson County should be considered when deciding this CPA: • 98% of Jefferson County landmass is already protected and most of our critical areas are in parks and timberland. • there is one MPR and two Rural Villages Centers in unincorporated Jefferson County • the majority of human habitation is on RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 and this is contained on 90,530 acres of land. • According to the U. S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 16,000 housing units on 1,000,200 acres and 14.3 people per 640 acres. • Olympic National Park contains 922,651 acres of which more then half is in Jefferson County and Ninety Five percent is designated wilderness, National Forest Land in Jefferson County 633,677 acres then add commercial forest land • Olympic National Park protects 3,500 miles of streams, rivers and creeks, 29 species of native freshwater fish, 54 Pacific salmon and steelhead. Finally, the minority continues to remind staff of the fact that Jefferson County continues to operate without a final forest lands ordinance, contrary to Comprehensive Plan Policy NRP 3.1. During the 2006 CPA process, staff, argued that since a formal process is not in place, applications for conversions of forest lands cannot be adequately reviewed. The minority contends that GMA does not allow for ongoing interim ordinances, and eventually the county may find itself in legal difficulty. Findings of fact: 1. LNP 3.3.3 A rural residential land use designation of one dwelling unity per 20 acres (RR 1:20) shall be assigned to those areas throughout the County with : a. and established pattern of the same or similar sized parcels (i.e. 20 acres) or larger Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners approve proposed amendment MLA07 -93 with conditions that it be zoned Rural Residential (RR 1:20). This is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (See Findings of Fact) and the GMA. Respectfully, C Bu chindler h&'i �. Edel Sokol Mike Whittaker j! 2a 0 7 Da Date Date Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners approve proposed amendment MLA07 -93 with conditions that it be zoned Rural Residential (RR 1:20). This is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (See Findings of Fact) and the GMA. Respectfully, Bud Schindler Edel Sokol Mike Whittaker Minority Report To Board of County Commissioners November 19, 2007 Re: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments File Number: MLA07- 94 Submitted February 28, 2007 Applicant: Rayonier Forest Resources L.P. represented by Terra Pointe Planning Commissioners: Bud Schindler, Edel Sokol & Mike Whittaker Property Description and Applicant Request: The request includes two component parts: First, it would seek to change the current land used designation on a portion of one (1) tax parcel of approximately forty (40) acres from Rural Forest (RF 1:40) to Rural Residential (RR 1:10). Second, it seeks to change the current land use of an adjacent parcel of 80 acres from Commercial Forest (CF 1:80) to Rural Residential (RR 1:20). The applicant whishes to practice an emergent form of creative land use that integrates working forest management along the rural /commercial forest edge. It features the following elements: 1. Continued management of working forests Provide an ownership structure with appropriate covenants that guide a forest management regime that focuses on longer rotations, habitat management, and working forest production. This type of working forest would adhere to covenants that are voluntarily created by the owner and would supplement the current regulatory state forest practices act. The current timber supply would not be removed from the local economy. 2. Integrated working forest management along the rural /commercial forest edge The commercial forest edge between rural lands and the larger institutional forests is striking a harder and more defined line between contrasting land use patterns. Integrating a forestry ownership pattern in- between these two land uses can serve to smooth a transition from rural to forestry uses. 3. Integrated Forest Committee with a dedicated forest management staff Create a forest management committee dedicated to oversee the forest management activities through the assistance of a dedicated Forest Manager hired by an association board of directors and coordinated by a forest management committee. The Forest Manager would act as a liaison between the community members, all agencies, and the community board. The Forest Manager would manage the forest certification program and assist owners in managing their forest in accordance with their forest management plans and certification performance standards. Similar relationships between small land owners and forest managers already exist in Jefferson County. Staff and Planning Commission Majority: Staff and the majority make the argument that this request be denied contending that removal of the property from forestland designation would reduce the total forest resource land base of Jefferson County. They also contend that it would likely increase pressure to up -zone and convert resource lands (both CF 1:80 and RF 1:40) and that this would be inconsistent with the overall purpose and effect of the land use pattern established in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Midority Rebuttal: The Planning Commission minority agrees that there would be a reduction of land designated as forest resource land. However because this land would be managed as a forest, it would only reduce the amount of forested land by the space taken up by residential units. If one were to assume that each parcel were to use one acre of land for a residential unit and an ADU, this would equate to a total loss of eight acres of forest. To put this loss into perspective, when considering 8,645 acres of Forest Land this would be a reduction of 0.09 %. When considering the reduction to the total forest resource land base of 383,487 acres this would mean a loss of 0.002 %. These measures are insignificant. The pressure to up -zone and convert other resource lands would be mitigated by this creative form of land use. Unless the owner of a parcel zoned as a commercial forest is on the edge of land zoned as rural residential, this type of land use would not be considered. Staff and the majority contend that approval of this request is inconsistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. However, this change to Rural Residential is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan calls for the county to identify and encourage diverse rural land uses and densities, which preserve rural character and rural community identity (LNP 3.1). This is backed up by RCW 36.70A.90 that calls for comprehensive plans to provide for innovative land use management techniques, including, but not limited to, density bonuses, cluster housing, planned unit developments and transfer of development rights. The Jefferson County Code provides for the promotion of creative site layouts and designs and allowing flexibility in the application of the standards for residential development in rural residential and agricultural districts (JCC 18.15.475). The only form of creative residential land use provided for in Jefferson County is the Planned Rural Residential Developments (JCC 18.15.475). The elements of a Planned Rural Residential Developments (PRRD) are as follows: 1) Provide for residential development in rural areas in a way that maintains or enhances the county's rural character; 2) Allow development of land with physical constraints, while at the same time preserving the natural characteristics of the site, including topography, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, environmentally sensitive areas, and other natural amenities of value to the community; 3) Retain large, undivided parcels of land that provide opportunities for compatible agricultural and other rural land uses; 4) Permit developers to use innovative methods and approaches not available under conventional zoning methods to facilitate the construction of a variety of housing needs of Jefferson County residents; and 5) Provide for the economical provision of infrastructure to new development by allowing choices in the layout of roads, provision of community water and wastewater disposal systems and other improvements through superior site design and the use of clustering The minority agrees that the provisions of a PRRD are not exactly applicable to the requested form of land use. However, because this form of land use is actively used by other counties and because it is backed up by the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA, the minority feels that designating the requested changes under the provisions of a PRRD while at the same time updating the JCC to incorporate this form of land use will work. Staff and the majority also contend that a change such as requested is strongly disfavored under with GMA. However, the goals of GMA are meant to serve as guidelines (RCW 36.70A.020) where a since of balance must be realized. GMA does recognize the value of rural lands and rural character to Washington's economy, its people, and its environment. (RCW 36.70A.011). To sustain this rural character, the county should provide for reasonable expansion of residential growth. How else can the economy change without residential growth? However, there exists a flawed assumption that there is an "over supply' of buildable lots in Jefferson County. Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and staff have both made this assumption and as such, have likely led to the denial of the petitioner's request. There should always be more lots then the projected population growth. It is absurd to think that family units should equal buildable lots. There is no such thing as the 'correct" ratio between supply and demand of rural residential lands. The following profile of Jefferson County should be considered when deciding this CPA: • 98% of Jefferson County landmass is already protected and most of our critical areas are in parks and timberland. • there is one MPR and two Rural Villages Centers in unincorporated Jefferson County • the majority of human habitation is on RR 1:5, RR 1:10 and RR 1:20 and this is contained on 90,530 acres of land. • According to the U. S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 16,000 housing units on 1,000,200 acres and 14.3 people per 640 acres. • Olympic National Park contains 922,651 acres of which more then half is in Jefferson County and Ninety Five percent is designated wilderness, National Forest Land in Jefferson County 633,677 acres then add commercial forest land. • Olympic National Park protects 3,500 miles of streams, rivers and creeks, 29 species of native freshwater fish, 54 Pacific salmon and steelhead . Staff and the majority contend that approval of this request is inconsistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. This is likely based on the flawed assumption that there is an "over supply" of buildable lots in Jefferson County. The Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and staff have both made this assumption and as such, the petitioner's request should be denied. Of course, there are more lots then the projected population growth. It is absurd to think that family units should exactly equal buildable lots. There is no such thing as the "correct" ratio between supply and demand. Such an assertion is purely the "feeling" of bureaucrats and has no basis in science or economics. Finally, the minority continues to remind staff of the fact that Jefferson County continues to operate without a final forest lands ordinance, contrary to Comprehensive Plan Policy NRP 3.1. During the 2006 CPA process, staff, argued that since a formal process is not in place, applications for conversions of forest lands cannot be adequately reviewed. The minority contends that GMA does not allow for ongoing interim ordinances, and eventually the county may find itself in legal difficulty. Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners approve proposed amendment MLA07 -94 with conditions that it be restricted to the provisions of a PRRD until such a time that the JCC is updated to allow more creative land uses such as that requested by the applicant. That the $2500 fee paid by the applicant be carried forward and that no new fee be applicable. Respectfully, �r B indler LLt D ate cud FJ. 0,W07 Edel Sokol Date Mike Whittaker Date applications for conversions of forest lands cannot be adequately reviewed. The minority contends that GMA does not allow for ongoing interim ordinances, and eventually the county may find itself in legal difficulty. Minority Recommendation: That the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners approve proposed amendment MLA07 -94 with conditions that it be restricted to the provisions of a PRRD until such a time that the JCC is updated to allow more creative land uses such as that requested by the applicant. That the $2500 fee paid by the applicant be carried forward and that no new fee be applicable. Respectfully, Bud Schindler Edel Sokol 11 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Excluding Black Point MPR DATE: Monday, November 26, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ❑ ❑ �r r•��e `� 7 lc� p /�� 4"� ❑ E ❑ /, El El E 9 El El ❑�•❑ h7 I G. 7[ �,�Li��tca�rNa� ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 3�CAL i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F El F1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearin re: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Excluding Black Point MPR DATE: Monday, November 26, 2007at 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Jefferson County Superior Courtroom NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE d79 A04- P �J ❑ ❑ 0 ,(�h - o-,X v ; Iwo P (— ❑ C2'0 Jo�t1 � ✓� ' ` `� P ❑ ❑ H' M �o s� r- Q� P ❑ ❑ 9 ( i�l "iisi /J !ice( �rlr DE's G �.. 7 ❑ ❑ E r 4� tj Id d 20 ❑ El 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 11 From: Bert Bennett [bertgh @waypt.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:29 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: MLA07 -96 SSNW rezone November 25, 2007 John Aston Phil Johnson David Sullivan Subject: SSNW` Rezone MLA07 -96 Commissioners: I have owned my Discovery Bay property since 1969, long before Mr. D'Amico graduated from our local high school. Discovery Bay is a very pristine and unspoiled corner of Jefferson County that is enjoyed by hundreds of local residents and visitors each year. There is no reason for the Jefferson County to allow one man and his landlords to spoil this for their personal and selfish commercial venture. The courts as you well know have supported Jefferson County's position. Mr. D'Amico has been afforded his grandfathered rights to maintain his commercial electronic & security venture as it was prior to January 1992. That is three employees & the business as it was. Judge Roof, Kitsap County Superior Court has very specifically ruled there will be no third party activities or training by SSNW on the Gunstone property. Hearing Examiner Iry Berteig has ruled and was up held in Judges Roofs court that (RC 13) "the record does not support any weapons or security training to NON -SSNW employees prior to January 6, 10992" Mr. D'Amico has continued to be quoted in the two local news papers as saying that if he is not granted this rezone it is no big deal as he has been grandfathered and he will continue to exercise his rights without interruption on the lower 22 acres. This is clearly not what the courts have told him. It is very difficult to police Mr. D'Amico's business activities and he knows it. His business as it was prior to his escalating in late 2004 to include CAT paramilitary training was of little impact to his neighbors & therefore went unnoticed. His attitude with regard to the laws we all have to adhere to is very telling in its self. I can think of no one that would construct commercial structures in this day and age without applying for the proper permits and zoning except those individuals that want to circumvent the laws for their personal gain. The bottom line is that none of his business activities are legal except those he had prior to 1992. As (HE) Mr. Berteig stated in his ruling Mr. D'Amico is not creditable. The bottom line, there is no reason to grant this rezone to Mr. D'Amico as his stated reason for the rezone is to train third party paramilitary which is clearly contrary to the court's rulings. I could go on, but I'm sure there is no point. What I request from you is denial of the SSNW rezone. You must consider that your decision in this matter will greatly affect the lives of Jefferson County citizens FOREVER. Respectfully Yours 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2 Bert & Joanne Bennett 4453 Hwy. 20 Port Townsend, Wa. 98368 11/26/2007 c.,Z), Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: Carol Gautschi [midwyf @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:57 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: rezone Please, I am writing to speak out against the SSNW rezone . I am concerned about the safety and health of future generations in the community, the increased risk of forest fires and a lack of real firefighting capability in the woods adjoining our home. Thank you for listening, Carol Gautschi 411 Craig Road Sequim, WA. 98382 Jefferson County midwyf�gmat.com 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: DAVE BAILEY [captain @olypen.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:15 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: Rezone request MLA07 -96 (SSNW) Commissioners Austin, Johnson and Sullivan: I will be unable to attend your 5:00 pm BOCC hearing today at the Courthouse, but wish to weigh in nevertheless on the Security Services NW rezone request now before you for approval or disapproval. As John Austin is well aware, since he has attended most if not all of the Planning Commission meetings this year, there are at least hundreds of residents (constituents) on the east side of Discovery Bay who beg of you three to deny this rezone! There are also many reasons why this application should be denied, ranging from safety and health, to "disturbance of the peace" in this otherwise quiet part of E. Jefferson County. We realize that the "noise" is not enforceable, since the county has no noise ordinance, but please consider our quality of life should this paramilitary training operation move up the hill into Gunstone forest land that borders our own residential properties! One of my prime concerns is fire safety. In January 2001, a Gunstone crew conducted a slash burn on his land "next door" and adjacent to Craig Road. It was a windy day, poorly chosen, and our homes were showered with ash from the southerly wind. It took many nervous, smoky hours to find an agency who was aware of any burning in the area, permitted or otherwise, and then much longer to even find road access to the fire. Our homes could easily have been wiped out, even if we had all been home with our garden hoses charged. There are no fire hydrants for miles around, and a real fire in these woods could quickly overwhelm our entire area volunteer F.D. system! Please take the advice of the Planning Commission, and the vast majority of affected residents, and deny this rezone request! Sincerely, Dave Bailey 114 Craig Road Sequim (Gardiner, Jefferson Co.) captain@olvpen.com 11/26/2007 De- ID '� Page IofI to -c- Miranda Schryver From: Brian Young [ brian @timnolanmarinedesign.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:54 AM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: SSNW I think the time has come to put an end to this charade, and stop the Blackwater wannabe from destroying the lives of all those who live on Discovery Bay. All of us who have lived in this area a long time know that SSNW was originally a dog assisted "nightwatchman" service, and nothing more. When the financial floodgates of the "Homeland Security" scare apparatus were opened, SSNW lined up like all the other money hungry opportunists, wrapped in the flag, and with absolutely no respect for the law or the neighbors. Discovery Bay must certainly rank as one of the most beautiful places in the entire nation. The idea that one man can be allowed to turn the Bay into a daily hell, and ruin the lives and property values of everyone living there, is simply not acceptable. And, it should be abundantly clear to any sensible person that there is not a single location anywhere in Jefferson County where the proposed "training" can take place without disturbing other residents. Moving the operation a few miles upland will simply relocate the problem, and you can be certain that it will not provide relief for the residents of Discovery Bay. This out of control operation must be stopped dead in its tracks, at its present location, and brought to heel under the law as it exists. If SSNW wants a small gun range it should be undercover, inside a building. That is all they need. All of that other paramilitary stuff should be brought to a definite and final halt. Sincerely Brian Young Resident, Jefferson County 11/26/2007 Gc; ©co 1�- a7` -o8 Michael Felber 6 ➢ 'Adel 1�� 1� Road Port Townsend, WA 08308 360. 385.0202 November 26, 2007 County Commissioner> Phil Johnson County Courthouse 'Port Townsend, WA 9$-W 4 RE: rezone case #MLA- 07. =96 Dear Mr. Johnson, 's In case # MLA-07-96, the applicant is asking for a rezone from rural residential, -1:20, to commercial forest. I am strongly opposed to the approval of this rezone. As you know, Discovery Bay used to be a quiet, pristine bay where many people live, and recreate on the beaches and water. I live across Discovery Bay from the parcel in question, and since September of 2001'),l have been witness to an ever - increasing amount of gunfire, and explosions coming from the applicant: I have had to listen to automatic weapon fire almost every day, sometimes from 7:00 a.m. until after 11:00 p.m., for years. The amount of gunfire and explosions has decreased since the county has won its court case against the applicant, but`it has not ended._ Now I usually hear gunfire coming from the applicant 3 to 4 days a week. This is in spite of a court injunction against this specific gunfire. If you approve this rezone, the applicant has said that he wants to have increased automatic weapon firing, explosions, mock amphibious invasions, helicopters' etc. It would resemble an army base. He has done nothing to mitigate the noise coming from his activities. He has done nothing to indicate that he wants to be a cooperative member of our Discovery Bay community, a quiet residential community. He would turn our quiet bay into something that sounds like a war zone: The reason we have zoning laws, is so that people can make plans on where they would like to live, with the expectation that the zoning laws will remain more or less constant. If I enjoyed the sound of gunfire and explosions, I Sincerely, Michael Felber CC: DC2an�d';�Kim Pc Lockhart 150 Lower Adelma Beach Rd. Port Townsend, Wa. 98368 Dec. 3, 2007 To: Jefferson County Commissioners ➢ Phil Johnson ➢ David Sullivan ➢ John Austin Dear Mr. Johnson, Ngw4ffrb DEC U 6 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We would like to communicate with you regarding the pending decision on Security Services Northwest's request to rezone 40 acres on the western shore of Discovery Bay, from rural residential to commercial forest. But first, please allow us to introduce ourselves. We are Dan and Kim Lockhart, long time residents of Adelma Beach, directly across Discovery Bay from the location of S.S.N.W. In fact we are the third generation to live in this home on Lower Adelma. Dan's grandparents occupied the home from the 40's to the 70's, his parents from the 70's through the 80's and Dan and I have raised our family here and have lived in this home for the last twenty years. We consider ourselves among the most fortunate people in the world because of where we live. We have worked very hard our whole lives in order to be able to remain here on this pristine stretch of beach, on this serene and incredible bay. It is our fondest desire; to one day pass this piece of property on to our offspring. Because of the escalation of gun fire from S.S.N.W., the past (approx.) six years have been very trying and difficult. We cannot imagine how damaging the further impact on our neighbors and ourselves would be, should S.S.N.W. receive their request to rezone and then successfully gain a conditional -use permit to site a gun range farther up the hill across the bay from our home. Discovery bay's topography is that of a bowl and sound carries incredibly well here. On a quiet, windless day, we can hear the traffic from Hwy, 101 easily. On a day when the wind is blowing in our direction, the sound from the gunfire at S.S.N.W.'s location is amplified. The first time we experienced rapid automatic gunfire report, we were walking near Chevy Chase on the beach. We literally did a duck and cover and almost dove to the sand. That was just the beginning of the most irritating, jarring, sorrowful times of our lives here on Adelma Beach. Since that day, about six years ago, we have suffered COUNTLESS interruptions in our lives and experienced intense anger from the effect of the gun fire and explosions coming from S.S.N.W. In 2005, D'Amico was ordered to "cease operation" by the county and to date the weapons firing has never stopped. The residents within hearing range of S.S.N.W. have made hundreds, maybe thousands of complaint calls, to no avail. In 1987 when D'Amico purchased S.S.N.W. it was simply a local residential and business security service. Somehow in the last ten years Joe D'Amico has been allowed to escalate his operation to a full blown military /police and anti terrorism training facility, apparently without permits. Joe D'Amico will not publicly state who his cliental are or provide details on his training, i.e. types of weapons, explosives, etc. The sole intention of this rezoning request is to establish an avenue to gain a conditional use permit that would allow Ft. Discovery and its military style training operation to continue on Discovery Bay, in Jefferson County. It would be irresponsible of Jefferson County to allow any avenue for the continuation of this type of training facility in a rural residential setting without having a full understanding of the training, types of weaponry and explosives being used at this facility. The residents of Cape George, Diamond Point, Becket Point, Gardner, Discovery Bay and the Port Townsend area would all be within lethal range of an accidental firing of a 50 caliber weapon. This type of operation is simply not compatible with this rural, residential setting. To insure the safety and mental well being of thousands of Jefferson County residents, to protect their property values and to help maintain the unique and pristine qualities of Discovery Bay, we urge you to deny the property rezone Joe D'Amico is seeking. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter of extreme importance. Sincerely, w Dan & Kim Lockhart Security Services Northwest, Inc. SECURITY a ff r — . NORTHWEST INC. Take the Fort Discovery Challenge! Program Description: http://www.ssnwhq.com/fdchallenge.htrn Challenge yourself for two days and two nights at Fort Discovery's Anti - Terrorism training camp. Once you arrive, airlifted via helicopter from Boeing Field, you will learn basic outdoor survival skills; get physical fitness training; and improve your shooting skills and personal defensive tactics knowledge base. At Fort Discovery , you will eat, sleep and experience this beautiful Pacific Northwest outdoor setting, as well as interact in a very demanding atmosphere. Day 1 (Friday, Begins at 1500 hrs.): • 1500 hrs. Meet at Boeing Field -- processing & pre - flight briefing; • 1 700 hrs. Depart Boeing Field for Fort Discovery ; • 1730 hrs. Arrive at Fort Discovery ; • 1730- 1830 Uniform issuance & sleeping quarter's designation; • 1830 - 1900 Chow; • 1900 - 2000 Gear and equipment; • 2000- 2100 Terrorist threats and tactics; • 2100 - 2200 M -16 care and cleaning; • 2200 - 2300 Coopers Awareness Index; • 2300 hrs. TAPS. Day 2 (Saturday, Begins at 0500 hrs.): • 0500 - 0600 Physical training; • 0600 - 0700 Showering & chow; • 0700- 1200 Day march to upper firing range; • 1200- 1230 Trail Lunch at the Pond; * 1230- 1400 Day march continued back to SSNW HQ; • 1400- 1 500 Range M -16 qualifications at SSNW HQ; • 1500- 1700 Survival shelter building exercises; * 1 700 - 1800 Chow; • 1800- 1900 Fire starting exercises; • 1900 - 2100 Bon fire, dessert, and beach walk; • 2100 - 2300 Movie; • 2300 TAPS . Day 3 (Sunday, Begins at 0500): • 0500 - 0600 Physical training; • 0600 - 0700 Showering & chow; 1 of3 iAM Security Services Northwest, Inc. • 0700 - 0800 Classroom Defensive Tactics; • 0800 - 1000 Knife and gun take- aways; • 1000 - 1 100 Clean up, turn -in gear and preparation for departure; • 1 100 - 1 130 Graduation ceremony; • 1 130 - 1230 Lunch with seafood theme; • 1230 Airlift back to Boeing Field -- Mission Completed; • 1300 Arrive at Boeing Field. Essential Supplies Needed: • Four days of underclothing; • Sleeping bag and pillow; • Hiking Boots; • Rain Jacket; • Flip- flops; • Towel; • Shaving Kit; • Shampoo; • Knife (small pocket knife); • Sun Glasses; • Sun Screen. Guest Qualifications: • Must be 18 years or older to participate; • Must be physically fit; • Must be able and willing to fly in a helicopter. Guest Information: http://www.ssnwhq.com/fdchallenge.htm • Secure Parking @ Boeing Field fenced; • Guests keep their uniforms each with their last names embroidered on them; • Community showers (i.e., private shower with multiple users); • All guests will be sleeping in separate beds (cots) in one general GP large Military tent with a wood stove for heat; • No washer & Dryers; • Please do not bring any of your own firearms. Medical & Hold Harmless Releases: • Medical release • Hold harmless, release of all liability Payment Information: Total cost is $2,500 per guest. Price includes parking, helicopter transportation, housing, training, uniforms and all meals. Upon signing up for the Fort Discovery Challenge, a deposit of 50% is required. This deposit is non - refundable. Upon arrival at Boeing Field, the remaining 50% will be paid. Fort Discovery accepts Visa, Master Card, and American Express. Payments by check are accepted 10 days prior to the start date of the event, and the payment is made in full. Important Disclosure: This program is an intense program, one that is not for the weak. Fort Discovery guests will be required to live the life of military recruits going through their basic training program. Guests WILL need to follow orders and any punishment will be followed generally by mandatory 2 of 3 12/6/2007 11 :22 AM Security Services Northwest, Inc. http://www.ssnwhq.com/fdchallenge.htin push -ups. Sleep will be minimal and physical exercise, including hiking, will be mandatory. Please consider these facts carefully before accepting the Fort Discovery Challenge. Register Online! Once you supply us with your contact information below, one of our representatives will be in touch to confirm your registration. Your Name /Company E -Mail: Phone: Mailing Address: We accept the following: Name on Credit Card Credit Card Number Credit Card Type Expiration Date Click "Go" to order! Visa January / 2004 3 of 3 12/6/2007 11:22 AM Security Services Northwest, Inc. SECURITY ii Tr ri ■w aim .. NORTHWEST INC. Training at SSNW http://www.ssnwhq.com/trainin*/ Training available at Security Services Northwest, Inc. Includes the following. Follow each link for more information: • Basic Police • Intermediate Police • Advanced Police • Tactical Police • Patrol Rifle Operator • Water Survival • Bomb Awareness Training Reasons to train at SSNW Unique Training Facilities In addition to training SSNW staff, SSNW has been host to training and weapons certification for Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement. (Please see attached Map for location of our facilities) • Remote strategic location ensures privacy • 3000 acres of multi -use training facility • Terrain from sea level to 2000 ft. • Rifle and handgun firing ranges/ crew weapons training • Pier side training • Helicopter Landinq Zones (LZs) How can SSNW help you? Please don't hesitate to contact us so we can discuss your needs, and how Security Services NW can help! 1 of 1 12/6/2007 1124 AM 4107.50 Caliber Special Application Scoped Kitle Z of 4 nttp ://www.gionaisecunty.org/miiitary/systems /grounaim i u /.ntm M107.50 Caliber Special Application Scoped Rifle SASR Long Range Sniper Rifle (LRSR) The M107.50-caliber long range rifle is semi - automatic and is being fielded to infantry soldiers. It can engage targets to 2,000 meters with precision. At 29 inches long, the frame mounted, bolt- action XM107 weighs 28.5 pounds with optics. it is manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. The XM107 is a rapid -fire; man portable, shoulder -fired, recoil operated semi- automatic system utilizing military standard .50 caliber ammunition. The primary components of the system consist of a rifle, day optical sighting system and hard carrying case(s). Army snipers deliver precision fire against enemy targets that are outside a rifleman's limitations of range, size, location, mobility and visibility. The M107 is derived from the M82A1 commercial version of the weapon that is manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. of Murfreesboro, TN. It can defeat materiel targets located at distances beyond the range of the standard M24 7.62mm Sniper Weapon System, Galeazzi said. In the hands of a trained sniper, the M107 can surgically take out strategic targets while minimizing collateral damage. it is capable of hitting personnel targets as far away as 1500 meters and materiel targets out to 2000 meters. The complete system includes the .50 caliber semi- automatic rifle, detachable 10 -round magazine, variable -power day optic sight, transport case, tactical soft case, cleaning /maintenance equipment, detachable sling and adjustable bi -pod and manuals. It fires standard caliber .50 ammunition. The new rifle provides Army snipers a much needed solution that is tactically superior to other capabilities against materiel and personnel targets. The M107 .50 caliber long range sniper rifle is a new Category 1 weapon being fielded to infantry snipers, with 700 in service in FY2003. The Category li M82A1 remains in service. The Army's new .50 caliber sniper rifle design was initially designated the XM -107. At least two manufacturers of .50 caliber sniper rifles were in competition for the contract — Barrett and EDM Arms — and Barrett won the contract. The M107 is the Barrett Model 95, a smaller, lightweight .50 caliber rifle with emphasis on accuracy and durability. The bullpup design results in a compact rifle with no sacrifice on accuracy or velocity thanks to its cryogenically treated 29 -inch (73.7 cm) barrel, the same length as the Model 82A1. Recoil is reduced by the dual- chamber muzzle brake and specially designed recoil pad. The 34ug bolt of the M107 locks rigidly into the barrel extension, to accommodate the widest variety of factory ammunition loads. The adjustable bipod may be detached by removing a single quick - release pin. The M107 is set up to mount a variety of telescopic sights and with good ammunition this combination usually produces minute of Angle (MOA) accuracy. The M107 may be disassembled for cleaning without tools. 10 round magazines are available. Barrett .50 caliber rifles are in service world -wide for EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) use. Users have found that mounting the Barretts on vehicles is a rapid and cost- effective method of clearing military airport runways from unexploded ordnance. Others have found the Barrett as an effective means of detonating land mines once they have been detected. The M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle (LRSR) candidate weapon was DA approved for Urgent Requirement procurement (without night sight capability) in October 2001. The night sight capability for the XM107 LRSR was TBD. With an armorer- level modification, the Rail Quick Release System would allow the AN/ PVS- 10 Sniper Day/ Night sight currently used with the M24 Sniper Weapon System to be used with the XM107 LSRS. The cost: $1,180 per set, with a BOIP of: One Sniper Team Set: Weapon base (2); Scope Rings/ base (2); PVS -10 base (1) per XM 107 LRSR / M24 SWS. Two Picatinny organizations, PMSW and the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, teamed up to buy, test and field the system to US troops in both countries. In November 2004 Picatinny continued to field the M107 .50 Caliber Long Range Sniper Rifle to US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. By the end of 2004r, the Picatinny team expected to issue more than 700 of the new systems to deployed Soldiers. Production and fielding were scheduled through 2007. In January 2003 the U.S. Army Tank - automotive and Armaments Command, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (TACOM- ARDEC), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ announced an interest in acquiring information on commercially available or non - developmental item (NDi) suppressors that will reduce the baseline muzzle flash, blast and sound signatures of the Army's XM107 Caliber .50 rifle system (also commercially available as the Barrett M82A1 -M). Potential contractors must be able to produce a minimum of 60 systems per month, with a production surge capability to 90 systems per month. The suppressor must be able to reduce the baseline signatures of the XM107 without adversely affecting or degrading weapon performance /accuracy, functionality, recoil, safety and reliability. It must also be modular enough to be quickly and easily installed and removed by the operator without requiring the use of special toots not readily available to the operator. The .50 caliber Barrett Model 82A1/XM107 produces modest recoil energy. The weapon operating mechanism combined with an efficient muzzle brake reduce recoil energy to about 36 foot - pounds. The 25mm XM109 fires ammunition with essentially the same impulse as .50 caliber ammunition. However, the 25mm launches a much heavier projectile and uses much less propellant. The small amount of propellant limits the muzzle brake effects. The recoil energy of the XM109 exceeds 60 foot pounds. The suppressed version of the Model 82A1/XM107 produces significantly greater recoil energy than the muzzle brake variant of the 82A1/XM107, and is also a good candidate for recoil reduction efforts. 12/3/2007 10:05 AM M107.50 Caliber Special Application Scoped Rifle http: / /www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems /ground/m 107 According to Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned [LTC Jim Smith 15 May 2003] "The Barrett 50 cal Sniper Rifle may have been the most useful piece of equipment for the urban fight — especially for our light fighters. The XM107 was used to engage both vehicular and personnel targets out to 1400 meters. Soldiers not only appreciated the range and accuracy but also the target effect. Leaders and scouts viewed the effect of the 50 cal round as a combat multiplier due to the psychological impact on other combatants that viewed the destruction of the target. "My spotter positively identified a target at 1400 meters carrying an RPG on a water tower. I engaged the target. The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower." 325th PIR Sniper "There were other personal anecdotes of one round destroying two targets and another of the target "disintegrating." "The most pervasive negative comment was that snipers felt the Leopold Sight was inadequate for the weapon — that it was not ballistically matched. It the sight was zeroed for 500, 1000 and 1500 meters, soldiers did not feel confident in their ability to engage targets at the "between" distances (e.g. 1300 m). Snipers felt there were better sights available for this weapon such as the Swarovski. Sniper team spotters felt the tripod for the Leopold Spotter Scope could be better designed. COL Bray, Commander, 2d BCT, 82d Airborne Division supported an Operational Needs Statement for a Sniper Sight that would allow the sniper to identify targets as combatants or non - combatants out to 2000m." In March 2005 the Army approved its new long -range .50 caliber sniper rifle, the M107, for full materiel release to Soldiers in the field. The term "full materiel release" signifies that the Army has rigorously tested and evaluated the item and determined that it is completely safe, operationally suitable and logistically supportable for use by Soldiers. The M107 program is managed by the Project Manager Soldier Weapons with engineering support provided by Picatinny's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. Product Manager for Crew Served Weapons had previously equipped combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq with the M107 under an urgent materiel release as well as other units supporting the global war on terrorism. The Army expected to complete fielding of the M107 in 2008. The M107 was funded as a Soldier Enhancement Program to type classify a semi- automatic .50 caliber rifle for the Army and other military services. It underwent standard type classification in August 2003. A production contract was awarded to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., Murfreesboro, Tenn., the following month. Compared to the M24 7.62mm Sniper Rifle, the M107 has more powerful optics and fireds a variety of .50 caliber munitions. This provides sniper teams greater capability to identify and defeat multiple targets at increased ranges. It is based on the US Marine Corps Special Application Scoped Rifle, the M82A3. The M107 enables Army snipers to accurately engage personnel and material targets out to a distance of 1500 to 2000 meters respectively. The weapon is designed to effectively engage and defeat materiel targets at extended ranges including parked aircraft, command, control and com_municaflons, computers, intelligence sites, radar sites, ammunition, petroleum, oil and lubricant sites and various lightly armored targets. In a counter- sniper role, the system offers longer standoff ranges and increased terminal effects against snipers using smaller caliber weapons. The complete system includes: the rifle itself, a detachable ten -round magazine,a variable -power day optic sight, a transport case, a tactical soft case, cleaning and maintenance equipment, a detachable sling, an adjustable bipod and manuals. The Army plans to modify the M107 in the future by adding a suppressor to greatly reduce flash, noise and blast signatures. PM Soldier Weapons manages crew -served and individual weapons for the Army. It is one of three centers of excellence reporting to the Program Executive Office Soldier located at Ft. Belvoir, Va. Manufacturers: Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, inc. and Unertl Length: Barrel length: 29" (736mm) Weight: 22 lbs. (10 kg) (unlgaded) Bore diameter. 12.7mm (.50 Caliber) Maximum effective range on equipment -sized targets: Muzzle velocity: Operation: Bolt- action Safety: Frame - mounted Magazine Capacity: 5 rounds, detachable box 10 round magazines are available Modes of fire: Safe, Fire Unit Replacement Cost: 3 of 4 12/3/2007 10:05 AN M -16 Rifle, Military and Technology http: / /www.smartaliens.com /forum/m -16- rifle- t300.htm Sponsor Links Free Myspace Layouts Love Myspace Layouts Funny Weird hews Web Link Directory Navigation Login 4 Register I Rules y Fags Contact Login Username: I Password: 1 Login Forum Links Addictinggames.com Myspace drop down menu Myspace background generator Myspace scrolling text codes Author Message gun D Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: M -16 Rifle Guest M -16 Rifle M -16 Rifle designed and first used by the U.S. (United States of America). M16 rifle also used by South Vietnam, Greece, Israel, and others. M16 rifle is a lightweight, air - cooled, gas- operated. About 8 million copies of M16 rifle built. Weight See Design Length 1,006 mm (39.5 in) Barrel length 508 mm (20 in) Cartridge 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, .223 Remington Caliber 5.56 mm (.223 in) Action Gas - operated, rotating bolt Rate of fire 750 to 900 round /min, cyclic Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s), 930 m/s (3,050 ft/s) (see Variants) Effective range 550 m (600 yd) Feed system 20- or 30 -round detachable box magazine (see Design) m16_rifle.jpg Description: Clicks to see the image in fuliscreen. Filesize: 4.38 KB Viewed: 229 Time(s) I of 2 12/3/2007 10:03 AN GC. ZC-O V2- ):F> Ip-1 Page 1 of 1 Miranda Schryver From: Thomas A Carey [tzcarey @embargmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:30 PM To: Miranda Schryver Subject: SSNW As a somewhat disinterested party I have been following the Security Services Northwest saga with quite a bit of interest. In particular the amount of disinformation, and incorrect assumptions are very fascinating. My wife and I are the closest `neighbors' to SSNW, living less than a mile from their business on Old Gardiner Road. We have been their neighbor for approximately 10 years. SSNW has always been friendly, forthcoming, and ready to listen to anything we have to say. Yearly they have a company picnic and SSNW invites all the neighbors to attend, see the facility, and ask any questions they have. 1 do not know if the Port Townsend Leader has a specific agenda against SSNW or just use questionable reporting tactics however I have noticed a very biased slant against SSNW in their reporting. I think it is a tragedy of the human condition that companies like SSNW need to exist but given the current condition of the world SSNW is offering a vital service. Both my wife and I hope that the county commissioners can work with SSNW to create a solution that will work for the county and the much needed services of Security Services Northwest. Thank you for your time, Tom and Phyllis Carey 2451 Old Gardiner Road Gardiner WA 98382 360- 797 -7417 12/3/2007 RECEIVED �G November 30, 2007 DEC 0 3 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY Dear Phil Johnson, COMMISSIONERS I am a registered voter in Jefferson County, live near Gardiner, and am a constituent of yours. This letter is in regard to the proposed zoning change being considered for Joe D' Amico of Security Services Northwest (SSNW). 1 am opposed to the zoning change because I do not want the door opened to the possibility of SSNW locating a weapons testing facility down the road from my home. I understand the dilemma you face in making a decision on this zoning change. To deny the request is to leave yourself open to the charge that it was based on the knowledge that D'Amico plans a weapons testing range for the land. And that the proposal should be considered on its merits, not on future plans for the site. However, surely you have made rezoning decisions in the past based on your knowledge of what was intended for the area, maybe in some cases because you supported the type of development intended, or perhaps because the opposite was true. As a county commissioner, you must act with the best interests of the county in mind, as I'm sure you have and will. If you act with the best interests of the county in mind, you will oppose this proposal at this stage of its life. It will save the taxpayers the money it will cost for you commissioners to consider it later in the form of D'Amico's request for a Conditional Use permit, and it will preclude the possibility of Gunstone later leasing the newly rezoned Commercial Forest land to other parties for purposes that don't reflect the current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. The east end of Jefferson County is growing rapidly. It is a destination area for many, and the development is not likely to slow. Many of us in the county are newcomers, attracted to the area because of its beauty, slower pace, and peace and quiet. We are your constituents. We voted for you. I ask, why place a public nuisance in the midst of the most populated area of the county, the east end? As the area grows, the outcry against this facility, if allowed in, will undoubtedly be followed by legal action as residents fight for the quiet enjoyment of their land. The population of the west end of the county is much sparser, and contains vast tracts of private forested land. Let SSNW locate there. This is a NIMBY argument, but in this case you have a viable alternative - the West End. Please do not approve this request for rezone. Si rely, C Emma Childers THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. TRACY ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW OLYMPIC PEAKS BUILDING 18887 STATE HWV #305 NE - SUITE 500 POULSBO, WA. 98370 -7401 Ph: (360) 779 -7889 Fax: (360) 779 -8197 November 30, 2007 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Gentlemen: RECEIVED -U (: 0 3 2007 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS As part of Jefferson County's 2007 Comprehensive Plan update, you will soon be asked to consider MLA 07 -90 (Broders and Broders Family Associates, LP), a 396 -acre Mineral Resource Lands Overlay (MRLO) on lands designated Long -Term Commercial Forestry (CF- 80). Both Staff and your Planning Commission are recommending approval. However, based on our review of the staff report and Planning Commission discussion, our familiarity with the geology of the area, our understanding of the GMA and SEPA, and discussion with DCD staff, the MLA 07 -90 file clearly lacks the proper foundation for you to assess a proposal of this magnitude. Several potentially significant issues do not appear to be adequately addressed in the DCD staff /Planning Commission recommendation, particularly when one compares the Broders file to the MRLO that Fred Hill Materials, Inc. that was granted in 2002. Further, the process utilized in review of the Broders proposal is woefully disproportionate and inadequate when compared to the rigors to which the FHM MRLO proposal was subjected. When asked why the Broders proposal was not subjected to the same rigors and level of detail as the FHM proposal, staff member Joel Peterson stated that he had no familiarity with FHM's MRLO, nor had he reviewed FHM's case file. Clearly, he had not performed professionally competent or consistent due diligence in his review and recommendation on the Broders proposal. This is especially troubling since when one compares the two proposals. Both have similar geological characteristics (i.e. aggregate materials, vadose -1- characteristics) and similar traffic /access issues (i.e. direct access /egress from a State highway). The two proposals differ in several significant aspects, for example: - Broders proposal is surrounded by neighboring rural residential parcels; - Broders proposal is within yards, not miles of a shoreline of statewide significance; - Broders proposal has potentially higher environmental risk to groundwater because the subject topography is on the low side of a hill /mountain rather then near the top of a ridge /hill as in the FHM MRLO. The chart below illuminates and specifies the disparate and inappropriate lack of environmental /procedural review applied to the Broders proposal. Note that the conditions mentioned in the third column are the requirements placed on FHM's MRLO (i.e. "Ordinance 08 "), after a thorough environmental review which was done purportedly using the same exact process the Broders MRLO is currently undertaking. Issue Broders' J FHM's MLA 07 -90 MLA 02 -235 396 acres 581 acres Potential mining extraction area Distance to residential Adjacent, Over a mile to the nearest properties completely surrounded rural parcel, completely by several rural surrounded by Commercial residential parcels Forestry -- - - - - - - Regional Aquifer High potential that Submitted mining would occur professional reports below elevation of a showing no potential regional aquifer conflict. 19 borings drilled to provide baseline groundwater data I Seasonal High Water Table High potential of Conditioned that that mining could occur mining will stay at least 10 below seasonal high feet above seasonal high water table water table -2- _- - -- - - - - -- - Noise nospecial 'Meet more stringent condition King County standards Glare Third Party inspection no special condition no special condition i Notify Employees of BMP's no special condition Limit of use Meet US National Park Service standards jRequire quarterly and yearly third party inspections at applicant expense Written notification required Limited to extraction no special activities only condition Size of mining segments no special Limited to 40 acres condition Reclamation no special Ongoing, continuous condition Clearly, both the substantive and procedural "bars" were inexplicably lowered for the Broders proposal. Jefferson County has an obligation under the due process and equal protection provisions of the Washington and U.S. Constitutions to assure that all applicants receive and comply with fair and comprehensive procedural and substantive project review, not the shockingly disparate treatment that has been given to the Broders proposal when compared to that applied to FHM. Given this sparse and disparate review of the Broders proposal, it's difficult to imagine how the Board ( or anyone, for that matter) could properly evaluate this proposal's plan/code -3- compliance and the potential environmental risks (i.e. conflicts with nearby neighborhoods, traffic, groundwater and the unique issues related to extracting aggregate so close to a shoreline of statewide significance) associated with the proposal. FHM asks that you remand the Broders proposal back to staff for an adequate, more thorough environmental review and a professionally competent Staff and Planning Commission recommendation that is consistent with those applied to FHM's MRLO. Sincerely, ames C. Tracy, WSBA (g5656 Land Use Counsel Fred Hill Materials, Inc. -4- Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend,WA 98368 RECEIVED Richard Broders 4503 Old Gardiner Road V`C 0 7 2007 Port Townsend, WA 98368 6 m o'v' '2 7 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Commissioners: I would like to comment on the issues brought up in a letter dated 30 November 2007 by James Tracey representing Fred Hill Materials, regarding MLA 07 -90. Responses to the issues presented: ISSUE: SIMILAR GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS. YES on a qualitative basis, i.e. sand and gravel aggregate. NO on a quantitative basis. A geological report prepared by a licensed geologist (which was submitted to the County) classified the Broders gravel deposit to be medium in size, estimated to be one - half million tons. I do not know the estimated size of Fred Hill's deposit but local people in the industry tell me Fred Hill w approximately one million tons per =r at the shine pit. We expect to mine our half million tons over a 20 to 30 year time frame. ISSUE: SURROUNDING PARCELS. County requirements are that no parcels less than 5 acres border the proposed MRL overlay . This condition is met and cd the surrounding properties to the South, East, and North (some zoned RR 1:20, some CF 1:80) are owned by Broders. 100% of the surrounding properties are Designated Commercial Forest Land and are used exclusively for commercial forestry. The closest house to the gravel deposit is almost one mile away and that is where I live. ISSUE: CLOSENESS TO SHORELINE ( "within yards, not miles of a shoreline of statewide significance " per J. Tracey) The closest point of the Broders gravel deposit is .93 miles from Discovery Bay. In yards that would be 1,637. 1 do not know the exact distance that Fred Hill's pit is from Hood Canal ( Hood canal is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance per the Shoreline Management Act, Discovery Bay is not so designated) but a recent newspaper article stated that Fred Hill is proposing a mile long conveyor to a marine barge loading facility. We certainly have no plans for, and do not want or need, a conveyor and barge loading facility. ISSUE: GROUNDWATER The characterization 6y Fred Hill of the Broders deposits is incorrect. Actually the locations of the Broders deposits are on the Hanks and tops of relatively small Pleistocene Era glacial hillocks. The water table is o6viously below the lowest swales as no surface water is ever present. (See the geological report.) I note that Fred Hill's MRL overlay is mapped as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, Broders' gravel site is not. The facts are that the chance that mining would occur below the level of any aquifer or seasonal water table at this site is essentially zero, and this is o6vious based on the local geology. Notwithstanding the o6vious, detailed analysis of groundwater issues will 6e a requirement in future rquired permits and SEPA review (lead agency: Jefferson County) at a project level. Appropriate conditions, if necessary, will 6e required prior to mining. Although we have not exhaustively investigated the water table, about 15 years ago we were approached 6y a large gravel company who wanted to preliminarily investigate the extent and quality of our gravel deposit. A num6er of deep excavations were done, several at the lowest elevations of the deposits, and it was found that the vertical extent of the gravel ended before any water was uncovered. This company offered to lease our ground 6ut we declined because the timing of extracting gravel then did not fit well with our forest management plans on the site. Interestingly, the company that did the investigation and wanted to lease our land was Fred Hill. I do not know who uses water from the aquifer in the vicinity of Fred Hill's Pit, but I do know that 100% of the land down - gradient from Broders' proposed MRL Overlay is owned 6y Broders, and we use this water domestically, so we certainly have a vested interest in not harming it! There are a num6er of comparisons on page 3 of Fred Hill's letter. I shall address them in the order they were listed: NOISE, GLARE: These are usually addressed at the project level and are typically a big concern in Surface Mining Permits. The Planning Commission concluded these would 6e dealt with at that time. However, a condition to abide 6y applicable and appropriate standards at this time is perfectly accepta6le. 'Z I would like to reiterate that a gravel mining operation at this site, and at the scale this site represents, would 6e virtually unseen and unheard. THIRD PARTY INSPECTION: The County will 6e the lead agency on a required Surface Mining Permit and appropriate conditions on inspections could 6e part of that permit. However, conditions regarding inspections at whatever scale was deemed appropriate for this site would 6e accepta6le at this time. NOTIFY EMPLOYEES OF BMP'S: I believe that BMP's are typically required in Surface Mining Permits, DOE Sand and Gravel Extraction Permits, DOE Storm Water Permits, and County Storm Water Management Permits, AU of which will 6e required for a gravel mining operation. If you wish to condition this proposal with a requirement for written notification to employees of any BMP's, as was Fred Hill, I certainly have no problem with that. LIMIT OF USE: Since Fred Hill already had an MRL Overlay for where they were extracting god processing, presuma6ly their later expanded MRL Overlay did not need to include any uses other than extraction. Broders' proposal is being done to allow for extraction and processing, as no processing is currently 6eing done. SIZE OF MINING SEGMENTS, RECLAMATION: These are major components of a Surface Mining Permit and a carefully prepared Reclamation Plan is always required 6y DNR, as is 6onding. Because forestry is the current use and will 6e the use following gravel extraction, 'ongoing and continuous reclamation" would seem logical to benefit our future forestry plans. I do not know what size of mining segments would 6e appropriate 6ut being limited to 40 acres would seem to 6e sufficient for our use. However, I do think the best time to address detailed reclamation issues is in the required reclamation plan. Jefferson County Code has a very specific list of requirements for designation of MRL Overlays, and we have met all the criteria. This information was presented in our initial application to Jefferson County earlier this year and is part of the record, as is the detailed staff report and findings. 4 Finally, I would like to say that there were three public presentations, including two public hearings, regarding this proposal. Each and every time there was a very large turnout of people who live in the general area of this proposal (i.e. Discovery Bay and Gardiner). They, of course, were there for another reason, but everyone present heard the presentation (many of them three times actually!) and no one had any negative comments concerning this proposal. "Sincer rollers