08/11/2005: "Questions On BOCC Executive Sessions Raised"

The County is currently in the final stages of purpchaseing land (as first reported in The Island Guardian: (Prior Story & Map ) )for a new development that has the potential to involve the County in yet another costly law suit. The plans of SJC Public Works to re-locate their construction yard, storage facility, and a new re-cycling center near an established residential area has hit solid neighborhood resistance.

This is not new territory for Public Works and the County Commissioners. In the past they have tried in vain to develop land for the County, and have been successfully beaten back by well organized neighbors that have not been afraid of "City Hall". The latest go-around has to do with Public Works desire to construct a new development for their equipment yard and storage facility, and a new recycling center; a center that was first proposed for another location on San Juan island, but turned down by the County Hearing Examiner due to the proposed improper use of the land by the County. A ruling that Commissioner Ranker at a recent neighborhood meeting first referred to as a "technicality", but then later backed away from the statement, saying it was a land use regulation that had stopped the proposal, and that the County had made a mistake in proposing a development in an area that was not allowed by the County's own regulations. This would not be the case in the current proposal, but there are nonetheless a number of concerns that have been expressed by the owners of property around, and near, the proposal.

One of arguments put forth against the development is that the proposal would place a use that is not compatible to the surrounding neighborhood directly in the middle of the neighborhood. This point was brought up at a community meeting attended by Kevin Ranker and the Director of Public Works, and then again before the BOCC during Citizen Access time.

The issue of the legality of the BOCC continuing to hold Executive Session meetings on the purchase of the property was also been raised at the BOCC Public Access time. A letter from a law firm retained by the neighbors that surround the new proposed Public Works site has been sent to the County. The letter, from Gendler & Mann, LLP, Attorneys-At-Law, is as follows:

Kevin M. Ranker
Alan Lichter
and
Randall K. Gaylord
Cameron O. Carter
Juan County Prosecutor's Office

I write on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Management, a group of San Juan County residents deeply concerned over what appears to be improper actions by San Juan County in attempting to purchase property for the construction of a County transfer station, public works yard and public works office building. As explained below, the purpose of this letter is to request your cooperation in halting all actions, including the proposed closing on the sale of the property, until San Juan County has complied fully with all state disclosure laws.

The property in question is roughly 27 acres and currently owned by David and Cloud McCauley and know as the "Kellsey South Property" located off of Beaverton Valley Road.

It appears that the County has violated at least two of Washington's law regarding public process. First, it appears that the County illegally approved a purchase and sale agreement for the property in executive session. While RCW 42.30.110(b) allows the "consideration" of a site or acquisition in executive session, it plainly does not allow that actual decision to purchase or enter into a purchase and sale agreement to be made outside of an open public meeting.

Of more immediate concern, it appears also that the County is in violation SEPA by entering into the purchase and sale agreement and considering closing on the property prior to preparing an environmental impact statement. While ordinarily government purchase of property is exempt from SEPA under WAC 197-11-800(5), the exemption is not applicable if the purchase is physically or functionally related to other actions that are not exempt from SEPA. This is spelled out clearly in WAC 197-11-305(b)(i). Because the construction of a transfer station, public works yard and public works office building are not only exempt, but likely will require preparation of a full EIS, WAC 197-11-305(b)(i) is applicable. The purchase and sale, including the closing, in subject to the requirements of SEPA and the County may not take any further action until it has complied fully with the environmental review of the entire action.1

We ask that the County immediately halt all further activities on this proposal, including the planned closing of the purchase and sale agreement, until it has fully complied with the requirements of SEPA and the Open Public Meetings Act. We ask that you notify us promptly of your decision, but no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 11, 2005, so that we can avoid the process of seeking immediate court intervention. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

David S. Mann
GENDLER & MANN, LLP

The county in the past has misjudged the ability and the tenacity of neighbors to marshal forces against what they believe are intrusions and threats to land values and rural ambience in neighborhoods near proposed County developments. If this is the case again, time will only tell