San Juan County’s new Aquatic Reserve Designation

The San Juan County Council is currently considering a new San Juan County Aquatic Reserve designation for the salt waters of San Juan County. The reserve designation…designed to protect the salt waters of San Juan County from human impacts… has the full cooperation of state and federal agencies and is unanimously endorsed by local, state and national environmental groups.

Key elements of the plan are still being worked out, but include the prohibition of motorized boats on the waters of the County. Kayaks and sailboats of less than 20 feet will be allowed, however. When asked about why the limit on sailboats over 20 feet, a Council spokesman said that big boats, like big houses are just not appropriate in the San Juan Islands.

San Juan County already bans jet skis. The jet ski ban has been tested in court so the Prosecutor and the Council feel it should not be a problem to include other motorized boat traffic.

A spokesperson for the Washington State Ferry Service indicated support for the Aquatic Reserve designation and ban of motorized boats, adding that the current shortage of ferries will be solved if they can eliminate service in the San Juan’s and transfer the San Juan ferries down sound. The spokesperson indicated there will be little opposition to the elimination of ferry service to the islands since the Council fired the outspoken chairman of the Ferry Advisory Committee and one or two grumpy Advisory members resigned.

State legislators could not be reached for comment on what effect the elimination of the island ferry service will have on the Scenic Byways legislation that was passed to give tourists a better view. Legislative staffers offered that while it may look like this is yet another example of a government goof, kayak paddlers deserves a nice view as do people in small sail boats.

The governor indicated that working out these kinds of kinks, goofs and mix-ups that have occurred in her first term in office is a primary reason she is re-elected clean up the mess and to do it right next time. She added that banning ferries in the San Juan’s would be a real benefit to the State transportation budget. The ban will free up millions of dollars that would have been spent on new boats.

The governor pledged that the money saved will be used for bike trails and other critical transportation infrastructure needs in urban areas like King County… and for education. When asked how money saved by not building ferries translates into additional money for education, the governor said, “The public needs to be educated on how to organize their lives around the commuter bus schedules. The highways are too crowded to accommodate any more cars. If people don’t start riding their bikes to work, or taking the bus, new highway capacity will have to be added which is not only expensive, but contrary to the State’s green initiative to deal with global warming caused by China building coal fired power plants at a rate of one a day. We already have the highest gasoline tax of any state in the nation and I just can’t break my pledge, yet again, not to raise taxes and fees. If we can just stop our wasteful standard of living in the State of Washington we will preserve nature and be sustainable!”

The governor was sympathetic to the observation that the San Juan Islands will become largely uninhabited without ferries, but she indicated that islanders, being the environmentally aware people that they are, were up to making sacrifices, no matter how difficult in the short run. Islanders seem fine with achieving a natural balance in the environment that was present before settlement by non-native Americans. After all, she observed, the County’s citizens and government are already moving along that path with GMA and the Critical Areas update of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development code.

Reporting on April 1st by the joker from Olga, John Evans

Winter Notes From Doe Bay

Things quiet down on the east end of Orcas Island this time of year. It is too chilly for the Doe Bay Resort’s clothing-optional hot tub to get much use, work the 90-foot sail boat being built in the woods half way up Mt. Picket off Broken Axel Road is waiting for better weather, and the boat floats at Pt. Lawrence and Olga are put away in safe harbors. The local cows, horses and sheep are on winter hay rations and sticking close to the barn. Even our local busybody is quiet. Lately, no one has heard about any new complaints from her to the County about her neighbors.

The Olga Art Works is still busy though with a Christmas sale of local artist’s works and the Olga Café @ the Art Works is doing a brisk business from locals and a few visitors who appreciate great food that would be hard to match at 5 star mainland restaurant. The Olga Store is closed for the winter, but the Olga Post Office seems busier than ever. It is amazing how much mail comes in and out of this little post office. The post office building has less floor area than a typical home kitchen.

The big excitement recently was the boat that smashed on to the rocks during the big windstorm. A family that was living on the 36-foot boat in the Anacortes area was caught in the storm. It was dark. They were lost and ran out of fuel. ending up on the rocks along Shorewood. Mom and dad and 4 children, plus two dogs and two cats managed to clamber up the rocks and made their way to the Fickel’s home. Other neighbors took mom and three of the children to the clinic to treat cuts and bruises. Once patched up, the family spent the night back in Shorewood with the Johansons. Neighbors provided cloths for everyone. The family was taken to the ferry in the morning with arrangements in place for the Red Cross to meet them in Anacortes when the ferry arrived. No one thought to call 911. Folks out here tend to take care of things themselves and each other.

The other big news at the East end is that we now have some new guardrails along two stretches of the Olga-Point Lawrence Road. Most of us think this is a good improvement, especially at the sharp corner at the bottom of the Doe Bay hill. Now rather than the occasional car going over the 20-foot embankment into the creek, the car and driver are more likely to stay at road level. What will they think of next?

Those of us who stick around for the winter are looking forward to Christmas. The Doe Bay community has already had the community potluck and gift exchange. Last Friday night was the Eastsound tree lighting and visit from Mr. and Mrs. Santa Clause. It turns out that Mr. and Mrs. Clause spend most of the year on Orcas and telecommute to the North Pole. This Internet thing is great. Now if we could just get the County Council to fix the county regulations so we could get cell phone coverage.

As part of last week’s festivities, the community band played Christmas carols. The Lions club provided a tent. The Orcas Chamber of Commerce served cookies and hot cider. A crowd of over 200 had a great time. The stores all stayed open into the evening with special sales. Everyone seems to have the Christmas spirit. The community choir has presented their Christmas program at Orcas Center and this Saturday evening the community band presents their Christmas Concert with a buffet afterward. Why some folks leave for the winter and miss all this is a mystery.

Like all islanders, those of us here on the East end of Orcas are wondering what is going on with the ferry system. The governor and the legislature made a big deal about putting a billion dollars of our tax money away for a rainy day. In case no one has noticed, the ferries are dripping wet! Or, what about the added gas tax we are all paying for transportation infrastructure? Here all along we thought ferries were part of the transportation system. Now there is talk about a local additional property tax to pay for ferry service? Maybe all those tax dollars floating around are needed for something really important like trolley cars or a new stadium in Seattle.

We are also wondering about the State rule that any new ferries have to be built in Washington shipyards. A nice thought even though it will cost a lot more, but in case no one has noticed, one of the state’s few shipyards just went bankrupt. Do we have the shipyard capacity even if we issued a contract today? No one here seems to know the answer.

And finally, just to irritate those folks who think they have to be politically correct and say “happy holidays” so as not to offend local druids…. Merry Christmas everyone!

John B Evans: Columnist for The Island Guardian, Farmer and nurseryman in Doe Bay, County Commissioner for 12 years, Executive Director of the SJC Builder's Association, and one of the founding members of Citizens For Responsible Government, a not-for-profit & a non-partisan corporation

Hinder, or Help?

Why in the world the County Council is considering putting the owner/builder home ownership option out of business is beyond me. The owner/builder opportunity is the one bright spot in the County’s ongoing affordable housing crisis,

The owner/builder program is about the only way that someone can build a home for themselves using local materials. It is also the only way a person can build a home without taking out an expensive construction loan from a bank. In this day and age, even being able to qualify for a loan is next to impossible for San Juan County’s working families.

Past County Commissioners, in particular Democrat Rhea Miller from Lopez, fought hard to make sure that this program would be allowed by the State law. All past Commissioners, whether Republican or Democrat, have enthusiastically supported the program. It may be an anathema to some in the county government’s building regulation business to have something built without their direct involvement and oversight, but the program has worked.

This “need to regulate” has come up before and the elected representatives of the citizens have always done the right thing and told county staff the owner/builder program is not on the table… period.

That the County Administrator and the County Council would even let this be considered in the budget is a real slap at the self-sufficient tradition of island living and at housing affordability. The Council should be doing all it can to make it easier and less expensive for those who have the gumption to provide housing for themselves in a manner they can afford.

The owner/builder program has worked as intended. Over the years, people who otherwise could not afford to own a home or who just want to do their own construction or maybe use local materials now have a home of their own.

There are restrictions…the building cannot be for commercial purposes, the home has to have a disclosure registered with the auditor to inform some future buyer that it was owner built, the home can not be built for resale, the home has to pass basic health and safety inspections and the owners have to do most of the work themselves.

One of the biggest problems San Juan County businesses and local government faces is that it is almost impossible to find workers who can afford to live here and own a home. Even with the good living wage jobs workers and their families go elsewhere because of housing costs. The owner/builder option is one way that working families can make a go of it here.

John B Evans: Columnist for The Island Guardian, Farmer and nurseryman in Doe Bay, County Commissioner for 12 years, Executive Director of the SJC Builder's Association, and one of the founding members of Citizens For Responsible Government, a not-for-profit & a non-partisan corporation

Duplicative Bureaucracy

Every week it seems there is a proposal by the County council to impose some new layer or level of regulation on the citizens of the San Juan County. The latest is the letter of intent the Council voted to send to DNR to consider designating all of San Juan County an “Aquatic Reserve”.

Someone needs to be able to answer the question, “What is this designation going to accomplish that isn’t already covered by the current layers of regulation?”

Anyone who has proposed to do anything on or near the waters of San Juan county already has to satisfy the oversight and regulation from the County; Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Washington Fish and Wildlife; The Washington State Department of Ecology; the US Army Corps of Engineers; and Indian Tribes.

Satisfying these agencies and organizations often requires hiring lawyers and various experts, expensive surveys and extensive studies. Then comes the appeal from the Friends of the San Juan’s.

The “Aquatic Reserve” notion is about the same as the proposal years ago by the federal government to create a marine sanctuary in the waters of the County. That proposal was defeated and replaced with the San Juan County Marine Resource Committee.

The San Juan County MRC idea has grown into similar citizen-driven marine resource committees in a number of counties that boarder the Sound. This citizen-based approach has been very affective.

The Council should realize that the potential impacts of this new proposal are significant. Agencies and businesses that have to use the waters of San Juan County are in for a bureaucratic nightmare if the “aquatic reserve” goes through. Wait until OPALCO has to replace a marine cable that brings electricity to all of us. Even with existing permit processes, it took years and tens of thousands of dollars to accomplish the last cable replacement. Next time, with yet another bureaucratic layer, it will cost even more and take even longer; if it can be done at all.

Then there are the Washington State Ferries. They are on the ropes right now. Do we think an “aquatic reserve” designation for the ferry routes and terminals will make ferry travel any less expensive or improve the service? The list of potential negative impacts is long. There will be new hoops for the sewer districts to jump through; for the Port of Friday Harbor; for water-based businesses of all kinds, and for marina operators.

The Council only seems to listen to the environmental lobby. They don’t seem to give a passing thought to the vast majority of our citizens who are struggling to keep a toehold in the islands. This new layer of duplicative bureaucracy is unnecessary, and potentially very disruptive.
Shoreline businesses will be affected, marinas and resorts will suffer and the ferry system will have yet another stumbling block to overcome. Eventually an “aquatic reserve” designation bureaucracy will raise the cost of living for everyone in the islands.

If the Council was really paying attention to doing the public’s business, they would make an effort to bring in some of the folks who are likely to be affected by their proposed new regulatory bureaucracy, and hear what they have to say before jumping into something on the recommendation of a few folks with a narrow agenda.

One of the councilman said this would increase employment. You bet…the taxpayers will need to hire more bureaucrats! Congratulations to Councilman Rich Peterson for doing some research and voting against the proposal.

An Open Letter… & Some Advice

Just a note to let you folks in the Courthouse know that some of us out here in the County are beginning to wonder what in the heck is going on with our County government,,, and some friendly advice

Some specifics…

Randy, the first rule of holes is when you find yourself in one, stop digging! The press release you sent out simply doesn’t match the underlying facts or substance regarding the storm water initiative that 2000 plus County voters signed. Alex Gavora happened to be the person who submitted the petition to the Auditor. For crying out loud, you gave her advise on the wording of the petition! Your press release takes her to task for trying to follow the Charter! The State says we have to do something about storm water. It doesn’t mandate how we pay for it. That is the issue that 2000 plus citizens want to vote on. Stop digging!

While I am on the subject, forget any more press releases on the gas tax initiative you and the County got into. The Supreme Court has now told you twice that you are wrong. Their decision was unanimous! Stop digging unless, of coarse, you have struck gold in the hole. Striking gold would come in handy. It is likely to be an expensive bill when the gas tax folks sue you and the County Council, and the taxpayers have to pay up!

County Council, when the wheels are falling off the wagon… stop and fix them! The USA Today reported that San Juan County has the second lowest number of children under the age of 5 of all the counties in the nation. One county in Michigan is ahead of us…3.1% under 5 years of age verses our 3.4%. What this says to me is that young working families just can’t make it in San Juan County. If you don’t start taking the issue of housing affordability for working families, and the issue of our shrinking middle class seriously, (and pretty darn quick), we can look forward to being number one in the nation. Hardly a statistic I expect we want to achieve.

Forget trying to figure out how to pad the Council’s travel budget and give some thought to how we are going to change the way things are done here so middle class working families can stay in San Juan County. The status quo, (GMA, Smart Growth or whatever it is called) is a glaring failure for working families. Good planning, GMA or otherwise, should not make the middle class extinct!

Pete Rose, For nearly a year now we have been told that things are going to get better for someone who wants to build a home, remodel a kitchen, add a room or fix their deck. The poor souls who apply for the requisite building permit are still waiting four months for that piece of paper. The system is not working.

This lack of performance by Permitting and Planning is one part of the housing affordability crisis we are facing. I bet there are some folks out there who are surprised when the County calls and tells them their permit is ready. It took so long to get the permit they forgot they even applied!

A final observation is that this would be a good time to take a deep breath and think about what county government should be about. No one at the courthouse gets up in the morning and sets out to screw up, but when things don’t work out, admit the mistakes and take constructive action to fix them.

One good starting point is to think like a citizen, not a government official. There are all kinds of demands and suggestions from the State bureaucrats who tell you that you should do thus and so. Some of that stuff just doesn’t work for San Juan County. It is easy to get caught up in the moment if most of your input comes from within State and local government circles, or special interest groups with their agendas. It is hard to get ideas and input from average citizens, but it is worth the effort.

Thanks for listening.

Off To Court - Again?

It may be time for the Council to hire an indoor air quality consultant. There must be something in the courthouse environment that is causing some elected officials to respond to citizen’s input by taking them to court.

Earlier this year the Council gave the County Prosecutor, Randy Gaylord, a nod to use used public funds to sue citizens on the free speech matter that grew out of the gas tax issue. The Prosecutor got his head handed to him by the State Supreme Court when they issued a rare unanimous decision against the Prosecutor’s argument and the use of public funds in this manner.

Now the Council appears headed for another suit against private citizens (related story) ; this time against those who used the referendum process under the Charter to compel a public vote on how storm water management is funded. The Council may not like to have their decision questioned, but a vote on money issues is clearly allowed under the Charter and under State law…witnesses Prop 601.

There is no denying that the State legislature took away the citizen’s right to vote on land use matters. Citizens have very little recourse over what the State and the County elected officials and bureaucrats decide on land use matters. (It wasn’t very long ago that the Council ignored the 73% of the voters who wanted to keep the accessory dwelling unit law we had and refused to defend the citizen’s overwhelming supportive vote in the courts).

On the other hand, the Charter’s citizen referendum on the table today is a dollar and cents matter, not a land use issue! Under GMA, the County is required to have a funded storm water program…. all well and good. How the money is collected to pay for storm water infrastructure, how much, from whom and under what criteria are Charter and referendum issues.

The Council needs to get behind the spirit and the law of the Charter. Those who promoted our new Charter claimed it was the avenue for bottoms up citizen input to government actions. Several Charter panel proponents are now on the Council. This is the first test.

The County’s current storm water legislation has some problems, not the least of which is that the County has yet to clearly identify what the storm water management needs really are, or why the current storm water budget has virtually all the money collected going to salaries for public works staff as opposed to actually building storm water handling capacity, and despite the fact that property owners are already required to deal with, (and pay for), what ever storm water their “development” causes.

These issues are probably considered land use and are not subject to the referendum process. Future elections will determine how well the voters feel about the judgment of individual Councilmen.

At this point in time, we can only hope the Council would honor the referendum process and the open dialog that will precede a vote on funding mechanisms. The issue behind the referendum is not whether we are obligated to address storm water…just how it is going to be paid for.

There are three other ways to fund storm water management. (One intriguing idea is to fund it from the property tax dollars the County already collects… maybe from the million dollars plus that is diverted out of the road fund each year).

The Council has an obligation to the citizens who signed the referendum petition, and the many others who never got the chance to sign, to clearly explain the alternatives so the voters can make an informed choice. Maybe the voter’s choice will be to leave the funding mechanism just as it is.

The storm water-funding panel I served on felt that the funding system we recommended, and the Council passed, was the best choice. At the same time, a number of us on the panel felt that the voters should make the final decision. Past experience has shown that the voters will financially support necessary programs that make sense.

Response To Steve Hussey’s Editorial

Steve Hussey’s editorial is absolutely correct. Representatives of “stakeholders” who would be impacted by any storm water funding decisions did participate in a series of meetings. The meetings were open to the public and were headed by a hired consultant. Committee members did feel that, given the parameters of the task we were assigned, the outcome was one that all of us could support. In other words, if there was going to be a general funding program to address storm water, the formula for shared financial responsibility that was developed through the committee process was the best method we could come up with.

The committee was not unanimous on several important points however.

The first was to what extent, if at all, storm water was a general problem that required the kind of action that the County was proposing. Development regulations have been in place for some time that require anyone who is building a home or developing their property to comply with State and County regulations which require the property owner to control and mitigate any additional water runoff their development will create. This is part of the permitting process and is reviewed and approved by staff of the County’s Public Works department. It can be very expensive for the property owner to comply with these regulations, which often require separate expensive engineering studies. This requirement and expense does not go away with the County’s new storm water funding source.

The second was that the County had no data that demonstrated if, or to what extent, storm water was a countywide problem. In other jurisdictions, (in particular major cities and population centers on the mainland), storm water is a significant pollution source for Puget Sound, lakes and streams. San Juan County is not densely populated, has extensive areas that remain forested, and has no significant industrial pollution sources, has limited agricultural runoff issues and minimal flooding problems. In other words, some members of the committee felt that we should be able to identify the problem before we go about funding a solution.

The third was that several of the committee members felt that any new fee or tax that was going to be imposed as an additional burden on property owners should be subject to a vote of the people, even if a vote is not technically required. Just as the noxious weed tax was sent to the voters and approved, the feeling was that our citizens would support a tax if the need can be demonstrated. Asking the voters always seems like a far more democratic approach than simply imposing the will of the government on the general citizenry because the law says you can.

The issue behind the petitions is first and foremost to say to our government, “Ask the voters before you impose a new tax or fee.” The new Charter allows for citizen review of the actions of those we elect to represent us. That is a good thing. If the County can explain why this new tax or fee for storm water is necessary, I am confident our citizens will support it. It is interesting how some in or around government have so little faith in the wisdom of the County’s voters.

I hope people will sign the petition, which will require a vote of the people on the storm water proposal. If this current petition drive is successful, maybe government officials, in the future, will ask the public before they act. After all, our government and elected officials work for us.

More Pavement…Not A Good Idea

The Council has been discussing whether or not the design standards for San Juan County roads should be changed by adding another 4 to 6 feet of pavement to provide shoulders for bike riders. How times have changed. A dozen years ago we fought hard to maintain a “country road” standard in the islands. Citizens then felt that a more modest road tended to slow traffic speeds and preserve the rural quality of the islands.

To take things one step further, San Juan County is one of the few places -outside rural places in the Northeast- that has embraced the concept of “scenic roads.” Westside road on San Juan and Rosario Road and the road through Moran State Park are current examples. The last time this issue came up, there was a good natured, by strongly felt, debate between Public Works, that preferred the mainland “flat wide and straight” design, and the County Commissioners and citizens who preferred the more quaint and pokey country roads that they felt better matched the islands ambiance and life style. I remember calling around to Vermont and Maine to get copies of their scenic roads programs so we could include them in our own design discussions.

There are several problems for the wide flat and straight designs for San Juan County. The first is that many of the County’s roads do not have the right of way to accomplish the additional pavement. Buying right of way is very expensive and often confrontational when property owners do not want the bigger road in their front yard. The County currently diverts so much of the road taxes they collect to other County endeavors there is hardly enough left to maintain the roads as they are, much less spending hundreds of thousands to purchase additional road width.

Along with the added cost comes reduced safety. Drivers tend to go faster on wide, flat and straight roads. It is human nature to drive at the speed that seems safe. However, when something does go wrong, the higher speeds often mean far more serious accidents.

People who ride bikes would like more space between themselves and passing traffic. I understand, but in terms of safety, most, if not all of the accidents involving bikes are result from falls. I do not recall any serious car/automobile events. Drivers make jokes about bike riders, and sometimes get frustrated waiting to get around them on the road, but all it all, it seems to sort itself out.

One refinement that could be made to our local road design standards is to provide for wider shoulders on the uphill climbs where bikes are especially slow moving. The limited sight distance for drivers as they approach the crest of a hill while trying to get around bike riders can be dangerous for drivers and bike riders alike. More space for cars and bikes on hills would be a good thing.

I hope the Council and Public Works do not get too carried away. I think most islanders prefer our country roads, to the mainland-style alternative.

-------------------------------
(Mr. Evans submitted the following addendum to the above column -Ed)

In rereading the piece that I wrote for the Guardian regarding the discussion on the Council about wider roads, it is clear that I should have originally referenced the accident on San Juan Island that took the life of Ryan LoBue three years ago. Ryan died after an automobile driven by Ms. Giovanni Drew struck the motorized bike Ryan was riding on the uphill climb on Bailer Hill Road. It was a tragedy for everyone connected with the accident.

Ms. Drew was convicted of vehicular homicide and felony hit and run and was sentenced to 34 months in prison. According to stories published at the time, there were four people in the car when the accident occurred and apparently all had been drinking. The Journal report indicates that Ms. Drew was tested for alcohol two hours after the accident and had a blood alcohol reading of .19. The legal limit is .08.

I do not know if a wider road would have prevented the accident that took Ryan’s life. I was a volunteer firefighter for quite a few years and had occasion to responded to accidents involving drunk drivers. There were incidents where, in my opinion, the width of the road would not have mattered.

I do think extra width on uphill portions of County roads is a good idea and, in this case, may have made a difference.

Please accept my apology to anyone who was offended that I did not reference the accident that took Ryan LoBue’s life.

John Evans