BOCC Slows Down PW Yard Development

As questions continue to be asked about the purchase agreement and development plans for land purchased by the County, the BOCC has now decided that citizen involvement in at least some Essential Public Facilities decisions should be actively pursued. The BOCC has had a large group of citizens showing up during Public Access Time on Tuesday mornings to ask questions about all aspects of the recent 27 acre purchase of land on San Juan island slated for Public Works development, and in particular why the County gave away development rights to the seller, while at the same time paying three times the assessed value for the property.

To this point the BOCC has not clearly responded to the citizen's questions, but has strongly suggested that Public Works involve a citizens committee in the long-range planning for some, but not all, Essential Public Facilities, but pointedly excluding such facilities as barge landing sites the County wishes to develop on many of the islands that, according to who you talk to -and when- may or may not be open to all comers, or may only be for County and limited emergency use.

Piet Visser is one of those citizens who continues to ask questions, and last week sent a letter to the BOCC formally asking a number of questions that the neighbors have been raising since becoming aware of a pending land purchase for a Public Works yard and transfer station. When The Island Guardian broke the story a few weeks ago the neighbors organized, and have been attempting to find out what was gong on in executive sessions that may have an effect on their properties, and questioning why all aspects of the purchase and planning were not open to the public.

Mr. Visser's letter to the BOCC follows:

[more..]

Comp Plan Update Workshops Attract Few

Public Participation In Friday Harbor

So far only a handful of citizens have shown up at the workshops for the seven year updates to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC (Uniform Development Code). Two of the workshops are now complete, and the third and last will be Thursday, August 25, from 4 to 6 PM at the Eastsound Senior Center. At the San Juan workshop the members of the general public were outnumbered by the professionals and members of various county boards and committees that were attendance.

The workshops are necessary to meet state mandated requirements that the Comp Plan and UDC be reviewed and updated to include any changes or additions to it that are necessary to meet GMA requirements, and any local concerns or changes that are deemed appropriate based on changes in the county. The state mandated areas that must be addressed range from the minor ("Rename ‘environmentally sensitive areas' to ‘critical areas'") to the major ("..siting of essential public facilities…should be based on adopted policies and procedures"). One interesting requirement is that the "best available science" must be used in the review. It was not explained to what extent this would be projected back on past findings -if at all- or would only be used for the current work.

The planning staff reviewed their population forecasts, based on US census and other sources, that show a decline in the population growth in San Juan County from a high of 3.7 per cent for the last 20 years, to a 2.02 per cent for the last 5 years. It was not clear from the presentation the cause for this, and one citizen wondered if it could be the result of families moving out of the county and being replaced by retired couples.

Another area used as a data basis for forecasting growth is a land use inventory that was arrived at by assuming that all property that can be developed, will be "developed to full designated densities". It was pointed out by The Island Guardian that not all property will be developed, but the staff did not indicate if they accepted that as valid, however they did indicate that the comment "was noted".

The next time for public participation will be on September 7, when a list of proposed/prioritized changes to the Comp. Plan and the UDC will be posted.

[more..]

Freeholders Present Charter To BOCC

Stan Wagner Joins Gordy Petersen In Opposing The Charter

Prior to a presentation to the BOCC by the Freeholders listing the high points of the Charter that will be on the November ballot, the BOCC appointed some of the Freeholders that had requested to prepare the pro and con statements that will appear in the voter's pamphlet.

The selection of the "Con" writers raised a few eyebrows and smiles when Gordy Petersen and non-Freeholder Stan Wagner teamed up with Steve Ludwig to write the con argument for the pamphlet that will outline why one should not vote for the charter. More than one person felt compelled to quote the old saw that "Politics makes for strange bed fellows" when the Chairman of the Democratic Party, Stan Wagner, and longtime Republican and Freeholder Petersen could agreed on what form of government San Juan County should not have. In response to the quote, Petersen said their agreement was not about politics, but was about government. The "pro" position will be stated by Freeholders Jeffery Bossler, Charlie Bodenstab and Stephanie O'Day.

An interesting aspect of the Charter is the opportunity to vote not only for the Charter, but also to vote for an amendment to the Charter. This was the novel approach taken by the Freeholders to present an option to the voters as to how many Council (same as Commissioners) members should make up the Council (same as Commission) for the new Charter government. The Charter calls for three Council members, thereby keeping the look of the government the same. For those Freeholders who believed there should be more than three, partly to address the disparity of the population of the three main islands, there is the option of voting for an amendment that would elect a total of six council members.

The six member option generated no little comment and some initial confusion among the current BOCC as to the issue of breaking tie votes with an even number, but the Freeholders had cleverly addressed the issue by including a requirement that no action can be taken without at least four votes for -or against- an action; which simply means there will never be a tie vote, only motions that pass or fail.

Chairman George Johnson pointed out to the Board that when one really looks at the Charter, the "basic charter changes are minor" and in many ways reflect some of the issues and changes to county government that the BOCC has in the past discussed implementing.

The Freeholders have created an explanation on their website of what it means to pass the Charter and the amendment. It can be reached at: Freeholder Site


[more..]

Cannot Live In Existing House while Building New

So you bought a piece of property with a small house on it, or perhaps a "tear-down", and now you have your financing, your plans, and your ready to replace the old house with a new house. But when you go into the building department to submit an application for a new house, your told that before the application can be accepted, you will need to remove the stove and sink out of the house you have been living in. Which means you cannot live in it while your building your new house.

Why? Because in response to an appeal by the Friends of the San Juans, the Growth Hearings Board on July 21 issued a Compliance Order that if the land designation (aka "zoning") for a property does not allow for two houses, one cannot have two houses. But until recently it was believed this pertained to the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit; commonly called a guest house) issue of, when is a guest house really a house, or simply an accessory to a house.

But now the SJC Prosecuting Attorney has sent a memo to the CD&PD (Community Development & Planning Department) stating: We advise that you immediately direct your planning staff not to accept building permit applications for the construction of a main house where a detached/freestanding ADU was previously constructed on the property". This advice has been interpreted by CD&PD to mean that, not only can one not have a detached guest house (regardless of the size of it) -which it clearly does state- one also cannot live in one house, while building another house.

While this interpretation does not clearly flow out either the Compliance Order of the Growth Management Board, or the memorandum from Randall Gaylord's office to CD&PD, it nonetheless is now the stated policy of the CD&PD department.

In a phone interview with Commissioner Lichter, The Island Guardian was told that he was unaware of this change in policy, and that it did not seem to be fair to the property owner that they would have to move out of an existing house while the new one was under construction, and that he would look into the reasoning for the change in policy.

It was suggested to CD&PD that the issuance of a building permit could be conditioned on the removal of the kitchen from the existing house, and that a final inspection and Occupancy Permit would not be granted for the new house until the condition had been met. This procedure is used in other permitting actions, and has not been found to be illegal. A spokesman for CD&PD stated the department believed the mere act of issuing a permit would convey to the Hearings Board that the County was allowing two dwelling units on one property.

Both the Real Estate and Contractors associations are reviewing the policy for possible comment and action. In the meantime, if your finally going to replace that old house, you will need to remove the kitchen from your house, and then remove your family as well.

[more..]

Thank You Freeholders: Their Work Is Done

L to R, Front Row: Charlie Bodenstab, Greg Hertel , Ryan W. Drum
2nd Row: Linda Tretheway Gayle Rollins, Madrona Murphy, Jeffrey Bossler
3RD Row: George A. Johnson, Bob Querry, Mindy Kayle, Gordy Petersen
4th Row Jeri Ahrenius, David Bayley, Steve Ludwig , Frederick E. Ellis
Last Row: Lola Deane, Stephanie O'Day, Richard Fralick, Ed Carlberg, Gene Knapp. Not Shown: Walt Corbin

The Freeholders met for their last meeting on Saturday, 13th of August, at the Friday Harbor Yacht Club to vote on the final Charter recommendation. The recommendations will be put to the voters in the November general election.

20 of 21 Freeholders were present. Separate votes were taken on the basic charter package and the amended version. Both proposals will be on the November ballot. The votes were as follows:

On recommendation of the basic charter which features keeping 3 Commissioners elected at large from the existing districts, an appointed County Administrator, and Initiative and Referendum: 16 voted Yes, Opposed 2, Abstentions 2.

Voting on the amended version of the charter called the "six-member council alternative": 15 voted Yes, 1 No, and 4 Abstentions.

After the meetnig, Freeholder David Bayley said "our work is arguably just beginning! It's been a great civics experience and I've learned a whole lot about County governance. That such a diverse group of freeholders could so consistently work well together, respect differing opinions, and reach so much consensus, greatly exceeded my expectations"

No more public meetings are anticipated by the group. It is now up to the voters to decide if Charter Government will be a good fit for San Juan County.

[more..]

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 ) )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:

[more..]

BOCC: Still No Decision -But Now We Know Why

Thursday, Court House, 10:30 A.M. The continuation by the BOCC on who should be Miller's replacement took a sudden and unexpected turn this morning. Commissioner Ranker in his opening remarks made a strong push to appoint Jamie Stevens -ex-Commissioner Miller's stated choice- as the next County Commissioner for District three. As Chair, Ranker started the meeting by repeating his previous comments on how important he felt it was that the recommendations of the Democratic Council be followed, explaining that he felt they had done an excellent job, and that it was grass-roots effort. He then added that he had traveled to Lopez and talked to a number of people, as well as talking to County department heads and elected officials, and that "by a significant margin they supported Jamie Stevens."

Once Ranker had finished, he looked to Commissioner Lichter, who stated that he believed that Rankers comments were "inappropriate and did not follow the process…especially in light of what we have been doing". At this point Ranker interrupted to state that all he was doing was trying to move the process along, but Lichter was having none of it: "No Commissioner, your intention was to get Jamie appointed, and to interrupt me". Lichter then continued by saying "My ideal commissioner would have the following characteristics:

--he should be an experienced consensus-builder
--he should have issue-related experience at the County level, and beyond
--his educational background should fit, in some important way, with a commissioner's work
--he should possess interests and values publically recognized as befitting a commissioner
--he should have considerable experience working with diverse individuals and groups
--his experience should make him a fast learner in the commissioner's post
--he should be a committed environmentalist, and an outstanding steward for our land

Lichter noted that Ranker had agreed to also use the same criteria. He then read summaries of the three candidates resumes so that the audience could contrast and compare them against the criteria.

One area he pointedly contrasted between Stevens and Myhr (it was now obvious that Lee Lehman was no longer on the short list) were education and governmental experience. While he acknowledge that all three candidates had B.A. degrees, and that Stevens had taken some business classes (Stephens Resume), Myhr had a B.A. in economics, and he also held a Masters in International Affairs and Economics, and a Ph.D. in Public Law and Government. ( Myhr Resume ). Lichter went on to agree with Ranker that due weight should be given to the excellent work and the process the Democratic Council had gone through to make their selection that ranked Stevens ahead of Myhr, and that while the opinions of those who live on Lopez are very important, "we must appoint a candidate to serve all of San Juan County".

Once he completed the summaries, he said that "in responding to Kevin's comments on Jamie Stevens..there is no question in my mind that the qualifications of Bob Myers cannot possibly be matched by the other candidates." He then made a motion to appoint Bob Myhr for the District 3 County Commissioner position. Ranker was quiet for moment, and then said to the audience "There is an obvious division here..I would like to reconvene until next week to give this some more thought." Lichter then asked Ranker "Your not seconding my nomination Commissioner"? Ranker replied, "No, I am not".

The Board may bring up the matter again on August 9th at their regularly scheduled meeting.

[more..]

Commissioners Fail To Appoint -Will Try In The A.M

Who will it be?: Lee Lehman, Jamie Stephans, and Bob Myhr

From 1:30 to 4:00 the three candidates to replace Miller were questioned and praised by Commissioners Lichter and Ranker, but even with an executive session that was extended once, they were still unable to reach a decision. At the end of the day it was moved to reconvene at 9 AM on Wednesday to continue the discussion of which of the three before them would be the Commissioner from Lopez; for the next four months anyway. One thing that did seem clear, is that at least two of the candidates appear to be gearing up to run for the position, even if they are not appointed.

What was not clear was why the Commissioners were unable to make a decision, Was it because they simply could not decide who it should be, or was it because each had decided, but they could not agree with each other?

[more..]