Island Guardian

Tuesday, December 27th

BOCC Votes Eastsound Regs Over Shoreline Act

ig_Gudgell_Proposal-1 (66k image)
(Appellant's exhibit of a "before and after" view of project)

A proposal by Wallace and Susan Gudgell to develop two buildings in Eastsound has raised the question of the supremacy of county Shoreline Regulations. The Gudgell proposal was heard and approved by the Hearing Examiner (HE), but then appealed this month to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), where, by a two to one vote, the appeal was denied. Commissioners Myhr and Ranker voted to allow the project to go ahead, and Commissioner voted against it, stating the HE made factual and legal errors in his findings.

At the heart of the matter is the question of which set of regulations control waterfront development in Eastsound: The County Shoreline Act, or a set of local regulations contained in the Eastsound Subarea Plan.

According to William Chapman, attorney for Ms. Margaret Langley, Ms. Leith Templin, and Ms. Pierrette Guimond, the three citizens that filed the appeal, the decision by the HE "treats the Eastsound Subarea Plan's zoning rules as superseding key provisions of the County's Shoreline Master Plan". Or, -the other side of the coin- according to the Gudgell's attorney, The fundamental legal issue …is whether the Eastsound Subarea plan has any meaning".

The matter is further confused by the geography of the proposal. While both of the lots are within the shoreline, one of the lots proposed for development is also within an area known as the Waterfront Access Agreement; an area within the Eastsound Subarea Plan that has more specific control criteria of development than the regulations contained in the Shoreline Act. But specific in what way? The Eastsound Plan is more specific in setting out architectural standards, but according to the appeal, the standards allow greater bulk and size then would be allowed under the Shoreline regulations.

One of the underlying issues that seemed to concern Commissioner Lichter, was the lack of requirement that the Examiner's Conclusions of Law be met by the project as it is developed, but only that that if the Conclusions are met, it would qualify. But unlike usual approvals from the HE, especially within the shoreline, no demand was made by the HE that all of the conditions that would allow the proposed development to qualify for approval be mandatory.

One example that came up in discussion was the question of, would there be "sufficient public visual access to qualify as a ‘water-enjoyment use' " if a restaurant was operated in one of the buildings. Both the HE and the BOCC decided that there would be, but again, there was no demand that there be such a restaurant, or any other use that would meet the requirement that uses be, at the least, such that they provide public access.

As any student of law knows, regulations of a lesser level of government can make regulations more stringent, but not less so. With the split vote of the BOCC, it is expected the matter will go to the Shoreline Hearings Board for their review; and from there it could end up in Court.. The outcome may have far-reaching impacts to the Shoreline Act.

[more..]

Wood Boat Center ($2 Million?) Dead In The Water

At the last BOCC meeting, Commissioner Ranker informed the Board that the funding of "$300 to $500,000 from the state for a wood boat center is on hold at this point, for reasons we don't need to get into at this time". Ranker told the Board that there are major projects in the state that need a funding source, and "I don't think it wise to push this forward at this time. I am now envisioning a much broader program, and I will continue to move forward on this broader program"..

Prior to the bad news on the lack of funding, the local Economic Development Center (EDC), had asked Orcas resident Steve Garrison to take the leadership on preparing a grant proposal to submit to the office of the Govenor to apply for the money. Garrison and Jeff Bossler formed groups on San Juan, Orcas, and Lopez to produce a proposal to present to the Governor's office that they hoped would "lock in" the grant money, but it was found that as a result of a combination of miscommunications at the State level, and the need of the Budget Office to fund other grant requests, the anticipated $500,000 was not inserted in the Capital Budget Proposal the Governor was required to present to the Legislature by the 20th of December.

In any case, both Ranker and Garrison concurred that $500,000 for a wood boat center "should not have taken this level of priority" if critical infrastructure projects in the state would have lost necessary funding. With respect to Ranker's goal that he is now working toward a broader program for the County, Commissioner Myhr told Ranker that "We need to see something in writing that explains what your doing", Ranker said he could get him some data on the subject, to which Myhr responded that "We need something in writing, so we can look at it.".

What Commissioner Ranker did not discuss at the Board meeting, was a general provision that the type of grant being applied for " generally are ones in which the requested state funds:…are a small portion of the total project funding (25% or less", so that had the County received the grant, it was historically likely that the County would be required to raise 1.5 million in cash, or equivalent (e.g., donated materials or labor), as a condition of the grant funding, and that the money could only be used to construct a building. There would be no money to put anything in the building, and no money for ongoing maintenance and operation.

According to Garrison, it was "not the preference of the various marine groups" in the county that "that amount of money be used for a single use facility on one island".

At the end of a "History of the ‘Wood Boat Facility' Grant Proposal" sent to those involved in the grant request, Garrison stated the conclusions he had drawn thus far from the grant funding process:

[more..]

Monday, December 19th

1st PC Workshop On ADUs Finds Problems

The PC (Planning Commission) held a workshop Friday (12-11-05) on a draft Ordnance Proposal that Commissioners Ranker and Lichter (Bob Myhr had not yet been elected as a Commissioner) had forwarded to the PC for their review and recommendations, if any.

The Proposal was -depending on who you talk to- first drafted by Ranker, or, it was drafted by the Friends (Friends of the San Juans), and then re-worked by Ranker, and then sent by email to Lichter for his comments. After Ranker and Lichter had agreed on the content, it was announced by Ranker to the public ( Previous story at a September (9-6-05) BOCC meeting that he and Lichter wanted to settle the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit; commonly referred to as a "Guest House") issue, outside of the Courts, and to that end proposed the BOCC instruct the Prosecuting Attorney to ask the Appeals Court to not rule on the pending appeal the BOCC had previously submitted to the Court.

Lichter stated he was in agreement with Ranker that the BOCC should settle with the Friends by moving forward on a settlement agreement that had been put forward by the Friends. After prolonged discussion, and not a little argument, and against the advice of the County Prosecutor, Lichter moved that the Proposal (the draft Ordinance) that he and Ranker had drafted be sent to the PC for their review, and that the BOCC "file a joint motion with the Friends of the San Juans to stay the decision of the SJC pending case with the Court of Appeals".

[more..]

Thursday, December 15th

1st Workshop on ADU Compromise To Be Held

The Planning Commission will hold a public workshop on December 16, 2005 in the Board of County Commissioners Hearing Room, Friday Harbor at 9:15 a.m. Staff will present a preliminary draft of amendments to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission will then accept oral and written comment on the preliminary draft ADU amendments.

This is the first step in a number of open hearings and workshops that have come about due to the appeal of the current ADU regulations and the decision by the BOCC to try and work out a compromise with those who have appealed it. The compromise by the BOCC was done against the recommendations of the office of the SJC Prosecuting Attorneys Office. previous story and links
Note: Once the BOCC signs off on any changes or recommendations by adopting an Ordinance, the content of the Ordinance is subject to the appeal process. This appeal period will allow a challenge to the Ordinance to be filed and argued in a pubic hearing.

As per the County Public Participation Plan, the Plan will::

[more..]

Si Tells BOCC They Need a New Project Leader

ig_Rusnak-Stephens-1 (38k image)
(Human Resources Manager Becky Rusnak and SJC Auditor Si Stephens address the BOCC)

Auditor Si Stephens has resigned his position as the Lead Manager for the implementation of the new software program the County is in the process of installing.

Stephens has been the lead manager for the EDEN project, which is a new program for the County that will provide a core financial and personnel software and Document Management program; a program that is intended to organize and managed the flow of digital information by capturing, distribution and archive records into electronic format.

If anyone has changed from one software program to another, they may have at least a hint of the magnitude of the job facing the County as it switches from a 20 year old software program, to a completely new program; and in the process moving all of the old data into the new program. Time consuming to say the least, and after coming to grips with what this extra time (including some weekends) Si came to the BOCC to request that he, and two of the non-union employees in his office, be given an 18 month temporary pay increase to cover the additional hours it will take to make the transition.

[more..]

Monday, December 12th

Affordable Housing "Bank" Still Moving Forward

-g_Vedder-Manning-1 (16k image) (Karen Vedder, SJC Deputy Prosecutor, and John Manning, County lead on the project, discuss proposed Ordinances at an earlier meeting with the BOCC)

The next interesting step to be taken before the BOCC adopts two proposed draft Ordinance that will allow the County to collect, and disburse, a new excise tax on the sale of real estate, is to see what the State Attorney General may have to say on the legality of the draft ordinances. While the first Ordinance collects the tax, a second Ordinance has been proposed that will result in the "restructuring" of the existing Affordable Housing Commission into an Affordable Housing Bank that will be the county agency that is responsible for disbursing the money collected from the new tax.

While the Prosecutors office seems at this point to be comfortable with the legality of the new tax (after forcefully questioning the first couple of submittals) Karen Vedder pointed out to the BOCC that there are a number of questions on how the enforcement and follow-up of operating the housing bank (the second Ordinance) will work once it has been passed. The questions appear to be generated by the simple fact that the proposed Ordinance is simply silent on a number of questions that come to mind when it is perused. As examples she asked what happens if a loan is not paid? Who will be responsible to take action? What if there is illegal activity in, or on, a property? What happens if the owner of a property fails to maintain it? If someone qualifies for a home, and then -for whatever reason- becomes flush with money, do they get to stay there forever, even if there making huge amounts of money as a result of their job or profession? Can they pass on the ownership to a family member even if that person would not normally qualify?

The questions point out that what has been hotly discussed for adoption these past months (and will be up to the voters to decide in May, if all goes as planned), is not how all of this is going to work, but only that "something"- in addition to existing programs- is going to be done to provide additional affordable housing. If one were to look for a simple example to understand what is going on, one could say the Ordnance that will result in the creation of the Affordable housing Bank is analogous to our Comprehensive Plan, in that it is a clustering of ideas, policies and goals; but no regulations, as to how the programs are going to work on a day-to-day basis. Whatever is done is going to have to be reviewed at some point by the planners if it is to become a part of the overall County Housing plan, and so far that appears to not have been happening.

The second ordinance is easy to understand, it simply goes out and grabs the money (99% paid by the purchaser of any real estate sale, and 1% from the seller) to pay for both the creation of the ideas and goals in the first Ordinance into a reality, and also to help pay for -at least- some of the expenses of making "it" all happen. That is, making it happen once we decide what exactly, and how, it is suppose to happen. With respect to the imbalance in who pays the bill, the organizers told the BOCC that those who move here create the problem, so they should pay the costs of solving the problem. The tax will not be retroactive to past sales.

At the end of the work last session, the BOCC agreed by consensus to move forward with the ordnances once discussed minor changes have been made, and then the Ordinances will be ready to be advertised for public comment.

[more..]

County Questions Rosario EIS Responses

Commissioner Lichter joined staff from CD&PD (Community Development and Planning Department) to meet with representatives from Rosario Resort on Thursday, (December 8), to discuss how the Resort's EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) might address issues that had been raised by county staff. The EIS is required as part of the planning process for the new resort master plan.

The county staff will receive the amended EIS later this month for additional review, and then the two groups will meet again to outline the next steps.

The Guardian had asked to attend the meeting as a reporting observer, but were informed the meeting was closed to the public.

According to a press release from the CD&PD, Mike Usen, project manager representing Olympus Real Estate Partners -who own the resort- is quoted as saying: "We had a productive meeting with the new director Ron Henrickson (of the CD&PD) and his staff, and we agreed to some immediate actions to further develop the EIS," and "We are going to revise the draft EIS further to address county issues now that we have necessary clarification on these items."

For his part, Henrickson, who has just assumed the directorship of the CD&PD, released a statement that "We have a shared goal of redeveloping the historic resort as well as to have a sound environmental review of the plan. "We are moving ahead as carefully and quickly as prudent. We certainly appreciate the contribution the resort makes to our island quality of life."

Pending the results of the review of the changes to the EIS, a time certain may be set for Planning Commission review of the resort master plan; and this review will be open to the public.

[more..]

Wednesday, December 7th

SJC Dog Ordinance To Get Some Teeth

At the BOCC meeting on Tuesday (12-6-05) Commissioner Bob Myhr expressed concerns to his fellow Commissioners that when the so-called Dog Ordinance was last rewritten, the financial penalties portion had been removed, and that he had received a number of calls from citizens who believed there should be some financial loss to a dog owner for allowing a dog to run at will. He went on to say that, at least on Lopez, sheep kills from dogs were still a problem, and so would like to discuss the issue.

The Commissioners agreed that a fine may be necessary to "get the attention" of owners who habitually violate the regulation, and asked Randy Gaylord if there was any reason to not move in that direction. Gaylord said that it would be a simple matter to add language to the ordinance that would allow the sheriff to "ticket" offenders.

Commissioner Ranker expressed concern that the Board did not want to go after someone who had simply lost control of their dog for a moment when they were, for example, walking it on the shoreline, but agreed with Lichter and Myhr that there is an ongoing problem with sheep and wildlife kills and injuries from dogs running at large. An opinion that was shared by Jim Lawrence of San Juan Island, who told the Board that he has lost a large number of sheep over the years to attacks from dogs, and that the losses can make the difference between a profit and a loss for the season.

After further discussion, it was decided to change the law to allow the sheriff to use his discretion in issuing a first offense ticket, and the Board instructed Gaylord to begin the necessary steps to add new language to the law.

[more..]