Reasonable Alternatives

It is the citizens who set forth our governing principles. Our goals and policies have been developed through a public planning process and are set forth in the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan. Leaders should be aware of these policies and use them to govern. If they don’t they will waste their time and our tax money trying to defend decisions that are contrary to our governing principles.

This is happening in the transfer station debacle. Our tax money is being thrown away like garbage into a proposal for a new solid waste facility that may never happen because they are proceeding with a project without understanding how it conflicts with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

The language in the first element of the Comprehensive Plan is simple and to the point when it states,
“Provide the minimum level of service that is effective, efficient, and affordable to county taxpayers.”
In the light of this policy why in the world would we ever consider building the Rolls Royce of new Solid Waste Facilities when most people are satisfied with the level of service and we have a Chevrolet compact budget?

Either County bureaucrats and elected officials are not aware of these policies or they are confused about how they apply. I think some County officials are confused. When asked how our Comprehensive Plan applied to the planning of a new transfer station I got an answer that indicated they were just now having “a long discussion about the meaning of "Policies and Goals" versus regulations”. However they were not as confused as the contractor who we paid $150K to write the DEIS. They ignored the Comprehensive Plan almost completely.

This is hard to understand because the scope of the EIS clearly called for a discussion of goals and policies from our Comp Plan. Here are their specific instructions:
“Present an analysis covering DOE requirements, the Comprehensive Plan (including Essential Public Facilities provisions), County Code, and Zoning and Ordinances.” (from determination of scope document November 5, 2007, Section 8)

They may have thought that only some parts of the Comp Plan applied to the process of building and planning for a new capital facility and some parts did not. My question is, should County bureaucrats and elected officials govern by the goals and policies they claim to uphold? If the answer is yes, then how are they going to get around all these policies that seem to preclude relocating the transfer station?

This section from 2.2.D Essential Public Facilities.
2. Establish criteria for the siting and design of essential public facilities to:
a. maximize the efficiency of services provided;
b. minimize public costs;
c. minimize impacts on the natural and rural environment; and
d. be reasonably compatible with surrounding land uses.
It seems to me that a discussion of these policies would be appropriate in any plan for a new public facility. It would be hard to argue that Public Works has tried to maximize the efficiency of the existing transfer station operation. It would really stretch the limits of credulity to believe that a fancy new facility in a different location would be the best way to minimize costs, lessen the impact to the environment, or be reasonably compatible with a rural residential neighborhood.

How about element 7 of the Comp Plan? This section specifically discusses what things should trigger the expenditure of capital for a new solid waste facility. According to Element 7.3.A “Remodeling/expanding existing solid waste transfer and recycling facilities” should be considered only when the level of service falls below level “B”. According to Table 3 we are a long way from falling below that level. If levels of service were beginning to fall steps should be taken to reduce the demand for service. Why are we even considering building something new if the level of service has not changed and before any serious attempts have been made to reduce demand for service at the existing facility?

Traffic volumes could be reduced tomorrow if recycling was moved out of the garbage area, if curbside service was promoted and there were better incentives to use it, and if there was a composting area for yard waste. These simple things could significantly reduce demand. If we cut traffic in half the need for a new facility goes away.

I am not a policy expert or an attorney. I could be wrong about how these policies apply. But it seems reasonable to expect highly paid experts who are performing an expensive study to explore these policies and give valid reasons why they may or may not apply. There’s more.

This section on “Location Policies for San Juan Island”
(Appendix 2, Policy 6, Comprehensive Plan)
The Town of Friday Harbor and San Juan County should avoid duplication of facilities and facilities sites when they could reasonably and practically be shared among the two jurisdictions for common or multiple purposes, particularly those that, by their nature, warrant a rural location.
Is it reasonable or practical to relocate the transfer station into another rural neighborhood when the Town of Friday Harbor already shares the Sutton Road site with the County and especially when the Town may continue to use the existing site even if the county moves out? It is startling to think this policy was not mentioned in the DEIS. Here’s more.

Sec 3.8.1. (From the DEIS)
“The County has provided for the siting of essential public facilities in their land use code by . . . providing a land use regulation specific to essential public facilities that allows their location anywhere with a finding of no reasonable alternative and if certain criteria are met and subject to a public review and hearing process (18.30.050E SJCC).”

It is not clear why the alternative “Sutton Road Site” is not defined as a “reasonable alternative” in the DEIS. Clearly this site has been recognized and studied in the DEIS as a serious potential alternative. The fact that the existing site is a reasonable alternative should prohibit transfer station relocation in another rural residential area. If this is true then we have just wasted several million dollars in this process by not considering the goals and policies in the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan.




(Gordy graduated with honors from Seattle Pacific University with a degree in Philosophy. He also attended Theological Seminary. He has spent most of his life in the San Juan Islands. He once owned a small chain of grocery stores in the islands. He has many years of active participation on utility boards
and in countywide planning under GMA including membership on the original Citizens Committee for drafting the Comprehensive Plan, Vice Chair of the Countywide Steering Committee, and Chairman of the San Juan County Planning Commission. Most Recently, he served our community as an elected Freeholder from District 1. He is currently running for County Council in District 1. Read more at: http://www.gordyforcouncil.com )
[link]