There were some important changes in today's final hearing, but we will have to wait for the final print copy to give a full report. In the meantime, here is footage of the actual vote and its effect on the County.
Showing posts with label Rich Peterson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rich Peterson. Show all posts
Monday, December 3, 2012
Lamest of Lame-Duck Councils Passes the CAOs
Geologically hazardous and frequently flooded areas passed 6-0. All others passed 5-1, with Rich Peterson opposing. Miller couldn't resist jabbing at Peterson for his "no" vote on the General Section.
There were some important changes in today's final hearing, but we will have to wait for the final print copy to give a full report. In the meantime, here is footage of the actual vote and its effect on the County.
There were some important changes in today's final hearing, but we will have to wait for the final print copy to give a full report. In the meantime, here is footage of the actual vote and its effect on the County.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Burning Down the House
Watch out, you might get what you're after. That's a line from the Talking Heads song Burning Down the House. That's how today's hearing on the CAOs went: a bunch of talking heads burning down the house.
In many ways, today's hearing was typical of the standard public participation events occurring throughout the CAOs. We heard from the tribes (the Tulalip). We heard from the Friends multiple times. During public access time we also heard from staff, such as Barbara Rosenkotter who is a County employee serving as the Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator. In customary zoomorphic and theomorphic style, she claimed that she spoke for the salmon who are not able to speak for themselves. I wonder how many salmon know that? We heard from the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), and we heard from CSA supporters too. And oh yeah, I suppose somewhere in there was a non-affiliated person or two, but I honesty couldn't tell you.
We heard the usual environmental hysteria talk. The San Juans are unprotected. The CAOs are the weakest in the state. We have to be more careful with an island. We have to ... we have to ... we have to ... blah blah blah.
Surprisingly, there were some curious parallels between the testimony of the Friends and CSA. Both organizations feel that the CAOs are deeply flawed. The Friends, for example, say the proposed CAOs are the weakest in the state. They say the CAOs amount to no protection at all. Then in the next breath, with no concern for their self-contradiction, the Friends urge the Council to pass the CAOs. That puts the Friends in the peculiar position of openly supporting the passage of laws which they allege do nothing in terms of environmental protection.
CSA also thinks the CAOs do nothing, except place lots of restrictions on homeowners, trap them with incomprehensible formulas and rules, and potentially restrict nearly every aspect of property use.
However, the Friends apparently like the part about abusing homeowners, so they urged the Council not to kick the can down the road to the next Council. Buoyed by such bold encouragement and despite the Council's repudiation during the recent election, the Council members have convinced themselves they are on a mission from God to pass the CAOs. We heard Lovel Pratt today refute the notion that the elections were a referendum on her performance relative to the CAOs. She claimed that she lost the election because she was outspent and because we voters were confused. We heard other self-puffery and deflection from other Council members too. They flattered themselves with their knowledge and hard work on the CAOs. The bottom line is that this Council is going to pass the CAOs come hell or high water. No more kicking the can down the road.
Kicking the can down the road? The Council fully admits that these CAOs will be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Instead of kicking the can down the road to the next Council, they're kicking the can upstairs to the GMHB.
In written testimony to the Council today, here is how CSA summed up the Council's position relative to the CAOs:
P.S. Don't miss Nick Power's article in the Island Guardian because we should be ashamed of ourselves.
In many ways, today's hearing was typical of the standard public participation events occurring throughout the CAOs. We heard from the tribes (the Tulalip). We heard from the Friends multiple times. During public access time we also heard from staff, such as Barbara Rosenkotter who is a County employee serving as the Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator. In customary zoomorphic and theomorphic style, she claimed that she spoke for the salmon who are not able to speak for themselves. I wonder how many salmon know that? We heard from the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), and we heard from CSA supporters too. And oh yeah, I suppose somewhere in there was a non-affiliated person or two, but I honesty couldn't tell you.
We heard the usual environmental hysteria talk. The San Juans are unprotected. The CAOs are the weakest in the state. We have to be more careful with an island. We have to ... we have to ... we have to ... blah blah blah.
Surprisingly, there were some curious parallels between the testimony of the Friends and CSA. Both organizations feel that the CAOs are deeply flawed. The Friends, for example, say the proposed CAOs are the weakest in the state. They say the CAOs amount to no protection at all. Then in the next breath, with no concern for their self-contradiction, the Friends urge the Council to pass the CAOs. That puts the Friends in the peculiar position of openly supporting the passage of laws which they allege do nothing in terms of environmental protection.
CSA also thinks the CAOs do nothing, except place lots of restrictions on homeowners, trap them with incomprehensible formulas and rules, and potentially restrict nearly every aspect of property use.
However, the Friends apparently like the part about abusing homeowners, so they urged the Council not to kick the can down the road to the next Council. Buoyed by such bold encouragement and despite the Council's repudiation during the recent election, the Council members have convinced themselves they are on a mission from God to pass the CAOs. We heard Lovel Pratt today refute the notion that the elections were a referendum on her performance relative to the CAOs. She claimed that she lost the election because she was outspent and because we voters were confused. We heard other self-puffery and deflection from other Council members too. They flattered themselves with their knowledge and hard work on the CAOs. The bottom line is that this Council is going to pass the CAOs come hell or high water. No more kicking the can down the road.
Kicking the can down the road? The Council fully admits that these CAOs will be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Instead of kicking the can down the road to the next Council, they're kicking the can upstairs to the GMHB.
In written testimony to the Council today, here is how CSA summed up the Council's position relative to the CAOs:
We have supported this Council’s intent not to “kick the can down the road.” However, if Council adopts a seriously defective CAO just to “get 'er done” and satisfy those who keep saying it is taking too long, YOU WILL BE “KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD” and leaving a toxic mess for our community, by elevating form over substance and failing to properly protect our critical areas, our economy, or our community. Much hard work has been done, and significant progress has been made, but this is not the time for analytical shortcuts or legislative horse-trading. The fundamental defects we have identified are not new – they are not 11th hour delaying tactics. We urge you to keep working to either cure these defects or consider the alternative approach, “A Reasonable Way Forward for the County and the CAO Process” submitted by CSA on September 10, 2012.But in typical fashion, the County isn't listening.
P.S. Don't miss Nick Power's article in the Island Guardian because we should be ashamed of ourselves.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Their Finger Is On The Button
As we approach the final hearings on the CAO (tomorrow 10:45 am), I feel it is an appropriate time to reacquaint ourselves with our vision statement from our Comprehensive Plan. As was noted in a comment to an earlier post, the preamble says:
After you do that, reflect on the miserable quality of the scientific deliberations for the CAOs. Reflect on the baseless, blind ambition to invade islanders' privacy. Reflect on what the CAO restrictions will do to our sustainability, our self-reliance, our independence, and our personal freedom.
One of my favorite Facebook pages goes by the enthusiastic but somewhat improper name of "I Fucking Love Science", which is often abbreviated IFLS. I'll leave you with some of the posters and cartoons from IFLS that have particular resonance with the CAOs.
WE THE PEOPLE of San Juan County recognize that these rural islands are an extraordinary treasure of natural beauty and abundance, and that independence, privacy and personal freedom are values prized by islanders. Being a diverse people bound together by these shared values, we declare our commitment to work towards this vision of the San Juan Islands in 2020 A.D.The rest is pretty good too. Read it at this link, and judge for yourself whether we are living up to our common vision.
After you do that, reflect on the miserable quality of the scientific deliberations for the CAOs. Reflect on the baseless, blind ambition to invade islanders' privacy. Reflect on what the CAO restrictions will do to our sustainability, our self-reliance, our independence, and our personal freedom.
One of my favorite Facebook pages goes by the enthusiastic but somewhat improper name of "I Fucking Love Science", which is often abbreviated IFLS. I'll leave you with some of the posters and cartoons from IFLS that have particular resonance with the CAOs.
 |
| Okay, this last one is from the Economist, not IFLS. We may not be Greece exactly, but have you seen the County's debt or the growth of its expenditures while we have frittered away time on the CAOs? |
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Peterson CAO List
We have had a request to publish the Peterson list. It just so happens that we have a copy. Happy reading! (Click to enlarge each image).
And after you're done, have a look at another story about the ways our public officials try to circumvent public scrutiny ... this time involving the EPA.
And after you're done, have a look at another story about the ways our public officials try to circumvent public scrutiny ... this time involving the EPA.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
One Of These Is Not Like The Others
Like the old Sesame Street game, when we look at our Council members relative to the CAOs, one of them is not like the others. We saw more evidence of that yesterday when the Council had a discussion about their upcoming consistency hearings (November 27 and December 3). But before we get into that, I have to explain one of the deliberate misconceptions perpetuated by some CAO supporters.
As most readers of the Trojan Heron know by now, the State has no formal authority over the CAOs. However, since San Juan County opted into full participation with the GMA back in 1990, our CAOs can be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Anyone can bring a complaint before the GMHB, including the State, and it often does. The State also can take other actions to restrict the County's access to funding, at least as a theoretical possibility.
In this way, the State is able to claim that it has no role in the CAOs while simultaneously leveling threats at the County about the CAOs. There is often a gulf, however, between the demands of the State and the legal requirements of the CAOs. Therein lies much of the controversy about the CAOs. Do we follow what the law requires, or do we follow what the State says we have to do ... even when the State's threats do not appear to be consistent with the law or with the facts on the ground, insofar as the facts can be ascertained and demonstrated?
Broadly speaking, suffice to say that five of the councillors seem to be more concerned about the State's threats (or the threats of the Friends) than with the law and the facts. One councillor (Rich Peterson) is a hold out. He is more concerned about the law and facts (not to mention the citizens and the environment) rather than the threats. As a further obfuscation, some CAO supporters (e.g., Lovel Pratt) have frequently characterized their opponents as ignoring CAO law. That is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
Peterson believes the current proposed CAOs have several fundamental and fatal legal flaws. He is unlikely to vote for the proposed CAOs without major changes. He has circulated to the Council a list of the minimum changes that he feels are necessary to gain his support.
That brings us to yesterday's Council meeting. The five pro-CAO councillors, especially since the election, are eager to pass the CAOs unanimously. Unanimous approval might convey some legal legitimacy upon the new CAOs that they wouldn't otherwise have. Probably more importantly, though, three of the existing councillors are likely to stand for election (Miller, Pratt, Stephens). After all the CAO criticism aimed at the councillors, unanimous approval of the CAOs might rehabilitate their electoral chances. During the consistency discussion yesterday, we saw the Council dealing with all these subtexts while at the same time not saying a word about them. The words we heard were about public notice and schedule, but every councillor was pondering whether the five could accept the demands of Peterson with enough time to fulfill the public notice and related administrative requirements of the law. We even saw Patty Miller deliver a rather desperate lecture to Peterson (see the discussion around the 6:39 video mark) about the information he needed to provide to the rest of the group in order to strike a deal.
Can they swallow Peterson's changes? Can they get the changes done in time for a 6-0 vote before their lame-duck terms expire, or do they press forward as is?
Only time will tell, but with respect to the CAOs, one councillor is definitely not like the others, and the Trojan Heron is very glad about that.
As a postscript, I would like to point out the paradox embodied in the argument that says we must listen to the State about the CAOs while at the same time we overwhelmingly voted for a State initiative that rejected federal law.
As most readers of the Trojan Heron know by now, the State has no formal authority over the CAOs. However, since San Juan County opted into full participation with the GMA back in 1990, our CAOs can be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Anyone can bring a complaint before the GMHB, including the State, and it often does. The State also can take other actions to restrict the County's access to funding, at least as a theoretical possibility.
In this way, the State is able to claim that it has no role in the CAOs while simultaneously leveling threats at the County about the CAOs. There is often a gulf, however, between the demands of the State and the legal requirements of the CAOs. Therein lies much of the controversy about the CAOs. Do we follow what the law requires, or do we follow what the State says we have to do ... even when the State's threats do not appear to be consistent with the law or with the facts on the ground, insofar as the facts can be ascertained and demonstrated?
Broadly speaking, suffice to say that five of the councillors seem to be more concerned about the State's threats (or the threats of the Friends) than with the law and the facts. One councillor (Rich Peterson) is a hold out. He is more concerned about the law and facts (not to mention the citizens and the environment) rather than the threats. As a further obfuscation, some CAO supporters (e.g., Lovel Pratt) have frequently characterized their opponents as ignoring CAO law. That is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
Peterson believes the current proposed CAOs have several fundamental and fatal legal flaws. He is unlikely to vote for the proposed CAOs without major changes. He has circulated to the Council a list of the minimum changes that he feels are necessary to gain his support.
That brings us to yesterday's Council meeting. The five pro-CAO councillors, especially since the election, are eager to pass the CAOs unanimously. Unanimous approval might convey some legal legitimacy upon the new CAOs that they wouldn't otherwise have. Probably more importantly, though, three of the existing councillors are likely to stand for election (Miller, Pratt, Stephens). After all the CAO criticism aimed at the councillors, unanimous approval of the CAOs might rehabilitate their electoral chances. During the consistency discussion yesterday, we saw the Council dealing with all these subtexts while at the same time not saying a word about them. The words we heard were about public notice and schedule, but every councillor was pondering whether the five could accept the demands of Peterson with enough time to fulfill the public notice and related administrative requirements of the law. We even saw Patty Miller deliver a rather desperate lecture to Peterson (see the discussion around the 6:39 video mark) about the information he needed to provide to the rest of the group in order to strike a deal.
Can they swallow Peterson's changes? Can they get the changes done in time for a 6-0 vote before their lame-duck terms expire, or do they press forward as is?
Only time will tell, but with respect to the CAOs, one councillor is definitely not like the others, and the Trojan Heron is very glad about that.
As a postscript, I would like to point out the paradox embodied in the argument that says we must listen to the State about the CAOs while at the same time we overwhelmingly voted for a State initiative that rejected federal law.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Countdown To CAOmageddon: Flaw #47 - Incompetence & Bias
After watching the Council session yesterday, the conclusion that many have drawn is that our Council just doesn't get it.
At one point yesterday, Council Chair Miller even admitted that BAS was nothing more than "group-think," but it's clear they are going to follow it anyway ... even though they don't really even know what that means. They rely on Dr. Adamus to tell them. The Council voted numerous times yesterday to simply roll over and agree to virtually everything Dr. Adamus said. Fralick, Pratt, and Miller were particularly active in driving the out-of-control CAO bus, with Rich Peterson offering periodic objections that were ignored. As usual, Rosenfeld and Stephens were just along for the ride offered by Fralick, Pratt, and Miller.
At this point, the Council has come to identify so heavily with Dr. Adamus' scientific prowess that they believe "Adamus=BAS." Adamus begins every sentence with "According to Science," and I get the impression that Adamus could say, "According to Science, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the Council would believe it were BAS.
Yesterday confirmed for many that we have extremists for Council members serving as acolytes for a charlatan "scientist" propped up by the lunatic fringe of Ecology. The Council never considers or makes reference to any comments or views except those expressed by Shireene Hale, Adamus, and on the margins, Deputy Prosecutor Cain. Cain has reduced his role to sitting next to Shireene Hale and acting like a pull-string doll, repeatedly saying that if the Council departs from "science" they will have to explain why. The Council interprets this to mean that they either follow whatever Adamus says or else explain themselves, which they are loathe to do. The entire show is a sycophantic corruption of process and science that has become the standard MO for this confederacy of dunces running our County.
The Planning Commission is largely ignored, community groups like the Common Sense Alliance are totally ignored, and the overwhelming outpouring of individual citizen comments are ignored. I would think that even a modicum of respect for the public process would cause our Council to at least recognize that public input has been received; and to comment as to why it is not being considered. But no. If recognized at all (as in a previous meeting on August 28), the only stakeholder groups mentioned are the Friends, Futurewise, and Ecology. The rest of us don't exist.
But I guess that's the real point. We don't exist. Tolerated for our legally-required 3-minutes of public testimony, they'd prefer that we all go away.
Yesterday, the Common Sense Alliance sent out a press release with their view of the situation and a set of recommendations. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than the views of our Council.
At one point yesterday, Council Chair Miller even admitted that BAS was nothing more than "group-think," but it's clear they are going to follow it anyway ... even though they don't really even know what that means. They rely on Dr. Adamus to tell them. The Council voted numerous times yesterday to simply roll over and agree to virtually everything Dr. Adamus said. Fralick, Pratt, and Miller were particularly active in driving the out-of-control CAO bus, with Rich Peterson offering periodic objections that were ignored. As usual, Rosenfeld and Stephens were just along for the ride offered by Fralick, Pratt, and Miller.
At this point, the Council has come to identify so heavily with Dr. Adamus' scientific prowess that they believe "Adamus=BAS." Adamus begins every sentence with "According to Science," and I get the impression that Adamus could say, "According to Science, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the Council would believe it were BAS.
Yesterday confirmed for many that we have extremists for Council members serving as acolytes for a charlatan "scientist" propped up by the lunatic fringe of Ecology. The Council never considers or makes reference to any comments or views except those expressed by Shireene Hale, Adamus, and on the margins, Deputy Prosecutor Cain. Cain has reduced his role to sitting next to Shireene Hale and acting like a pull-string doll, repeatedly saying that if the Council departs from "science" they will have to explain why. The Council interprets this to mean that they either follow whatever Adamus says or else explain themselves, which they are loathe to do. The entire show is a sycophantic corruption of process and science that has become the standard MO for this confederacy of dunces running our County.
The Planning Commission is largely ignored, community groups like the Common Sense Alliance are totally ignored, and the overwhelming outpouring of individual citizen comments are ignored. I would think that even a modicum of respect for the public process would cause our Council to at least recognize that public input has been received; and to comment as to why it is not being considered. But no. If recognized at all (as in a previous meeting on August 28), the only stakeholder groups mentioned are the Friends, Futurewise, and Ecology. The rest of us don't exist.
But I guess that's the real point. We don't exist. Tolerated for our legally-required 3-minutes of public testimony, they'd prefer that we all go away.
Yesterday, the Common Sense Alliance sent out a press release with their view of the situation and a set of recommendations. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than the views of our Council.
The Common Sense Alliance (CSA), a San Juan County-based community organization focused on environmental protection, community health, and economic vitality, yesterday submitted to the County Council its urgent recommendation that the County abandon its current proposed changes to our Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), because the proposal is scientifically and legally indefensible, and that the County instead affirm our existing CAO regulatory scheme, improve its enforcement, and develop a professional data collection and monitoring program.
The CSA recommendations constitute a sensible, compliant, and prudent way forward for our County, our environment, our economy, and our people. We recognize the success of the substantial public and private efforts by our citizens to protect our ecosystem. We acknowledge the significant testimony and factual evidence of our environment's health, while accepting that areas of uncertainty remain which may be clarified over time by monitoring of appropriate scale and quality.
The question that came to the minds of most of us as this process unfolded is “What is the problem”? To date, we have seen no scientifically supportable answer. Indeed, a few weeks ago, an eminent federal scientist testified before Council that our fish and wildlife habitat was “spectacular,” and that she could not think of anything that we were doing wrong. CSA agrees. Oft-repeated alarmist claims that humans in San Juan County are directly responsible for material harm to salmonids and orcas have no creditable scientific underpinning, and the Council should recognize that those claims no more warrant extensive, expensive, and burdensome new CAO regulations than the Department of Ecology’s oft-repeated claim that the volume of toxics washing into Puget Sound from stormwater was equivalent to an Exxon Valdez oil spill every two years (recently retracted), or Ecology’s claims that fish kills in Hood Canal are the fault of humans (retracted just this week).
CSA urges the Council instead to recognize that the current process is irredeemably tainted, the existing product is fatally flawed, and that it is time to move ahead to obtain the information we need for rational rules for the protection of our environment.
We invite you to review our recommendations at this link, and to urge Council to pursue them.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Removing All Doubt
For the Planning Commission hearings on the wetlands CAO, hundreds of people showed up dispersed over four days to testify to the Planning Commission or just watch the proceedings. It was a remarkable sight to see so many bright, concerned people from all over these islands participate in our democracy. It was especially wonderful to see the diversity of the people. Gone, at least for the moment, were the days when no one but just a few Friends or government staffers were sprinkled about the gallery while the Commission considered matters in relative obscurity.
"by May the PC will have recuperated from the 4 awful Planning Commission meetings"
But not everyone saw the experience in a positive light. During last week's Council meeting, Shireene Hale, the planner in charge of the proposed CAOs, characterized the Planning Commission meetings immoderately. When speaking about the upcoming schedule for further Planning Commission meetings, she couldn't help but editorialize:
"by May the PC will have recuperated from the 4 awful Planning Commission meetings"
Awful?!? Recuperated? That's how a senior County staffer views us and reacts to the diverse public participation surrounding this crucial topic, arguably one of the most important pieces of land use legislation ever to be considered by this County?
Perhaps Shireene prefers the way things were working last autumn, when she appeared to be making decisions out of public view, in conjunction with the Friends and the State, and then simply informing local officials after the fact, including suggesting what is or is not a scientifically defensible approach.
Judge for yourself. What's closer to your definition of "awful"?
____________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Fralick
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:31 PM
To: richpeterson@rockisland.com
Cc: Patty Miller
Subject: RE: What the heck is going on?
Hi Rich,
I received a call from Lovel mid-afternoon today telling me that Paul Adamus threw a monkey wrench into the Planning Commission process on Thursday. She also told me that Shireene was going to schedule a telecom with various players including Janet Alderton some time soon. I told Lovel that I felt the process was spinning out of control and that Janet among others had no business being involved at this point in time. I strongly suggested that the Implementation Team needed to meet ASAP to sort things out, even if it meant meeting Thanksgiving Week. At my insistence we are trying to schedule an Implementation Team Meeting next Monday.
Until your email, I had no idea that the call including Janet had been made as I was not copied on Shireene's email on Saturday. I share your distress and promise that if it is at all within my power we will sort things out if and when we meet next Monday. Please bear with me till then.
Richard Fralick
______________________________
From: richpeterson@rockisland.com [mailto:richpeterson@rockisland.com]
Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 8:24 AM
To: Richard Fralick
Cc: Patty Miller
Subject: What the heck is going on?
I'm sending on a memo Shireene sent to the Planning Commission for your information and to see if either of you have some of the questions I have about this process. Among mine is: What is it about Janet Alderton that gives her special standing enabling her participation in a conference call that ends up changing a staff reccomendation? Rich
From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 1:03 AM
To: Shireene Hale; Lynda Guernsey; Janice Biletnikoff; Amy Vira; barbara thomas; Bob Gamble; Brian Ehrmantraut; Evelyn F Fuchser; John Lackey;john@sanjuanislands.com; Jon Cain; Karin Agosta; Lynda Guernsey; Mike Carlson; steph3339@gmail.com; Susan Dehlendorf
Subject: Update on discussion with scientists
Hello again,
After the Planning Commission hearing we had a conference call that included Dr. Adamus, Erik Stockdale (Ecology), and Janet Alderton. The main purpose of the call was to discuss Dr. Adamus' comments - which came as quite a surprise considering he told us he had reviewed the proposed changes, and he provided comments that were incorporated into the most recent draft. After talking he understood how we got from his prior version of the buffer sizing procedure to the simpler version.
Among other topics of discussion, most if not all of us reached the conclusion that 50% pollutant removal and 15 foot buffers are probably not adequate to protect wetland functions and values from the type of pollutants typically found in residential runoff. For water quality purposes, Dr. Adamus explained that the 15 ft. was based on the removal of coarse sediment (the easiest contaminant to remove) - not the fine sediment and soluable contaminants common in residential runoff. It would have been great to have sorted that out before now - but better now than later.
In addition, I reached the conclusion that part of our problem in dealing with some of the water factors is that there are at least two important variables, slope and amount of impervious area, that both influence whether runoff is above or below ground and that vary independently, resulting in an array of combinations (both low, one high the other low, both high, and everything in between) that are difficult to show in a table format. (Whether runoff is above or below ground makes a difference because pollutant removal is more effective when the water stays below ground). The discussion with the scientists is continuing and I have proposed that we consider switching gears and using a simple equation to determine the necessary width of the water quality portion of the buffer, based on impervious area, slope and the presence (or absence) of a drainageway. The high and low ends of the buffer spectrum would remain the same (except for the 15 ft. buffers) and the buffers would still be based on the Mayer 2007 paper - there would just be a lot more incremental steps in between the small and larger buffers - which seems like a more scientifically defensible approach.
Anyway, I will keep you posted.
Thanks for your patience - this is not an easy task for any of us.
Shireene Hale, EHS
Planning Coordinator/ Deputy Director
San Juan County Community Development & Planning PO Box 947
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:31 PM
To: richpeterson@rockisland.com
Cc: Patty Miller
Subject: RE: What the heck is going on?
Hi Rich,
I received a call from Lovel mid-afternoon today telling me that Paul Adamus threw a monkey wrench into the Planning Commission process on Thursday. She also told me that Shireene was going to schedule a telecom with various players including Janet Alderton some time soon. I told Lovel that I felt the process was spinning out of control and that Janet among others had no business being involved at this point in time. I strongly suggested that the Implementation Team needed to meet ASAP to sort things out, even if it meant meeting Thanksgiving Week. At my insistence we are trying to schedule an Implementation Team Meeting next Monday.
Until your email, I had no idea that the call including Janet had been made as I was not copied on Shireene's email on Saturday. I share your distress and promise that if it is at all within my power we will sort things out if and when we meet next Monday. Please bear with me till then.
Richard Fralick
______________________________
From: richpeterson@rockisland.com [mailto:richpeterson@rockisland.com]
Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 8:24 AM
To: Richard Fralick
Cc: Patty Miller
Subject: What the heck is going on?
I'm sending on a memo Shireene sent to the Planning Commission for your information and to see if either of you have some of the questions I have about this process. Among mine is: What is it about Janet Alderton that gives her special standing enabling her participation in a conference call that ends up changing a staff reccomendation? Rich
From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 1:03 AM
To: Shireene Hale; Lynda Guernsey; Janice Biletnikoff; Amy Vira; barbara thomas; Bob Gamble; Brian Ehrmantraut; Evelyn F Fuchser; John Lackey;john@sanjuanislands.com; Jon Cain; Karin Agosta; Lynda Guernsey; Mike Carlson; steph3339@gmail.com; Susan Dehlendorf
Subject: Update on discussion with scientists
Hello again,
After the Planning Commission hearing we had a conference call that included Dr. Adamus, Erik Stockdale (Ecology), and Janet Alderton. The main purpose of the call was to discuss Dr. Adamus' comments - which came as quite a surprise considering he told us he had reviewed the proposed changes, and he provided comments that were incorporated into the most recent draft. After talking he understood how we got from his prior version of the buffer sizing procedure to the simpler version.
Among other topics of discussion, most if not all of us reached the conclusion that 50% pollutant removal and 15 foot buffers are probably not adequate to protect wetland functions and values from the type of pollutants typically found in residential runoff. For water quality purposes, Dr. Adamus explained that the 15 ft. was based on the removal of coarse sediment (the easiest contaminant to remove) - not the fine sediment and soluable contaminants common in residential runoff. It would have been great to have sorted that out before now - but better now than later.
In addition, I reached the conclusion that part of our problem in dealing with some of the water factors is that there are at least two important variables, slope and amount of impervious area, that both influence whether runoff is above or below ground and that vary independently, resulting in an array of combinations (both low, one high the other low, both high, and everything in between) that are difficult to show in a table format. (Whether runoff is above or below ground makes a difference because pollutant removal is more effective when the water stays below ground). The discussion with the scientists is continuing and I have proposed that we consider switching gears and using a simple equation to determine the necessary width of the water quality portion of the buffer, based on impervious area, slope and the presence (or absence) of a drainageway. The high and low ends of the buffer spectrum would remain the same (except for the 15 ft. buffers) and the buffers would still be based on the Mayer 2007 paper - there would just be a lot more incremental steps in between the small and larger buffers - which seems like a more scientifically defensible approach.
Anyway, I will keep you posted.
Thanks for your patience - this is not an easy task for any of us.
Shireene Hale, EHS
Planning Coordinator/ Deputy Director
San Juan County Community Development & Planning PO Box 947
Monday, March 19, 2012
Lovel 9000? Thank You Again For Your Email!
Compare the replies below that were received by Deborah Strasser, whose comments to the Council were posted here a few days ago. Also, bear in mind that Lovel was reportedly very pleased with the Planning Commission's relatively minor changes to the much criticized wetlands CAO draft.
One of the readers of this blog mentioned to me that corresponding with Ecology, the Council, County staff, and the Planning Commission seems like a conversation with HAL, the primary antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
When hardly anyone in government really seems to "get it" regarding the good points raised by citizens, the comparison doesn't seem far off. Sometimes, I almost expect to hear, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. This mission is far too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
Judge for yourself. Are we all stuck in the pod? Or, maybe we should take a stress pill and think things over.
_____________________________________________________________
One of the readers of this blog mentioned to me that corresponding with Ecology, the Council, County staff, and the Planning Commission seems like a conversation with HAL, the primary antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
When hardly anyone in government really seems to "get it" regarding the good points raised by citizens, the comparison doesn't seem far off. Sometimes, I almost expect to hear, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. This mission is far too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
Judge for yourself. Are we all stuck in the pod? Or, maybe we should take a stress pill and think things over.
_____________________________________________________________
Hi Debbie,
Thank you for your email to the Council on the CAO update – and thank you for taking the time to attend and watch meetings and read the comments and letters.
I will give you my responses to your concerns and I would also be happy to meet and talk further with you about this.
1. Dr. Adamus is a highly qualified wetland scientist and wildlife biologist. He was hired by SJC – at the urging of citizens and groups such as the Common Sense Alliance – to prepare a new countywide wetlands map using recent aerial imagery, LiDAR topographic imagery, the new soils map and the earlier wetland maps. Dr. Adamus has not conducted any nitrogen studies or other studies in SJC. I think you may be referring to studies that are included in the Best Available Science Synthesis (adopted in May 2011).
2. It was actually Councilmember Miller who identified language in the January 24, 2012 draft of the General Section of the CAO update included language that could be interpreted to require review of even small excavation and vegetation removal projects. The Council unanimously clarified on February 28th that prior to the CAO update adoption the Council will review and revise this section to ensure that it does not impose unnecessary requirements for activities that do not otherwise require a permit or review.
Agricultural activities in critical areas are being addressed in both the CAO update and through the Voluntary Stewardship Program. I would be happy to answer any questions and/or talk with you more about this component of the CAO update process.
FYI here is a link to the FAQs: http://www.sanjuanco.com/cao/cao_faqs.aspx
I think it is important to understand the state laws that required the adoption of the current CAO in 1991 and that require the current update process. I know that the CAO update is extremely difficult and frustrating for all involved and I hope that we can work through the update process with open and civil communications. We are all – whether county residents or planning commissioners or councilmembers or county staff or property owners or property owner rights advocates or environmental rights advocates – engaged in this process with the best interests of our community as our focus. With open and civil communication we can better understand the differences in our perspectives and better work towards the adoption of the CAO update. I am doing my best to find a balance that makes sense for our community within the state’s CAO requirements.
I really appreciate the perspective and insights you bring to this process as a life-long resident of SJI. I am especially interested in any of your specific suggestions for changes to the draft Wetlands Section as the Council will soon be considering that.
Thank you again for your email!
Lovel
Lovel Pratt
San Juan County Council, District 1
Office: 55 Second St. N., 1st floor
Phone: 360-370-7473
Mail: 350 Court Street, No. 1, Friday Harbor, WA 98250
__________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Strasser:
Thank you for your email regarding the CAO update. It's good to have responses from you and all of the other citizens who have become very involved in this process. I share many of the concerns you expressed and hope that before we are through with this effort that we will revisit the main task before us which is to review our existing regulations and, if there is compelling reason to modify any of them, to proceed accordingly. We will need to keep in mind the Growth Management Act Planning Goals and those from our Comprehensive Plan which should provide guidance and balance to the ultimate outcome.
I, too, have become concerned about the accuracy and conclusions drawn from the Best Available Science (BAS), that would be the basis for the major changes recommended to our existing regulations. I also believe that some of the recommended changes have nothing to do with BAS, and are, rather, policy decisions that could become very destructive to our local economy and well-being.
While I believe that all of the parties involved are making a sincere effort, so far the results, in my mind, have been excessive, very complicated, and unnecessarily restrictive. I hope, as this process proceeds, that you will stay involved and provide your views on the individual elements that we will be discussing as we near the final stage of this process.
I would be happy to talk with you about any of your concerns about the CAO update.
Sincerely,
Rich Peterson, 2nd District County Council Member
Saturday, February 18, 2012
When the consultants like it ...
At Rich Peterson's constituency meeting at Roche Harbor today, Pete Rose made some comments about the Draft Wetlands CAO. He thanked the Group of Technical of Experts who had helped to draft this version, and he reported that Dr. Adamus, the County's wetland consulting scientist, feels it may be the best Wetlands CAO in the State. That should give you pause.
There will be future postings here to elaborate on the Wetlands CAO, but the fact that wetlands consultants like the draft is not a particularly good indicator for the average homeowner.
For more information on the actors in the CAO drama, please refer to the tab marked "Central Casting" for brief explanations of the participants. More to follow later.
There will be future postings here to elaborate on the Wetlands CAO, but the fact that wetlands consultants like the draft is not a particularly good indicator for the average homeowner.
For more information on the actors in the CAO drama, please refer to the tab marked "Central Casting" for brief explanations of the participants. More to follow later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)