|
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide |
            
        
|
| ||||||||
LETTERS ABOUT SAN JUAN ISLAND SOLID WASTE |
|
Email this page to a friend Related stories |
Letters from Claudia Mills regarding San Juan Island Transfer FacilityDear Editor, posted 12/16/03
Planning for a new solid waste facility has been a sordid and expensive tale, beginning with the county receiving a $436,000 grant to make a new state-of-the art model facility. $30,000 was paid to a Seattle firm for planning the facility on the site of the old dump in 2002. Another $30,000 was spent for replanning the facility on a different 6-acre parcel created out of Agricultural Resource lands adjacent to the Town parcel in 2003. On November 18, 2003, 2/3 of the BOCC (Miller opposed) approved another $29,010 for further site planning. One-fifth of the grant money has now been spent on planning, with nothing yet on the ground. The cost of the new facility has been estimated at $1.1 to $1.6 million (but is, amazingly, still unknown at this late date). My calculator predicts that the grant (which recently received yet another "final extension", this time until June 2004) presently stands at about $347,000, less any other expenses already charged to it. A Conditional Use Permit was issued this summer for the "new" site, was appealed, and then upheld by a Hearing Examiner's decision on Sept. 4, 2003. The CUP had a list of conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner, who otherwise refused to acknowledge that the permit application was never complete by the very explicit rules of the San Juan County code - it did not include many required features, including a source of water and fire protection, a DOE-compliant stormwater drainage plan and several other things. I next appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the Board of County Commissioners, who voted 2:1 November 10, 2003 to uphold the Hearing Examiner. Some of this is explained in my two earlier letters to the editor about this project which are stored at the bottom of this page. In opposing the Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Rhea Miller stated at the November 10 hearing, "I am so embarrassed by this application, I can hardly stand it. I'm a person who has to walk my talk. And I'm a person that's been advocating and talking in the county about low impact development for some time. And it's beyond me how we can pay our consultants $30,000 twice and come up with a design that doesn't take into account low impact development, doesn't take into account water or septic, drainage for Phase I is barely there, perhaps not there, no drainage for Phase II, there's no fire protection. I kept reading this report going, how did we get here? How did this happen? I love the Trash to Treasure Project." Commissioner and ex-planner Darcie Nielsen, saw things rather differently, having read my 19 page appeal comment, voted to uphold the permit concluding "If the application weren't complete, I don't think the Permit Center should have received it." She earlier had said "I think the process is in place to mitigate the issues that you've (Mills) raised." Commissioner John Evans at one point in the hearing petulantly stated "I didn't come here to do the wrong thing," and later began (re)designing from the podium a cheaper, seat-of-the pants, water quality monitoring system for the entire project. He then voted to uphold the permit, whose application clearly lacked a number of features required by county law, including most conspicuously a source of water and fire protection, with no solution in sight. Nielsen and Evans voted the following week to spend the next $29,010 on further planning (which does not appear to include a source of water), with Miller opposed. The Planning Department, who is in charge of deciding whether or not the applications are complete before accepting them, was unaware of this further expenditure until I brought it to their attention last week. I am so disgusted by the county at all levels, that I filed a Land Use Petition Appeal (LUPA) lawsuit over this project in late November 2003, to have a judge sort out issues including whether or not it is legal to put this facility on land designated Agricultural Resource. Outcomes of that appeal could be that the entire project is legal where it is proposed, that none of the project is legal where it is proposed, or that some, but not the Builder's Exchange (a retail store) is legal at that location. Regardless that the site choice is being appealed in court, Public Works chose, without a clearing and grading permit, to begin clearing and grading on December 10, 2003. This decision was made with full knowledge of the Prosecuting Attorney's office and the Board of County Commissioners. In an email exchange between Francine Shaw, county planner, and Randy Gaylord, Prosecuting Attorney, on December 5, Ms. Shaw expressed concern that it is risky to begin site development when the conditional use permit is under appeal and could be overturned. She asked Mr. Gaylord "Why put tax dollars into a development that we very well know is questionable and could be overturned?" Mr. Gaylord replied, also on December 5, by email "Jon Shannon and the Board of County Commissioners will decide what to do", calling this a "policy decision" best left to those who get paid to make such decisions, and promised to forward her concerns. On December 11, 2003, my lawyers Peter Eglick and Mike Witek, sent a letter to the Prosecuting Attorney's office about the illegal clearing and grading, pointing out that "Compliance with the UDC and the Hearing Examiner's decision are not optional matters of policy." When asked if he would go and stop work and/or make an arrest for clearing without a permit on December 12, San Juan County Sheriff Bill Cumming said that he would not, although code 18.100.030 authorizes him to enforce provisions of the UDC. The County Code Enforcement officer does not work Fridays, so was not available. The day after they started clearing adjacent to the entrance of the old solid waste facility, Public Works was asking the county planners "What is a Restoration Plan?" It seems this is only one of many questions that should have been asked long ago. A Restoration Landscape Plan was ordered by the Hearing Examiner on September 4, 2003 to be in place "before any landmoving activity begins on site." This should have stopped work on Dec. 10 , shortly after it was begun (if not during the email conversation on Dec. 5), but because no one from Public Works, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, the BOCC, or the Planning Department, thought to review the Hearing Examiner's conditions, the work proceeded. Public Works asked the Planning Dept. why they needed a restoration landscaping plan since they would not be damaging any vegetation not scheduled to be removed in the carefully drawn plans (which are however subject to $29,010 of modification including "site entrance locations, and site layout configurations to … find an acceptable fit in the small site" as of the Nov. 18, 2003 contract). The excavator operator told me that he was making a 12-foot' driveway. His supervisors including Jon Shannon were at the site both Dec. 10 and 12, consulting (apparently outdated according to the above contract-) maps and plans. Nevertheless, the cleared driveway as of Dec. 13 stands at 35' wide in places, with debris piled another 25' into the woods. That's why they need a restoration plan, even if they had a permit for the work done last week. The amount of money that we are paying civil servants to knowingly violate the law on this one is shocking: Jon Shannon draws $76,980 as Director of Public Works, Randy Gaylord draws $92,210 as Prosecuting Attorney, John Evans and Darcie Nielsen each draw $64,160 per year; ~22% benefits come on top of these salaries. Where are the Friends of the San Juans, who according to their end-of-the year letter have been "pressing the County to uphold existing regulations that protect the rural character of our islands", but who have been uninterested up to now even to learn about the San Juan Island solid waste site fiasco? It should not have come down to the private pocketbook of one citizen to make the county follow its own code. I've been asked if I have lost friends over this. Why should I lose friends? - I've just been trying to get the county to play by their own rules by exercising every citizen's right to comment and appeal - I should be making allies of all the people who the Planning Department has told to hold off until "it is done right." The ones who should be losing friends over this are the arrogant, cynical and irreverent "public servants" who are willing to do anything for the money including the clearing and grading fiasco of last week and this week - Jon Shannon, John Evans, Darcie Nielsen and Randy Gaylord. The only one who has been forced to follow county law during this entire sordid affair has been me. When is it time to go from to eyes rolling, to heads rolling? Claudia Mills Dear Editor, posted 10/01/03 In my view, the problems with this project go far beyond the unfortunate visual effects near my home. I was encouraged by a radio program that played while I was working on my appeal, in which the general and ongoing degradation of Puget Sound waters was being discussed. The Technical/Science Program Manager for the Puget Sound Action Team commented that most people think only about their own properties, but that "we need them to think bigger." If San Juan County isn't going to think beyond their own property boundaries on a new Solid Waste Facility supported by a large grant of federal money, who is? Many of the issues that drove my appeal are environmental and point out that the county did not consider any environmental effects off the boundaries of the parcel that they created specifically to site this project. I appealed the project on nine grounds. I will simplify the issues here to get some of the basic ideas across without the gory details. The application on which the permits rely has never been complete. It lacks several of the features required by (San Juan County) law, including water and fire protection. In fact selection of this site included the assumption that (town) water was available, which has proved not to be true. None of the rest of us is allowed to proceed until our application is complete. My conversation with the BOCC on this point began during Citizen's Access Time on July 8, 2003, when I asked how they could go ahead and issue a Determination of Nonsignificance to this project, since the application was incomplete. I was told that they were discussing it - they issued the DNS on July 15 to the incomplete application. If the county loses their grant for this project, another interpretation might be because they thought that they were above their own rules and didn't bother to complete their application before permitting the project. A lot of the importance of the Hearing Examiner's decision in this case rests on the siting of an "essential public facility" on land otherwise not zoned for this use. The implications will reach out into the barge landing site process throughout the county. In my appeal, I went through the very precise UDC (county law) definitions of "essential public facility", "solid waste transfer station" and "recycling center". It seems pretty clear to me that the Trash to Treasures project with its Builders Exchange and Thrift Store, does not qualify as an essential public facility and therefore should not be placed at the Sutton Road site. As far as I can tell, the Solid Waster Advisory Committee has always considered the solid waste transfer station to be an appropriate site for this Builders Exchange, but features of the project that seem by the UDC "Definitions" to be specifically forbidden on this site which was converted from Agricultural Resource Land include retail sales and services, warehouse facilities, unnamed commercial uses, fuel storage facilities, construction yards, heavy and light industrial uses, outdoor storage yard, salvage yard, and unnamed industrial uses. The BOCC Resolution in April 2003 that selected the Sundstrom Parcel designated "that location as an essential public facility for solid waste collection and transfer on San Juan Island." Not for a builders exchange (Trash to Treasures project). As I stated above, the Trash to Treasures application is incomplete in that it lacks water, fire protection, sewer, and adequate drainage to meet State requirements. I am not quite sure how I realized at 3 am one night while writing this appeal, that the old Browne Lumber site in fact has everything that the project needs, including these critical features. Yes, I have appealed the process, possibly costing the county their $423,000 Trash to Treasures grant, but I have also suggested a solution that has many features that the Sundstrom site lacks, including all utilities, no new environmental damage, and being legal. There is still time to work on an "old Browne Lumber site" solution and keep the grant. Finally, I appealed on a number of environmental grounds. This parcel is probably the only one in the state bridging a retired landfill and an enormous wetland that runs very shortly into marine waters. In not thinking beyond the boundaries of the project, the county accurately checked a box on the application that there were no wetlands on this property. They then failed ever again to address possible wetland-related issues including pollution. The drainage plan submitted in support of the application, which will protect (or not) this wetland, quite frankly states: "The stormwater treatment and runoff control facilities have been sized to accommodate only the Phase I development. Additional stormwater treatment and runoff control facilities or an expansion of the Phase I facilities will be required for Phase 2." Yet the permit was issued for both Phase I and Phase 2. The Hearing Examiner's decision in fact does state that "The storm drainage for the project shall comply with the DOE Stormwater Drainage Manual." It is my understanding from reading all materials submitted with the application that this "Conclusion" has not been met (the designing engineer did not return my phone call), and thus it may be inadequate drainage on an unsuitable site, and not my appeal, that loses the county its grant. I appealed the fact that Public Works is now allowed to police themselves on whether or not the drainage plan is adequate, since their original submission seems disingenuous. Neighborhood negotiations and information meetings about this project have been conducted nearly exclusively with people living on the Hillview Terrace side of the parcel, which is the most affected by the present solid waste and recycling facility location, and not with the homeowners who will drive daily in and out Sutton Road experiencing the new industrial view on a parcel not large enough to provide full natural screening. As it turns out, Hillview Terrace residents use Town water, but all homes off Sutton Road use wells, most of which are located within about 1000 feet of the Sundstrom Parcel. The county (and the Hearing Examiner) have chosen not to consider possible issues of deepwater well recharge or groundwater contamination that might result from changes of runoff patterns caused by four more acres of impervious surface in the neighborhood. The Geotechnical Engineering Report submitted in support of the Trash to Treasures Project specifically states at the end: "The scope of our services for this report did not include any environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or below or around the site." It seems that the engineers, if not the county, realized the shortcomings of their study. Claudia Mills Dear Editor, posted 07/21/03 I am all for recycling trash as well as unused construction materials and yes, we need a better laid out garbage facility on San Juan Island, with a driving pattern that works well for its customers. But I say no to clearing a new space exactly beside the old dump, starting all over again only a few feet away. We already have a heavily impacted, industrialized site dedicated to waste management, and with little additional destruction of the natural landscape, and a lot of cooperation between our friends in authority at both the town and county levels, a better plan could be masterminded in the old space, using perhaps a little of the new parcel to make it really good, while at the same time well-screened from view. There is a lot of talk in the air these days about sustainability and low-impact development. It was such ideas that got the county their grant for this so-called model facility in the first place. This is not a low-impact project -- please begin the recycling aspect of this project at its core and recycle the old dump site into a new and better one. The county is operating under a Dec. 2003 deadline to use the $500,000 grant for their Trash to Treasures project. However, the project now on paper is likely to cost twice, if not three times, the amount of the money available for it. So far no one is talking about how much extra money will be needed or where it will come from, yet the deadline looms. And finally, use of the 6+-acre agricultural/rural parcel along Sutton Road for the new facility will cause the county to make its first zoning condemnation for an "essential service", of a parcel whose fate would have seemed already sealed by the past 10 years of endlessly-debated community-endorsed GMA planning. Handling of garbage is certainly an essential service, but putting a bigger better new site next to, but not using, the old site because the county and city can't get along is not what I would have hoped for the wave of the future. Although the application for Determination of Nonsignificance was not complete as of July 14, the comment period has been advertised to end July 15 and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 15. In moving rapidly to meet these deadlines, one day before scheduled closure of the comment period the application still lacked the necessary plans for water, fire protection, sewage and gray-water treatment. I hope that the paper will run an article including the full plans in time for the public to get informed. Once the clearing, cutting ,and filling begins it will be too late - the county is embarking on a "paved paradise, put up a parking lot" venture that is unnecessarily redundant, and distinctly not in the vein of sustainable reuse of resources (land) under which it is touting the project. Claudia Mills |
||
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2010 |
|||