RESPONSE TO STORIES

Related pages

GUEST COLUMN: Shoreline Stewardship Ethic in San Juan County? by Tina Whitman

COUNTY WEB SITE

Critical Areas Ordinance: Separating fact from fear

Sometimes a Dead Fish is Just a Dead Fish

I wanted to offer a few thoughts about Mike Kaill's letter regarding Dead Canaries and the CAO:

1. He and I are in agreement in our mutual suspicion that whatever problems exist in the County are related to places like the Spring Street outfall. Generally, I believe that environmental problems are mostly associated with urbanization, and for San Juan County, that means the UGAs. That is a testable hypothesis.

2. Despite #1, his observations about deaths in the aquarium are not proper toxicological studies. There is a very well accepted way of quantifying the risks associated with chemicals and linking cause to effect. It is called an ecological risk assessment. I would strongly support a proper ecological risk assessment for the suspect problem areas.

3. He mentions "San Juan County's uniquely thin soils" which is a direct contradiction to the claims in the CAO on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA), which said that we are permeable everywhere and an aquifer everywhere. If Dr. Kaill believes that we have thin impermeable soils, then I would like to see him support a major revision to the CARA (as I do).

4. Many of the other fears that he mentions such as "silt from homes … will be surfactant loaded" are testable too and the effects quantifiable via (without trying to be repetitive) an ecological risk assessment. He says he has seen contaminated places on the west side. That is a great place to start a scientific analysis.

On a related note, I have heard other citizens support enlarged buffers for other reasons. For instance, I have heard Mary Knackstedt raise the question, "How can you not come to the conclusion that if a community is on the same trajectory [to become urbanized like Seattle] that, given time and population increase, they won't arrive at the same place?" That is a very different concern from Dr. Kaill's. Mike Kaill is saying that the problem is now. Mary Knackstedt is saying that the problem is the future.

We need to be aware of that distinction. The "problem" has temporal components: now and the future. We need to be aware, when people speak, whether they are expressing a concern about current problems or anticipated future problems. They have different solutions, and importantly, unlike Dr. Kaill's claims, the future is not a testable hypothesis.

If the problem is the future, then there is absolutely no need to place greater restrictions on current homes and development. There would be no non-conforming uses. One could argue that if the problem is the future, the burden of increased environmental protection might have to fall entirely on new homes/development and to an increasing degree as problems arose.

If the problem is now, then we should address those problems, but it is important to clearly identify them (via an ecological risk assessment) so the right solution can be developed. For instance, fifty years ago eagle populations crashed here and around the country because of DDT, and it was important to identify DDT as the culprit and not some other chemical. The right solution depends on identifying the right problem.

That brings me to my last point. I have heard buffers proposed as a solution to everything from toxicology to population control. Mentioning the word "buffer" is like giving someone an ink blot test. The response says a lot about the psychology of the participant.

And that is why we need to establish a genuinely supportable nexus between problem and solution. We need to take alarming claims out of the realm of psychology and fear, and establish a framework to rationally answer the questions that are posed.

Ed Kilduff

Kaill responds to Penwell

Dear Editor,

posted 01/25/2010
I ask that corrections/clarifications be made to the personal comments made about me by Frank Penwell in his recent letter, as follows:

1. The Friends of the San Juans did not endorse my letter, nor did I mention them in that letter. However, I'm happy to acknowledge my status as a Friend.

2. Surfactants are harmful to tissues that selectively pass certain types of molecules, such as gills, kidneys, and some biological membranes. There are many types of commercial surfactants. I believe all of them are harmful to marine animals.

3. The surfactant example I used was a connect-the-dots exercise to show that if we are killing animals with pollution right in front of our nose (Memorial Park), we are probably doing so in any number of other areas. If we continue the way we are going, surfactants will be the least of our troubles. Research supporting this is on file with San Juan County.

Mike Kaill

Response to Mike Kaill's Letter: Dead Canaries and the CAO

Dear Editor,

posted 01/19/2010
Recently Mike Kaill, President of the Friends of San Juan submitted a letter suggesting that the presence of surfactants in stormwater and other runoff is a justification for what he considers to be appropriate setbacks from the shoreline for development on shoreline properties.

Surfactants, or more properly, surface active agents, are substances that reduce the surface tension of liquids. This reduction in surface tension allows the liquid to spread out, rather than collecting in droplets. There are thousands of surfactants used for this purpose throughout the product lines of thousands of manufacturers. Some of these do have adverse impacts on marine life, and there is an argument to be made for controlling the release of those into marine environments. However, this does not translate into a valid argument for a one-size-fits-all system of buffers and setbacks for the use and enjoyment of private property.

Detergents contain surfactants, but are not surfactants in and of themselves. In some jurisdictions, certain surfactants have been banned for use in detergents. In order for those detergents to be useful for cleaning, though, the banned surfactants have to be replaced by others. Mike's concern over surfactants in lawn chemicals, such as fertilizers, is noted, and he might wish to lead the Friends of the San Juans in actively supporting Senate Bill 6289, Protecting lake water quality by reducing phosphorous from lawn fertilizers, currently before the Washington State Legislature. It's a bill most of us can get behind and support.

While some surfactants are long-lived in the environment, many others are not. While some can "lock" onto particles in sediment, many others do not. While some can harm fish gills, many others do not. While some are toxic, many others are benign . . . in fact there are many naturally-occurring surfactants that are absolutely critical to the biological processes of all living things.

Mr. Kaill's use of the presence of product-residual surfactants in the marine environment as justification for wide separation between human activity and the shore is alarmist in nature and inappropriate as a basis for prescriptive regulation. CAPR, its members, and other concerned citizens are not acting out of "ignorance"or "stubbornness"in advocating for the application of the common sense test in our regulatory processes. We firmly believe that any regulatory restrictions on the use and enjoyment of property be based on the very best science possible, and we are not convinced that all of the science being used as justification for the provisions of San Juan County's upcoming CAO and SMP meet that criterion.

In contrast to Mike's assertion that, "We don't need a peer-reviewed study . . . ", we believe that every study, synthesis, and assessment used to support and justify the provisions of these programs must be subjected to independent and rigorous peer review. There's a lot to be said for the concept of "Trust, but verify." As citizens, we deserve the full validation of the science used to drive restrictions of our activities. Independent peer review is something that our scientists should welcome, not fear.

I agree with Mike that there are many chemicals getting into our stormwater as a result of the way they are used by some. It's something we should look at as a community. Surely we can come up with ways to work on these issues without acrimony.

Recent Nobel Prize winner Dr. Elinor Ostrom was awarded her prize for her work on the commons. Her findings are that the users of natural resources are far better stewards of those resources than government. I agree with her and I fervently believe that property owners love their property and will do whatever it takes to properly maintain it and protect it for their children's use. If we are educated on which surfactants are dangerous to our marine life, we can voluntarily take the necessary steps to keep those substances out of the marine environment.

I am encouraged by the research that indicates that we are continually making progress in cleaning up our water bodies. It's something that often seems to get lost amidst the "sky is falling" rhetoric. CAPR looks forward to producing boots on the ground conservation actions that make a real difference without taking the right to use and enjoy property from our citizens. Please join us for our monthly educational presentations.

Sincerely,

Frank M. Penwell

Dead Canaries and the CAO

Dear Editor,

posted 01/17/2010
In a talk with a leader of the CAPR (Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights) it was suggested that I stick to facts, and not philosophy. That is advice that I will take in this letter. I am arguing in favor of leaving as much protection as possible between households and the shoreline. Certainly more than is suggested by CAPR. The reference to "canaries" refers to the canary that dies in an unsafe mine, providing a warning signal. Animals dying in the Spring Street Aquarium may be offering a similar warning. Here are some facts:

1. "Canaries" are dying in the Spring Street Aquarium. The latest one, a flounder, was last week. Any fish that does not have a swim bladder to keep it off the bottom will die. In the last year we have lost this and another flounder, a greenling, and a sailfin sculpin. Now there are no bottom-fish. There are several species of anemone that cannot now survive. On the other hand, there is a lined perch (stays off the bottom) in the aquarium that I captured when the aquarium was first started, about 10 years ago.
   
   
2. Detergents (surfactants) are polluting stormwater from the Spring St. stormwater outfall. Surfactants from stormwater lock onto silt. Silt settles out in low current areas, like the aquarium and the bottom of Friday Harbor.
   
   
3. Surfactants harm sensitive surfaces of marine animals, like gills. Our testing of both the aquarium and Friday Harbor show high toxicity for surfactants. Our tests are confirmed by Town of Friday Harbor tests, and lethal doses are established by certified labs.
   
   
4. High concentrations of surfactants exist in many household products: Weed and Feed, rose spray, herbicides, deer repellent, and more. We are currently evaluating samples of these from local shops.
   
   
5. There are no barriers or controls for the use of these products maintain a smooth, green lawn.
   
   
6. San Juan County has uniquely thin soils, with a minimum of soil microbes. Surfactants traveling over and through these soils do not "naturally" break down.

We don't need a peer-reviewed study to add up these points. Households near the shore in critical areas will put surfactants, in some amount, into marine waters. I have artificially restricted this argument to surfactants. A lot of other harmful chemicals are put in stormwater and ground water by households - that's a problem for another time.

Currents along the shore are high - unless they are not. There are eddies, caves, any number of nooks and crannies that have low or negligible current. In those places, if silt is around, it will accumulate.

Silt from homes near critical shores, especially with crumbling banks, will be surfactant-loaded. Can we (do we want to?) tell these home-owners they are not allowed to have a large lawn, chemically fertilized and weeded? I don't think so. But, in this situation, there will be surfactant/silt, and poisonous places where there is no current. I have seen these places diving on the west side. Appropriate set backs will allow natural treatment.

If these safe margins are not enacted and enforced, homes will ever after pollute the near-shore. Can we all just slow down for a minute, and compromise?

I don't like writing letters like this. I'm supposed to be retired. But I love the ocean, and as long as I can, I'll be puttering on the docks, tide pools, boating and SCUBA-diving. It makes me sad to see all that we are losing (why did we come here?) through ignorance and stubbornness.

Mike Kaill
Friday Harbor

Response to Existing single-family homes 'grandfathered' under state shoreline laws

Dear Editor,

posted 01/15/2010
Apparently Gordon White of DoE finally received word that he should use "grandfathered"when describing the impact of shoreline management and critical areas ordinance proposals; it apparently sounds less threatening to us bumpkin islanders.

Mr. White's revised comments can now be paraphrased as "We're from the government, we're here to help you;" "trust us, we know better than you;" "don't worry, we never make mistakes or do anything inconsistent with the law;" and "see, it's just GRANDFATHERED, nothing to worry about here." Nothing that Mr. White says changes the legal impact or burden of the nonconforming use status that would be imposed upon shoreline and other parcels affected by the various pending proposals (not just shorelines or wetlands--slope areas are affected, as are habitat for protected and any other species that County decides to designate--the marbled murrulet, the Garry oak, the Island Marble butterfly).

Rather than being comforted by Mr. White's pronouncements, County property owners should do their own research: read the CAO proposals on the County website; look at the County maps talk to lawyer; visit concerned citizens sites (Common Sense Alliance, CAPR-San Juans).

Peg Manning
Orcas

Response to Truth about 'non-conforming' shoreline structures

Dear Mr. White,

I am writing in response to the above-referenced paper authored by you, which I understand has been disseminated throughout the State of Washington. Stephanie Johnson O'Day, a local land use attorney, gave copies to me.

Stephanie said she was personally contacted by Erik Stockdale of DOE with a request these copies be handed out at a recent Coldwell Banker Seminar about CAO/SMP. It was interesting to note that the letter and request for its distribution were made available shortly before the start of the Seminar.

I must say that your letter offends me. You seem to be concerned about CSA referring to the now well-known power point presentation: Non-Conforming Uses and Structures presented by Betty Renkor Oct. 25, 2007. Specially, you made some very judgmental and disingenuous statements about the real facts that we have brought to public attention.

Statements like: "don't be misled," "important facts are being inaccurately portrayed," "unfortunately a rumor is getting legs," and "pretty scary stuff but it's simply not true," are not helpful to our community which is trying hard to understand the impacts of proposed regulations and the DOE's role in the whole process.

So far, we have seen no official retraction by your office of the statements made in Ms. Renkor's presentation. These comments may only serve to make those within the DOE feel better. Otherwise, these types of comments are useless and truly wrong.

For your information, many folks here in San Juan County do not have to be educated about the meaning of "non-conforming use." We already know how it works. In spite of what you are referring to as rumors, which you claim "are alarmist," the law is pretty clear (WAC 173-27-080) on non-conforming uses.

The most important point that you fail to acknowledge, in reference to non-conforming use, is the dramatic increase of non-conforming uses on properties that will result from, as you say, "modernizing Shoreline Master Plans and CAOs."

I strongly believe that the majority of landowners in San Juan County have accepted the current non-conforming status rules currently in use. However, proposed new "non-conforming" restrictions to be placed on their home sites are over-reaching and not supported by relevant science. That is why we, and other groups like ours, believe it is important to educate as many citizens as possible about the consequences of non-conforming status and what this status has historically meant with regard to future restrictions on their property.

I hereby request that you and DOE disclose the real consequences of "non-conforming status" to every community that is and will be "modernizing" their SMP/CAO regulations within the State of Such disclosure should be done in a presentation that could be posted on the San Juan County and DOE websites as an integral part of the CAO/SMP modernization processes.

Within the presentation, DOE should specify common protocol and requirements for developing within a designated, non-conforming property such as: conditional use and/or variance permits, required public notices, additional studies, technical reports, and costs associated with such.

While I understand how you are defensive about information that many groups and citizens are posting on websites, mailers and other means of communication, I stand by the fact that we are currently educating our neighbors about our observations of the actions, public statements, comment letters and policies that are promulgated by the DOE, San Juan County, Washington State and Federal agencies. The truth is, the Common Sense Alliance has, and is, striving to post accurate and honest information about the issues surrounding COA/SMP updating processes.

Unless you can specifically point to where we have erred, we would like an apology and/or clarification from you for what you posted December 17, 2009, on the DOE blog and was reported online on one of our local newspapers, The San Juan Islander (www.sanjuanislander.com).

Michael W. Carlson
Chairman, Common Sense Alliance

Response to Truth about 'non-conforming' shoreline structures

Dear Editor,

posted 12/22/2009
I'm writing in response to Gordon White's piece complaining about "emotion" and "rumors" in connection with several pending proposals to substantially restrict the future use of property owned by citizens in San Juan County. Mr. White's comments can be paraphrased as "We've from the government, we're here to help you;" "trust us, we know better than you;" and "don't worry, we never make mistakes or do anything inconsistent with the law."

Mr. White seems genuinely annoyed that a number of citizen groups have undertaken to discuss and challenge aspects of the proposals in question. At the risk of further annoying Mr. White, I suggest that anyone who is interested in obtaining more information than Mr. White's self-serving public relations screed provides should review (1) which properties are likely to become "nonconforming uses"under the proposed new rules, and (2) what DOE has itself acknowledged as the consequences of that change in status--as set forth in DoE's own "nonconforming use"presentation and confirmed as recently as September 2009. I've found the information posted on websites of the Common Sense Alliance, www.commonsensealliance.net and the Citizens Alliance for the Protection of Property Rights, www.capr-sanjuan.org particularly helpful; they provide a perspective different from that of Ecology and the myriad other state and federal agencies and NGOs seeking to determine the future of the San Juan Islands.

If you own property in the County, or hope someday to do so, you should read the proposed Critical Area Ordinance, sooner rather than later. sanjuanco.com/cdp/.

Peg Manning
Orcas

CAO It Could Happen To You

Dear Editor,

posted 11/14/2009
I, like many San Juan County residents, did not really understand the detrimental impact for all property owners if the currently drafted Critical Area Ordinance is, in fact, implemented by our county government. However, I have recently attended several meetings regarding this issue and have learned some very disturbing facts about this proposal that eventually could affect most all property owners in the county.

We have been full time residents of San Juan County for approximately 10 years and have owned our waterfront property for more than 18 years. When we built our home here we provided all of the required documents to county officials including site and construction plans for approval. We received our building permit, paid our fees to the county and passed all appropriated inspections. In short, we complied with all of the county's regulations and approval processes in building our retirement home here on San Juan Island. In addition, we have paid our fair share of property taxes to the county, which I believe to be quite substantial.

Now, it is my understanding that our property like many others in the county could actually be classified as non-conforming if the proposed ordinance is passed. This could very well result in a significant financial impact should we or you ever need to sell, build or rebuild a structure on your property. All because of some so called "Best Available Science" that has not been tested via peer review or determined to be appropriate for this area. There are numerous experts that do not agree these proposed buffers are either appropriate or reasonable.

If you believe that you will not be affected by the implementation of this ordinance as currently proposed then I would encourage you to checkout the Common Sense Alliance website as soon as possible at www.commonsensealliance.net. Then contact your County Council Representative and let them know how you feel about the current proposal that could result in reduced property values and impairment of your civil rights.

Jim Pound

Questions council's decision to delay shoreline update

Letter to the editor:

posted 10/12/2009
Our County can protect shoreline critical areas now, and update our Shoreline Master Program. The State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) allows counties to move forward with protection for shoreline critical areas as a segment of our Shoreline Management Program update. The Department of Ecology has told San Juan County that we may do a shoreline critical area segment concurrently with the upland CAO update.

The Council's decision to dismiss shoreline protections until the 2012 Shoreline Master Program Update leaves people and property unprotected and exposed to hazards. Procrastination leaves fish, wildlife and wetlands with inadequate protections; and may cost us qualification in the national flood insurance program.

This is totally unacceptable.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has told our county that if the we wish to qualify for National Flood Insurance Program for all of our citizens, we are required to adopt an ordinance by September 2011.

The first portion of the ordinance must address building in a flood plain (low-lying areas prone to flooding during heavy rains and others subject to sea level rise due to climate change) and must be adopted by 2011. The remainder of the ordinance must be completed by 2012.

This county needs certainty and fairness for our environment and our economy, not more delay and inaction.

If you your are concerned about the abundance of clean fresh water, the health of our marine ecosystem, and in particular the welfare of salmon and the orca it is time to speak up to the County Council! Make your voices heard. We don't have to be the victims of the Councils poor judgment.

Sincerely,
Fredrick E. Ellis, Sr.

Need to update CAO

Letter to the editor:

posted 08/12/2009
Though long overdue we now have an opportunity to update CAO. That we need to have more stringent protections and accept the consequent sacrifices is evident. Opponents say we need to strike a balance, a welcome opening position if it is sincere but I am skeptical because what balance has been struck in the past has been heavily weighted toward the human community. Personally I think restoration of the environment should take precedence over striking a balance.

Across our culture, the consequences of our decisions to date are well documented: the collapse of major fisheries, coral reef and forest ecologies, loss of topsoil, air and water pollution. We are facing further and mass extinctions of the world's flora and fauna. And the population of the planet will double in our children's lifetime. Please do the math. We are erasing our natural heritage and all its wonders.

So I am not surpised at proposals to push development back from the shoreline. The real surprise is that we are allowing any more shoreline development at all.

Our resources are finite: water, forest, soils. If we can't understand finite living on an island perhaps all hope is lost.

Tightening CAO regulations is not governmental regulatory overreach. It is responsible attention to population growth, consequent demands on the environment, and subsequent degradation. This restoration of the natural world isn't mere environmentalism. It is another chapter in the civil rights movement seeking to guarantee greater protections for the community of life forms with which we share this planet and with whom our lives and histories are intricately interwoven and interdependent. We are related to everything that surrounds us and share a common ancestry whether biological, chemical or molecular. We have no more rights than any other living thing on this planet. We've just assigned ourselves more.

Charles Carver
Orcas

PROTECTION OF CRITICAL AREAS

Dear Editor,

posted 08/12/2009
Thirty years ago, the waters around the San Juan Islands teemed with waterfowl, salmon, rockfish, and Ling cod. The fish and waterfowl fed on the locally spawned forage fish. Now the birds and the larger fish are almost gone. There is little left for them and for the Orcas to eat.

50' shoreline setbacks have not protected our sensitive forage fish spawning beaches and the eelgrass and kelp habitats that shelter the young fish. Near eradication of major eelgrass beds has occurred in Westcott and Garrison Bays. Significant eelgrass declines have occurred in Blind, Mitchell, and Nelson Bays.

The Westcott Bay task force concluded that fertilizers and pesticides leaching from lawns and gardens, as well as leakage from faulty septic systems and sedimentation from upstream tree and shrub removal, together, were likely causes of the widespread eelgrass destruction in Westcott and Garrison Bays.

The destruction of these and other forage fish spawning grounds resulted in an 88% decrease in the country's herring spawn from 1989 to 2004. If the Westcott Bay/Garrison Bay eradication is included, it is a more than 95% decrease.

John Evans maintains that a 100' setback helps salmon 5% and hurts landowners 40%. His numbers are reversed. Unless we immediately protect the few remaining, vital spawning grounds, we will help landowners 5% and eliminate the fish, waterfowl, and Orcas by 90%. The CAO setbacks, which do not affect existing houses, will probably affect less than 2% of shoreline property owners.

County Council and Planning Commission members, you can bow before a small, vocal minority of landowners (most of whom do not own properties in question), and watch further disintegration of the marine food chain…. or you can protect our heritage in the waters around our islands.

You cannot do both.

Letter sent to all Council Members:

posted 07/28/2009
I understand that many of you don't believe that real estate sales are being affected by the council's decision to move forward on the 100 foot shoreline setback portion of the CAO. As a REALTOR, on the front line, I can attest that there is an impact, and it is a huge economic impact to our community.

I currently have a waterfront lot listed at Cape San Juan for a long term resident. (The council member's email contained the name of the client, however; for the purpose of this article the name is kept confidential) You can view the lot details via the link below. The lot is priced at $350,000 which is $159,600 below it's current tax assessment or 32%. It is priced below the client's original purchase price of $427,000 in May 2005. They improved the lot with a 4 bedroom septic, a water hookup and installed a driveway. The lot has great views and is l/2 of an acre. The clients are targeted to loose over $100,000 at the $350,000 sales price. Most agents consider the price to be exceptional.

I have spoken personally with numerous waterfront lot clients about the lot. In addition, numerous agents in my office discussed the lot with their clients. The clients are concerned about purchasing a waterfront lot at the present time due to the uncertainly of the proposed CAO shoreline setback regulation. They are further concerned over the impact to their possible investment should the setback be increased from 50 to 100 feet or more on this lot. As agents, we are able to suggest the "reasonable use" provision but regardless; to the client, the thought of processing a variance is still a concern due to unknown results and expense. These buyers are not moving forward on a purchase at this time due to the possible setback change and associated impact on the view from the proposed home, size of the home that can be built and/or value of the land. The lot is not selling due to the CAO issue, not the pricing, not the marketing, not the REALTOR, not the condition of the property. A REALTOR is obligated to disclose to any potential client that the county is considering a setback change in the future, if they don't, they will see their client in court when the ordinance is adopted.

Your decisions are having an economic impact on the community of San Juan County. The 50 foot setback is adequate.

Below please find listed the clients who were introduced to the lot and advised their agent that they were too concerned about CAO to purchase a waterfront lot at the present time.

These clients are just the ones within the office of Coldwell Banker San Juan Islands for this waterfront lot. I am sure there are more within the 4 other brokerage offices on the island for other waterfront lots as well. I recognize that the overall economy has an impact on San Juan County real estate, however; this situation involves qualified buyers that have not been impacted by the downturn in the economy. These clients are viable and making site inspections.

It is not just the loss of income to the real estate industry; it also deprives the seller of necessary funds to relocate either on or off island. Some of these seller's need to move due to health or financial reasons and cannot do so without selling. The County looses out on TAX revenue, merchants, material providers, contractors and sub-contractors as they are all adversely impacted due to the fear and uncertainty surrounding the CAO and future use of property.

Feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding the validity of my claims.

Merri Ann Simonson

CAO moves us in the right direction

Letter to the editor:

posted 07/23/2009
As a child and frequent passenger on the San Juan Island's mail boat "Osage" in the 1940s, I soon became convinced the San Juans were the most beautiful, resource-rich and fragile spot in the world. Later, during 10 years as a commercial salmon fisherman, I profited economically but also observed insensitive development on the marine environment: Houses and bulkheads too close to forage fish (the primary food source of salmon, which in turn comprises over 90% of the southern resident Orcas' diet) spawning beaches, and meager buffers between residential development and the marine environment (allowing chemical runoff from fertilizers and other products to drain directly into sensitive marine habitat).

Wild salmon are the lynchpin that holds our remarkably precious eco-system, and indirectly, our economy, together---it is our guarantor of clean water, air and soil and a host of and life-giving organisms. The "4 Hs" of impacts on salmon: Hydro, Harvest, Hatcheries and most relevant to us, Habitat, will shape the recovery of wild Chinook and Coho salmon. "Best Science" has shown incontrovertibly that our remaining healthy San Juan shorelines can play a significant role in salmon recovery.

However, with our current rate of unstrategic development we will lose the San Juans. The question is, do we really want to leave a legacy of seemingly pretty islands surrounded by a dead zone of sterile, fishless and lifeless sea or do we want to preserve and re-build a healthy, vibrant and wonder-filled eco-system that results in increased property values, a sustainable economic resource, Orcas for our grandchildren and a renewed sense of reverence for the gift of the natural world?

The proposed Critical Areas Ordinance, although perhaps needing strengthening, moves us in the right direction. Property rights are relative rights and are related to the health and welfare of the broader community in all of its dimensions and with that comes responsibility. If you love the San Juans, please support CAO now.

George Lawson
Lopez Island

CAO addresses changes in the islands

Letter to the editor:

posted 07/14/2009
I went to a meeting and pot luck last night hosted by the Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights. The panel was supposed to be a balanced dialog discussing the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) impact on property owners. What it turned out to be was a feeling that property owners should be able to do anything they want on their property -- not wanting any regulations or change from the old days when if it ain t broke, don t fix it was the slogan.

They also believe that protecting the environment under the CAO current updates would be a financial burden. Members of the panel were from the San Juan Builder s Association, the San Juan Realtor s Association, a private land-use attorney and planner, members of the Citizen s Alliance for Common Sense, the editor and publisher of the Island Guardian and members of the Citizen s Alliance for Property Rights.

Who wasn t there on the panel to add to the one-sided dialog: The Orcas, the Eelgrass, the Heron, the Smelt, the Sand Lances, the trees, the water, the Salmon and more. They couldn't stand up for themselves to protect their lives. They weren t invited. They weren t considered, even though the Orcas and Salmon are endangered and full of toxins. All the wildlife is affected by what we humans do. We think we re just building a house with a great view.

Things have changed here in the San Juans. We have grown to 16,000 residents; and over 200,000 visitors flock to our islands annually. We have created a great impact on ourselves and that is why we have laws to govern how we can be responsible stewards of our islands. The CAO isn t perfect but at least it addresses the changes that are needed to protect our property which includes our environment. We can t separate the two. Let s work together to create something we can all be proud of.

Vivien Burnett
San Juan Island

Biologist encourages particpation in CAO process

Editor:

I spent a career in Alaska, watching clear-cuts take place. And sitting in lectures in which "biologists" told us that clear-cuts were GOOD for deer. Yeah. With slash 8 feet deep, hillsides eroding into the streams in the rain, and drying up when it was sunny.

Unhappily, similar things are happening around here. Not as bad as clear-cuts, or maybe they are as bad, everything considered. The County Council is allowing docks to punch right through eel grass beds, allowing sea walls to be built to protect LAWNS. These things directly impact rearing areas for salmon, crab, and other things we want. Ironically, we are spending millions of dollars to bring back salmon, while at the same time, allowing special interest groups to do things that help destroy those same salmon, crabs, etc.

And now, the kerfluffle about the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Let's focus on shorelines. There is a huge turn out of special interests to stop logical protection of shorelines. If the natural vegetation (lawn does not do the job!) is taken out, the shoreline is much less stable. If the shoreline erodes, spawning beaches (for fish that are salmon food) are damaged. If there is not a buffer, things in the stormwater can reach marine waters.

And remember, I have been fighting to keep my marine creatures alive in the Spring Street Aquarium for more than a year. Thanks to the town, things are better, but not fixed. Why is the aquarium still getting toxic water from Friday Harbor? Because Spring Street storm water has no natural filtration and processing of roots, soil microbes, and oxidation. The water runs right from your car drippings, Aunt Mable's rose spray, Joe's weed-and-feed, into the harbor. Where (since it's toxic) it kills marine animals.

I recently read a good article on Minnesota. Why they elect these bizarre politicians (like the wrestler, and now the comedian). It turns out that Minnesotans pay attention. When the politicians stop doing their job, the Minnesotans get some one in there to shake things up. And it works. Don't get me wrong. I am not running for office. But I would like to ask the question: Why do these special interests have so much power? The shoreline belongs to us!

To me it would seem reasonable that we would protect our natural resources. I never hear the special interests argue on merit. That is: "We don't need erosion protection." The best scientists in the University, the County, the State, the US government, are all telling us how to keep banks stable, so that our marine ecosystem can not just be healthy, but recover.

If you live here, if you fish, if you crab, if you like to walk on the beach and see a healthy shoreline, please participate in the CAO discussion. Support the recommendations of the people that study this stuff for a living. For example, 100' (150' would be better) set-back from the shore to allow stabilization, and ground water processing.

Mike Kaill,
Friday Harbor

Letter sent to San Juan County Councilmembers by Sam Buck

Dear San Juan County Council Members,

posted 06/27/2009
Just by considering the 100 foot set back on shoreline properties, you have given dramatic weight to that idea and created fear and uncertainty for those considering the purchase of a waterfront lot or older waterfront home. As direct result you have effectively stopped the sale of at least $3.4 million worth of transactions for two island homeowners that I know of, so I can only guess what the cumulative effect has been.

Based on 1.53% excise tax, that loss cost the County $52K in taxes, the Land Bank lost $34K and both of those purchases would have involved a remodel/expansion of an existing home equal to at least another $2+ million. So on top of those losses you have also lost the substantial indirect taxes that would have accumulated through the many contractors and vendors that would have benefited. Additionally many of their dollars would then be redistributed again (and taxed) into the community for other goods and services.

The impact of a 100 foot set back for most properties will effectively reduce the value by 40 to 60 percent or more which will therefore shift the tax burden onto the interior properties, many of which will also suffer dramatic loss of value as result of the proposed rules. What is someone suppose to do with a wooded waterfront lot that restricts a home site in such a way that you would barely even see the water? How much do you think that will reduce the price? What about a 5 acre parcel that con only use one little corner with no clearing for light?

Did anyone that voted to promote this idea even think about the financial impact? Absolutely not! How do I know? Because you are all smart people and if you had, you would have voted differently or you are much more of an extremist than I thought.

You are responsible for the total welfare of this County. You are being spoon fed by people who's only solution to solving a problem is letting wonderful established waterfront just wash into the sea rather than make any effort towards bulkhead design factors that would be neutral or even improve the affected habitat. What happened to common sense?

If you randomly pick 10 or 20 waterfront homes that have been built in the last 5 years, you will find that they are very environmentally compliant because current regulations are more than adequate. By far, most property owners are willing to consider serious environmental concerns when they are aware of the issue. As I understand it, you are required to consider if we have a problem that needs to be fixed based on the best available science.

The real problems that we are facing have to do with the toxification of our marine waters through the tons of synthetic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and hormones being dumped into these waters by every municipality within the entire northwest watershed, including Friday Harbor and Canada.

All municipal sewage treatment plants are primarily designed to treat pathogens so most of the other toxins just dump into our seas. Relatively speaking, what percentage of those toxins is contributed from conforming newer residential construction? I think zero. What do you think? Has anyone even checked? No, because that would be disruptive to the unstated goals.

Neither our waterfront homes, nor our upland homes are the problem, as all new construction must use the very highly advanced septic systems that are now required and storm water run off plans are also required.

How do you think our local whales have become one of the most toxic mammals on earth? What will it take for you/us to wake up and deal with this? If you want to make a difference that could essentially become a pilot program for the State and the rest of the planet, take steps to move us towards reduction of the toxins that are actually killing our precious marine environment. Create, and monitor the results of, a sustained advertising campaign to educate people. Most people really care. If you don't who will?

Shallow attempts to "make a difference" at the needless expense of our private property rights dissipates very valuable political capital that could otherwise be used to help us move forward towards changes that would actually offer hope for our children's future.

Please take immediate action to clearly demonstrate that you have tabled any consideration of changing our current Shoreline Management Regulations until 2012. Doing so will create immediate financial relief for all concerned on that count anyway.

In no uncertain terms, the planning staff needs to re-directed to become an ally to the people of San Juan County, in stead of good intentioned, but over zealous, State agencies or philosophical positions. You/we need to know the options; minimum vs maximum changes relative to the impact of, loss of value and the quiet use and enjoyment of one's property. How can you make responsible decisions without choices. You are supposed to lead them, not the other way around. You are elected to make judgment calls.

Those who have never owned property do not have a sense of what most people have had to accomplish to do so. A couple of hundred million dollars could be on the line, as well as the viability of San Juan County as a trusted place to invest in, as well as, our economic future. Since the property owners are the foundation of our whole system of collecting taxes, I think they are owed some serious consideration and respect.

Sincerely,

Sam Buck (the younger one)

Trying to understand fear and anger over CAO

To the Editor,

I got to the CAO workshop a few minutes late last night, and, like many others, was unable to get in. I wanted to make a couple of comments in terms of my view of the process.

The Critical Areas Ordinance update is required of all counties to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. I believe we have had since 1995 to complete this process. At this point, being out of compliance is costing the County quite a bit in funding opportunities for which we are not eligible until we can complete the CAO update. The planning department has presented a report which they feel has the least impact on landowners that the state will accept. Indications are already stated that the Dept. Of Ecology may dispute some of the regulations as being too weak.

Since it seems like a no brainer in terms of planning work that needs to be completed and submitted, I'm trying to understand where the evident level of fear and anger over implementation of the updates is directed.

I have been building custom homes in the San Juans for over 30 years, and have seen land use and environmental controls add increasing levels of complexity to building and development. But at a higher rate I have seen our volume of work steadily increase, and have been a part of a booming building economy. We have been going all out for twenty years straight, until the recession put the brakes on.

We see now that, even with ever increasing environmental controls, the health of Puget Sound and the neighboring Canadian waters, has steadily declined. With a, hopefully, temporary slowdown in building and development, it's a good time to stand back and assess what needs to be done, and plan for when things get back on track. I have no doubt that building will stay strong here. We have a whole generation of baby boomers who dream of retiring to a place like this.

But to keep this a great place to live we have to responsibly maintain our stewardship of our precious marine environment. Part of this is recognizing the impact of fresh water that seeps, trickles and flows into the marine waters. Fresh water carries nutrients and pollutants at varying rates, and as one example, has significant impact on juvenile Salmon that thrive in our protected waters. I had a chance to look at a sampling of the contents of a juvenile Salmons stomach, and was surprised that it's diet consisted primarily of insects, a perfect example of the relationship between marine and terrestrial systems. As they say, this is not rocket science, but basic ecology 101.

Maintaining setbacks and buffers from designated wetlands has been part of the planning process for quite a while, so the current controversy is about increasing these setbacks as part of an effort to keep the marine environment from declining further. We all have to consider whether the land use rights we are losing are so great that they negate our responsibility to the greater effort of keeping our environment healthy. I encourage anyone interested in factual information on the CAO process to check the planning department WEB SITE

Pete Kilpatrick

Larger venue needed for CAO meeting

Dear Editor,

I want to applaud all the concerned citizens who took time away from their dinner hour to attend the important proposed Critical Area Ordinance meeting on San Juan at the Fire Station this evening. I tried to attend the meeting but left early as I could not hear or see the presentation.

As I approached the meeting, I saw others leaving. It was later mentioned about 20-30 people walked away and I learned why as I walked around the back of the Fire Hall. The Fire Station was much too small. Attendees were lining the walls, sometimes two deep, jammed into the hallways and I, along with others had to stand outside leaning in the windows. For a meeting this important, a much larger venue should have been selected. Perhaps the commons at the High school or even the building at the fairgrounds, even the Grange would have been better. Perhaps they were not expecting a large crowd?

Though I strained to hear, it was impossible to comprehend all the words as there was no voice amplification and there were noises from emergency volunteers doing their normal fire training and preparations outside. I did read some of the slides, but with two and three people in front of me, it was impossible to see or gain understanding of the whole presentation.

I heard the Fire Marshal said he was about to stop the meeting as there were too many people for the room, but I left before he did this as it was totally pointless to stand outside where I could barely hear the presentation.

I would like to urge Shireene Hale of the Community Development & Planning Dept. and her staff to please select a larger venue for this meeting and to repeat the presentation for those of us turned away and also so more people could attend, listen to her presentation and perhaps gain some understanding of the scope for this critically important ordinance.

Sincerely,
Carol Anderson
Friday Harbor

Fair Play

This letter is in response to county comments on the Critical Areas Ordinance and reasonable use of "buildable lots". The county published that there are:

• 50 shoreline lots of less than 1 acre possibly affected by shoreline setbacks or geological hazards
  
  
• 25 possibly affected by a stream buffer
  
  
• 80 possibly affected by a wetland buffer

How many of these undeveloped parcels are actually legally created building lots and not just recreational lots or tax parcels adjusted by Boundary Line Modifications? San Juan County unlike all other counties allows property owners to adjust lot sizes by Boundary Line Modification and create by lot averaging substandard parcels that would not be building lots in any other county.

The existence of a tax lot (parcel) does not mean it is a legal lot.

There is a difference between legal lots and tax lots or parcels created by the assessors' office. A tax lot is created solely for the purpose of property tax collection. RCW 84.56.340 requires anyone requesting a separate tax parcel # be given one. A legal lot is created for the purpose of sale and is subject to county codes and state laws governing lot segregation. Legal lots can include recreational lots that have been exempted from county subdivision codes but they are not building lots. The courts have ruled in St Clair v Skagit County 43 Wn App 122 that recreational use is reasonable use.

This county does not:

Determine how a lot was created
Does nothing to prevent a proliferation of innocent purchasers and
Continues as ( recently as last month) to allow the creation of nonconforming lots through BLM .

How many of these lots could be eliminated by requiring that substandard lots in contiguous ownership be combined for building purposes as all other 38 counties and the smallest of municipalities in this state require?

RCW 58.17 regulating subdivision of land as a public interest was enacted in 1969.

RCW 90.58 the shoreline management act identified San Juan County as shorelines of Statewide Significance needing increase coordination in their management and development necessary for protection. It was adopted in 1971.

RCW 36.70A the Growth Management Act was enacted in 1991 to prevent urban sprawl in rural areas.

Some of us have had a lifetime of increasingly restrictive land use laws that we have had to abide by. Most of us accept rules that are justly applied. It is wrong for the county to write ordinances to further allow special privileges to be granted by the director. Procedures should be established to define what a legal building lot is. Existing county code should be followed. To allow ever more development on ever more nonconforming lots is completely destructive to county and state zoning objectives.

These actions would further violate state laws and plays the fool to all those many citizens and organizations that are wasting their time and money thinking they are saving these beautiful islands and playing on an even playing field.

Lori Gutschmidt
Eastsound, WA 98245

Re: CAO and the Shorelines

CAO and the Shorelines

I have served as one of nine appointed members of the GMA Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) review committee for two years. A polarizing and contentious issue during this entire process has been whether the committee should address the shorelines. Critical Areas are regulated under the Growth Management Act (GMA) but shorelines are regulated under a completely different state law - the Shorelines Management Act (SMA).

It is illegal to regulate the shorelines through GMA. The State Supreme Court issued the Futurewise Anacortes decision in August 2008 which confirmed that it is illegal to regulate the shorelines under GMA. That's why we were astounded in early May 2009 when we learned that the Director planned to release (without committee review or approval) his own draft of GMA amendments to the shoreline code. The draft includes drastic changes to the shoreline code, including 100' setbacks for all structures and landscaping.

The advertisement run by San Juan County the heading of "Puget Sound Partnership" is misleading. The ad suggests that the county is required to adopt new stringent shoreline rules at this time. That is simply not true.

In fact that statement contravenes the advice given to the County Council by the County Prosecutor, who said in a May 15 letter: "an amendment to the critical areas regulations in the SMP at this time is voluntary and not required." San Juan County will be updating its shoreline regulations in due course.

That process deserves the attention and time necessary for a comprehensive update. New shoreline setbacks and regulations at this time are inappropriate, and will cause nothing but chaos. We must not allow this to happen.

Stephanie Johnson O'Day
San Juan Island

SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2010

editor@sanjuanislander.com

About Us | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Privacy Policy