"Animal Unit" looks worried as Assistant Planning Director checks out the field from over the fence.  Growth not a dirty word in Langley (as opposed to, shown centet, Coupeville)...un-Fair TAKING?
"SMART GROWTH" IS THE WORD, STATE OF WASHINGTON (RCW)


PLAN FOR PORT OF COUPVILLE HERE



Campaign talk turns to growth
BRIAN KELLY, Editor
editor@southwhidbeyrecord.com
Published: July 05, 2008 12:00 AM

Don’t stop if you’ve heard this one before: Growth is shaping up to be a big issue in both races for county commissioner this year.

Both Democrats campaigning for commissioner are blasting their Republican opponents over the incumbents’ handling of growth planning.  Angie Homola, the Democratic candidate challenging incumbent Republican Mac McDowell for the District 2 position, has faulted the “poor planning policies of current leadership,” while Helen Price Johnson, the Democratic candidate in the District 1 race, is criticizing the county for the millions of dollars it has spent to comply with state growth management laws.

Johnson said the county’s current approach is threatening the quality of life in Island County. Some citizens are frustrated with county commissioners, she said.

“Rather than trying to be proactive and compliant with the state law, it seemed to many of us that they’ve been dragging their feet on full compliance. And it has cost us money,” Price Johnson said.

“I would rather see that money invested toward preserving what it is we have and being proactive in that effort,” she said.

If the growth debate has a familiar ring, it’s because the issue of growth has taken center stage in past elections, including the 2006 race where Democrat John Dean was elected commissioner.  The tone of this year’s race, however, is becoming more reminiscent of the 2004 battle for District 1 commissioner between incumbent Republican Mike Shelton and Democrat Dean Enell. In that contest, Shelton faced repeated criticism over the amount of money the county had paid outside consultants to help with its growth-planning efforts.

That missive is being fired again in 2008.

In her candidate’s statement in the soon-to-be-published county voter’s guide, Price Johnson declares: “While our community’s natural treasures suffer from growth and sprawl, our county has spent millions of dollars and countless hours fighting the Growth Management Act.”

“I think it’s a very big issue for voters,” Price Johnson said this week.

“People are concerned that we are able to preserve our quality of life. That’s going to be a balancing of our environmental concerns with our economic development,” she said.

County disagrees

Island County officials, though, said the work done over the past three years on development issues surpasses any effort the county has undertaken in the past. The county has revamped its rules for farming on lands with “critical areas,” lands with wetlands, steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive features. It’s also created an extensive water-quality monitoring program, and new rules that restrict development near wetlands went into effect on Tuesday. Officials also stress it’s been done with a public outreach effort unlike any ever seen before in Island County.

County Commissioner Phil Bakke, who is running to retain his seat against Price Johnson, fellow Republican Reece Rose and no-party candidate Curt Gordon, said the charge that county commissioners were fighting Olympia over the state’s Growth Management Act was not only old, but off.

Bakke, who led the county’s planning department before becoming commissioner when Shelton resigned last year, said when he joined the planning department the county was out of compliance with the Growth Management Act. The county wasn’t fighting the state, but trying to get its GMA house in order.  The county was slow to get started, but it was one of the first counties to finish adopting its new growth management rules and comprehensive plan, he said. That was in 1998.

“We went from being the slowest to adopt to being the fastest. Skagit County, to this day, is still having appeals over its implementing regulations for the comp plan they adopted 15 years ago,” he said.

“We are done. We adopted it, we are implementing it, and we are improving on it every year.”

“Her argument is like a 13-year-old argument,” Bakke said of Price Johnson. “We need to get with the times here.”

Costs add up

Jeff Tate, director of Island County Planning and Community Development, said the county has spent approximately $1.1 million since mid-2005 to update its development rules that cover “critical areas.”

Roughly $504,000 has been spent on consultants.

Staff costs in the planning department now total approximately $450,000, and the figure includes part of the salaries of the nine county workers who have worked on the project over the past three years.

Another $175,000 of the total has been spent on countywide mailers, creating wetland identification guides, computer software and other gear.

Part of the $1 million spent so far has been used to defend the county’s new farming rules, currently the subject of a court battle in Thurston County Superior Court after the Whidbey Environmental Action Network challenged the regulations, saying they didn’t go far enough in protecting sensitive areas.

Tate said the county spent a lot early in the process to make sure more money won’t be needed to defend the new regulations later. And while the county has completed its farming regulations and wetlands rules, it still needs to wrap up work on its fish and wildlife regulations.  The county has spent a lot on consultants because the new rules must meet the test of “best available science,” and the county has not skimped on hiring the best experts available. Having the new rules reviewed costs money now, but may save it later, Tate said.

“It really prevents having to spend a lot more money later on if you’re in a court setting,” he said.

“We don’t know how many levels of appeal WEAN or someone else will push the county through. But it definitely makes our job less expensive if we’ve crossed our Ts and dotted our Is.”

A valid issue

Bakke said the amount of money spent by the county on regulating growth is a valid political issue.

“I suspect there are some that believe we should have done nothing and kept our 1984 wetlands protection ordinance in place and not abide by the state law to update the GMA plan. I’m not about to break the law,” Bakke said.

Bakke recalled how the county hired internationally-known experts to write and review its rules for developing near wetlands, a group of scientists that include Paul Adamus, a wetland scientist from Oregon State University.

“What we got for a million dollars, I think, is remarkable when you look at the talent,” Bakke added.

“We had a private peer review group that included three of the Puget Sound’s best scientists,” Bakke said. “The latest, best science available has been employed in these regulations. We put together a program that the state Department of Ecology wants to be a model. That doesn’t happen for free,” he said.

“Had we not done it this way, I think we would have loads of critics asking why we didn’t take this more seriously.”

The primary election is 45 days away. Price Johnson, who owns and operates Price/Johnson Construction with her husband Dave, said she’ll continue to talk about growth during this year’s campaign.

“We need to do a better job of creating growth areas where density can happen and where infrastructure exists to accommodate the growth. Or we will lose.

“Holmes Harbor is already closed,” Price Johnson said. “I’m worried we might lose other beaches if we don’t change our direction.”

Big donations put land purchase half way to the goal
Whidbey News-Times
By Nathan Whalen
Nov 21 2007

Paul Whelan and Jan Pickard are doing more than leading a fundraising campaign, they are also contributors.

Shortly after being named to co-lead the community fundraising effort to purchase a waterfront lot on Front Street in Coupeville, they decided to chip in $100,000 each toward the $400,000 the town needs to purchase a waterfront property on historic Front Street in Coupeville.

“Paul and Karen Whelan and my family are committing $200,000 to help protect this powerful sense of place by securing a community gathering space on Coupeville’s waterfront and we are asking the community to join us in setting aside this open space for public access,” Pickard said.

The Whelans decided to contribute $50,000 upfront they will add another $50,000 when the fundraising effort receives at least 50 additional donations by Dec. 7. Whelan hopes the matching donation will encourage many other people to make smaller donations to the effort.

“If some people have $25 to put forward, we want to encourage that as well,” said Whelan, who co-owns KaPaws Iskreme with his wife Karen.

The fundraising campaign began this month and volunteers have until August 2008 to come up with enough money to allow the town to purchase the lots between Toby’s Tavern and the public deck on Front Street. If the public doesn’t buy the open space, it could become a steakhouse.

The Whelans would like to see the property converted into a community gathering area.

“The addition of a community gathering area on Front Street will enhance the lives not only of all of us who call Coupeville home but also those of the thousands of visitors who come to us each year to see a thriving small town that has maintained its historical character,” Whelan said in a written statement. “We are donating this money because we believe that the proposed community gathering place will serve to enhance the economic vitality, historical character, and the feeling of community that is Coupeville.”

The town had tried in the past to purchase several vacant lots on the waterfront side of Front Street in downtown Coupeville, but hadn’t had any willing sellers.  That changed late last month when the Town Council approved a purchase option for the land which is owned by John Rodriguey through Front Street Holdings.

Volunteers are now actively seeking donations throughout the community. Money raised will only be used to purchase the property. Donations are tax deductible and can be sent to the Town of Coupeville, PO Box 726, Coupeville, WA 98239.

Records detail origins of deal
South Whidbey RECORD
By BRIAN KELLY
Apr 28 2007

LANGLEY — Island County fair officials wanted much more than they got in the proposed settlement offer over Fairgrounds Road, according to documents released by the county this week.  Public records also show the settlement was almost endangered by an eleventh-hour request by fair administrator Sandey Brandon for access through the construction zone every weekday except Monday.

Langley officials announced an “agreement in principle” on April 18 with fair and county officials in the fight over Fairgrounds Road, a city street that Langley wants to build across the southern tip of the county fairgrounds to lessen future traffic troubles in town.  Fair officials have fought the city’s attempts to get an easement across the fairgrounds for more than a year, but the county fair board and county commissioners agreed to settle the dispute with Langley earlier this month.

The agreement, when finalized, would end the city’s condemnation lawsuit against Island County in exchange for a road easement... click here for full story.

Details still sketchy in Fairgrounds Road deal (FIRST ARTICLE HERE - OK TO HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT)
South Whidbey RECORD
By Michaela Marx Wheatley
Apr 18 2007

LANGLEY Mayor Neil Colburn said details on an agreement that will end the long-running dispute over Fairgrounds Road will be hammered out by the end of next month.

Langley officials announced an end to the fight over an easement across the county fairgrounds at the council’s meeting Wednesday night. The proposed agreement would mean the end of an extended feud over the strip of land that’s needed to build a quarter-mile stretch of city street between Al Anderson Road and Langley Road.

Colburn said he was "cautiously confident" that an agreement to end the skirmish over Fairgrounds Road would hold up, citing Island County Commissioner Mike Shelton’s work in quelling the quarrel.

"I may not like how Mike Shelton does everything he does, but I believe in his integrity," Colburn said.

“We're moving from litigation to negotiation," Colburn added.

County commissioners, with the blessing of Island County fair officials, have agreed to grant the city of Langley an easement so a city street can be built across the county fairgrounds. City officials say the new road is needed to lessen traffic impacts from the Highlands, the largest housing project in city history.  Construction of the 53-home Highlands was scheduled to begin this week. Fair officials had refused to give the city a route across the public property, citing safety concerns and potential impacts to the fair campgrounds.

Details of the deal were not announced. Instead, specifics of the agreement will be released following a review by city and county lawyers. That may stretch through May, Colburn said.

Langley initially offered the fair association approximately $138,000 in site improvements in exchange for the road easement including changes to the stormwater drainage system, a sewer line extension along Langley Road, and the installation of a dump station for recreational vehicles – in an offer the city tendered in March 2006.  That deal dropped to $72,000 in improvements by June 2006, however.

And after the condemnation lawsuit was filed by the city last October, Langley offered just $12,075 for the roughly half acre of land needed for the Fairgrounds Road project.  City officials released a statement to the press at tonight’s meeting that said all sides were now in agreement on a deal.

"The commissioners are very pleased that this matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. We look forward to working with the city during the construction process to assure minimal impact on fairgrounds events," Commissioner Shelton said in the press release.

Fair board chairman Dan Ollis said the agreement will let the fair board focus on its job of putting on the fair, and he praised the work done by fair volunteers.

"Volunteers are typically very passionate about where they choose to contribute their time and money," Ollis said in the statement. "I am proud of their efforts, and thankful that this issue can be put to rest. Additionally, I commend Mike Shelton and city officials for their efforts to resolve such a difficult situation."

The agreement comes amid a growing cry from Langley residents for prompt action by county officials. Some have said commissioners erred by asking the county fair board for an OK on the easement, and city officials last month rejected commissioners’ call for a public vote on Fairgrounds Road.  Residents on the southern edge of Langley are worried that traffic from the Highlands development will endanger the walking route along Al Anderson Road a popular pathway in pedestrian-friendly Langley – unless the connector road through the fairgrounds is built.

Critics of the stalemate have grown increasingly vocal in recent months, and a “Walk to Save Langley” demonstration had been planned for Saturday. Organizer Craig Cyr said the walk will still be held and he hopes people will attend to learn more about the proposed road.

How did we get here? Fair feud divides county, city leaders
South Whidbey RECORD
By MICHAELA MARX WHEATLEY
Mar 28 2007

A feud between Langley and the county over a road for people who don’t live here yet. Angry residents. High-priced Seattle lawyers. A lawsuit in Superior Court, with taxpayers paying for both sides in the skirmish.

How did we get here?

Langley’s ongoing fight with Island County over a piece of the county fairgrounds has raged for more than a year.  What started out as a standard easement request to build a city road across the fairgrounds has grown into a feud that few could have anticipated. It has cost time, money and energy on all fronts. Recently, fair board member Buzz Strout resigned, stating health concerns because of the constant stress brought on by the controversy and the constant media coverage.

Some say the seemingly never-ending fight, however, may be due to reasons beyond the proposed city street itself. Instead, the extended battle may be due to a crucial strategic mistake made by both county officials and Langley leaders: The decision to ask the group that runs the county fair for permission to build Fairgrounds Road across the southern tip of the fairgrounds property in Langley.

Early signs of trouble

Langley’s push for the new road across the county fairgrounds began as the city gave the go-ahead for the Highlands, the largest housing project in the city’s history. 
With just one way in and out of the new neighborhood, Langley officials began looking for land to build another access road to the Highlands — partly to limit traffic troubles caused by the 53-home subdivision, and partly to handle additional growth on the city’s southern end.  After eliminating three other alternative routes, Langley decided the best option was to build the needed city street across the south end of the fairgrounds.

But when the city asked the county commissioners for the easement, they were bounced back to the Island County Fair Association to ask for permission.

According to minutes of those early meetings, in October 2005, fair officials wondered what they could get in exchange for the easement. Fair board chairman Dan Ollis told his fellow fair officials to think about “perks” the fair could get from the city, such as an extension to the sewer lines on the property, or more parking.  Early talk of an agreement, though, was soon abandoned. And some said the heels-dug-in debate was inevitable.

Personalities clash

While two former fair volunteers are on the opposite sides of the road issue, they agree on one thing: Negotiations were bound to fail as egos got in the way of a sensible solution.  Linda Perkins opposes the road, while Duke LeBaron doesn’t. Both say they love the fair and volunteered for the four-day event off and on for more than a decade.

LeBaron once served as an association member and 4-H volunteer. He said the new road would not hurt the fair.
 
“It’s completely blown out of proportion,” he said.

The entire road would stretch approximately one-quarter mile between Al Anderson and Langley roads; about 400 feet of the road would cross the fairgrounds property, but only about 40 feet would cover usable land between the toe of the bluff and the gate. The road would be 22 feet wide, and the city has asked for a 60-foot-wide easement across the fairgrounds.

Once complete, Fairgrounds Road would cut off a small triangular piece of the fairgrounds that’s currently somewhat isolated by an existing gravel road that winds into the fairgrounds at the property’s southern gate.  And because the city offered to close down the street during the fair or other major events, the new road wouldn’t pose problems during the fair, LeBaron said.

Perkins, however, said the new road would hurt the fair. Cutting the pie-sliced piece off from the main grounds could hurt the value of the whole property.  Perkins also said it is difficult enough to maneuver horse trailers and big rigs on and off the property at fair time as it is. Building a city street, with fences and other features, would make the situation worse.

Perkins volunteered for 15 years in various capacities including work with 4-H and 1 1/2 years on the board. She was on the fair board when the easement request first came to fair officials more than two years ago.  She recalled when Langley City Administrator Walt Blackford first asked about the easement. Not everybody on the board was against the road, but for Perkins, it was partly about protecting the property from what may have been the first of a thousand cuts.

“The fairgrounds belong to the Island County residents. I don’t feel the city of Langley has priority over county residents,” she said.

Talk seen as fruitless

Even so, both LeBaron and Perkins say negotiations between the city and fair officials were doomed from the start.  LeBaron said there is a small group within the association that has major pull among the members and tends to control decisions.  LeBaron said Marilyn and Verlane Gabelein, along with fair administrator Sandey Brandon, have blocked change on more than one occasion. All three have long histories of involvement with the fair as volunteers and supporters. They are also among the donors footing the bill for the fair association’s legal battle against the road.

“It’s a control issue,” LeBaron said.
 
There have been a few flare-ups before within the group. During a well-publicized dispute in 2003, Democrats were lambasted for handing out political pamphlets from their food booth at the county fair. Marilyn Gabelein and Brandon played central roles in that dispute, which only faded away after Republicans said they, too, had been using their food booth to hand out campaign literature.

As the paid employees of the fair — and the ones often called on to enforce the fair’s rules for vendors and outside users of the fairground’s facilities — Brandon and Gabelein have earned their share of critics.  Last year, for example, officials from the Puget Sound Labrador Retriever Association threatened to find a new venue for their specialty show, which is held in early August at the fairgrounds.

Officials from the association sent a letter to the fair board complaining about how they were treated by Brandon.  Just as organizers were setting up for the banquet at the end of the dog show, Brandon showed up with a Ziploc bag of cigarette butts and accused the group of littering on the fairgrounds.

“The timing could have been better, but wasn’t surprising considering the previous behavior of your administrator toward members of our club and event attendees,” the association wrote in its letter to the fair board. “We received multiple complaints from our committee members and competitors about ‘the woman’ at the fairgrounds office.”

Brandon and Gabelein have their fans, as well. Brandon has received praise at times for her skills in the administrative work of the fair, while Gabelein’s involvement with the 4-H program for more than two decades provides critical institutional knowledge needed during fairtime each year.  LeBaron left the association after a failed attempt to revise the organizations bylaws.

“We didn’t try to change anything, just update it,” he said. A group of five volunteers worked for more than 100 hours on the changes. But at the meeting to adopt the update, the group was outmaneuerved by Brandon, who proceeded to move for amending everything that had been recommended. The membership voted down the changes, and LeBaron subsequently stepped down.

In the case of Fairgrounds Road, negotiations would have likely found the same fate as the bylaw changes.

“Diplomacy wouldn’t have worked,” he said.  Perkins blames the city for the problem. The fair board said no more than once.

“I don’t think diplomacy would have helped. The city refused to accept no for an answer,” she said.  Perkins said the city has been pro-development in recent years and it appears to her as if the city would rather see the fair leave town.  The city of Langley hasn’t made it easy for the fair, Perkins addedd.

“In my opinion the city threw monkey wrenches as far as requirements go,” she said. She said the city nearly prevented the parade from happening because concerns about the insurance for the event, and city officials have also been sticklers about building improvements meeting city requirements.

Perkins said she left the fair association because she had a lack of confidence in fair administrator Brandon.

“I resigned from the board due to my opinion that there is a conflict of interest with the fair administrator doing her paid job, and her volunteering for the association,” Perkins said. “There would be times where her acting as a volunteer conflicted with what the board said.”

Perkins said she struggled to do her job on the board, but Brandon undermined the board and caused tension within the group.

“I love the fair. But Sandey took all the fun out,” she said.

“It is also my opinion that numerous volunteers have left due to the treatment by her,” she said.

In fact, over the past few years a number of long-time supporters including xxxx resigned. Their resignation letters had one theme in common: internal power struggle or personal run-ins with Brandon.  Perkins stressed that her disagreement with some had nothing to do with how she feels about other volunteers. 

“They are honest, caring, wonderful people who do that for the people of Island County,” she said.

The duos fight against the road

Gabelein and Brandon have also played a significant role in the drama over Fairgrounds Road.

They were against the easement early on, and led a petition drive during last year’s fair against the road collecting 600 signatures. They also helped raise money to fund the fair association’s involvement in the condemnation lawsuit. Brandon and Gabelein send out a mass e-mail lobbying for support in the community. And Brandon hired another Seattle attorney to keep fair records secret after they were sought by The Record earlier this year.

That move led to two more controversies: An extended debate over whether the fair association was required to follow public access laws because of its status as an extension of county government, and a questionable land sale conducted by fair officials that was later discovered after critics started asking where fair officials were getting the money to finance their legal battle against the road. The state Auditor’s Office has said it will review both the county oversight of the fair association and the land sale during the state’s audit later this year.

Community looks to county for guidance

To put a stop the the escalation, the county commissioners suggested an advisory vote on Fairgrounds Road four months after the city had filed a condemnation suit to gain access to strip of land and more than 18 months years after the city first asked for an easement.  By then, city officials said it was too late.

Langley city council said last week a vote was not necessary in this case and declined to abide to accepting the outcome of a county advisory vote on the easement, a requirement in the county proposal for a vote.  Mayor Neil Colburn said following the decision that the the city would aggressively pursue its law suit, unless the county is willing to negotiate.

Langley’s leaders read the county code differently; a vote is not needed because the sale is not public, city leaders say.  When the city asked the county commissioners in a letter to explain why they thought a vote is needed, Shelton dodged the question and said he couldn’t talk about it because of the current lawsuit.  Langley Mayor Neil Colburn said the road issue is in the best interest of Langley residents, and it’s a city issue that shouldn’t be decided by voters outside of town.

“How could we - with good conscience - put the health and safety of Langley into the hands of Island County voters?” Colburn asked.

If Langley can be faulted for including fair officials in the discussion over the new road, county officials can also be blamed for extending the controversy by including the fair board in the discussion over the new road.

Early on, county commissioners said they would only give the OK for the new road if the fair board blessed the idea. Later, Commissioner Mike Shelton proposed a public vote on the road — and commissioners were harshly criticized by some, who charged they were using the fair board as political cover and dodging a dicey political decision.

Many have pointed to the county code, and have said the commissioners didn’t need to defer to the fair board or hold a public vote on the easement issue.  LeBaron said the county doesn’t need a vote based on his interpretation of the code. The rules say a public vote is needed if the fairgrounds is sold to a private buyer.

“When Commissioner Shelton asks for a vote regarding the sale of fair property to the city of Langley, I feel he is spinning the issue to support his personal friend, Verlane Gabelein. I’m sure Mike knows the difference between ‘public’ and ‘private’ buyers,” he said.

Perkins, however, said the easement issue should have gone to a vote.

“If you’re gonna take something that belongs to all county residents, we have the right to vote,” she said. “What makes the city of Langley have greater rights than the residents of Island County?”

“I don’t think it should be allowed to go to court. It should go to a vote. That’s the grown-up thing to do,” Perkins added.  Fair board chairman Dan Ollis echoed her words.

“I find it very interesting that the city has turned their nose up at the suggestion of a vote. The way that I read the county code, this is the way it should have be handled from the beginning — thus saving our group money, time, and volunteers,” Ollis said.

What’s it all about

The controversy has been raging on for nearly two years.  The city of Langley wants to build a road to ease traffic from existing homes and future construction in the undeveloped area between Al Anderson Road, Sixth Street and Langley Road.

The county’s development regulations contain a provision requiring at least two ways in and out of new subdivisions with more than 39 lots, and that new streets should be integrated with existing roadways. The Highlands will have 53 homes when finished. Langley’s development rules do not set a specific threshold for when the requirement should be triggered, however. For all subdivisions, city staff reviews potential traffic impacts and also considers public safety and long-term transportation objectives. However, the city determined that a dual exit is needed.

The road is now part of its seven-year-transportantion plan. With the Highlands subdivision to be build off Al Anderson Road, the city required the developer to build a second exit road from the development. The route crossing the southernmost part of the fairgrounds, running up the slope, crossing property owned by the Anderson family was the preferred version of the road. Alternatives were studied but foregone due to engineering issues, easements across private property and cost.

The road is designed to relieve the traffic impact from the Highlands subdivision on Al Anderson Road and about 80 other homes in the area.

The county was on board at the beginning because it would help the city to meet its requirements under the Growth Management Act, but always said they needed the support of the fair board to avoid a pricey advisory vote by the South Whidbey School District.  Shelton was for the road and worked for months to get the city and the fair board to find a solution, but when it became clear that the parties wouldn’t find common ground, the commissioners decided to defend the fairgrounds from the condemnation suit.

Fairgrounds Road would connect Al Anderson Road with Langley Road, and will follow the existing access road from Anderson Road to the city’s water tank. It will connect to an easement across a portion of Linda Anderson’s property immediately south of the Highlands development to where her property meets the county’s fairgrounds property. The final section of the new connector road will intersect Langley Road at the same place where the current gated entry is located near the southern end of the fairgrounds.

The entire road would stretch approximately one-quarter mile between Al Anderson Road and Langley Road. A piece of the fair property shaped like a piece of pie would be disconnected from the greater portion of the property, as the street would cut across a sliver of property at the narrow end of the fairgrounds parcel.

According to the latest engineering drawing that was submitted to the city in mid-December, the new street would be built on an existing road on the fairgrounds before sweeping up the unused slope. The plans also show a retainer wall and an above-ground water run-off ditch that would covert into a underground pipe when crossing the flat portion of the fairgrounds and then emerge above ground along Langley Road. Final approval of the plans is pending by the city planning staff. The plans have been reviewed by Island County Public Works department and Commissioner Mike Shelton.

Shelton said in a recent Record interview that the plans given minor changes were acceptable.

Concerns by the fair board

City officials say they felt forced to file a condemnation suit last October against the county after their easement request was shot down twice by the fair board. The city attempted renewed negotiations in January, but were told “no” again.  However, the fair board was not always strictly against the road. The board discussed the possibility and even met in early 2006 with city officials, Commissioner Shelton and Verlane Gabelein on the fairgrounds. Some say the group reached an agreement, but others later said no agreement had been reached.

Still, the fair board said it had concerns over the road. Those included:

• Loss of property value and usability if the fairgrounds is cut in two parts by the road (the property would be separated into the main fairgrounds property and another portion, smaller than one acre, that currently houses the tent camping area);

• Fencing and security for the split property;

• That the resulting intersection would not accommodate the turning radius of large trucks and access to the property;

• Lighting and signage issues;

• The impact the new road would have on the existing bluff;

• How the proposed road may impede access and use of the campground, and the possible loss of revenue.

The city offered a number of suggestions and offered to provide fencing

City officials, also said much of the land they want isn’t needed for the fair, and that the road itself will not harm the annual event.  City Officials say they did all they could. Colburn said he is frustrated.

“Mike (Shelton) came to us with a laundry list of things the fair board wanted. We said yes to every one of them,” he said.

In March 2006, Langley offered the fair association improvements worth $138,000 in site improvements, including changes to stormwater drainage in the area, a sewer line extension along Langley Road, and the installation of a dump station for recreational vehicles, if the fair would agree to the road easement.  That offer had dropped to $72,000 worth of improvements by June. After the condemnation lawsuit was launched, the city offered $12,075 for the roughly half-acre of land needed for its road project.

The future of the fair

Lost amid the raging debate over Fairgrounds Road has been any extended, in-depth talk about the future of the fair.

If fair officials hope to expand the event beyond the status quo, such a discussion is surely needed. Total fair receipts have been stagnant in recent years — hovering between roughly $190,000 and $185,000 in the years between 2006 and 2001, according to figures from the state Department of Agriculture.  During that same time span, gate receipts have dropped from a high of $94,562 in 2001 to $83,642 last year. Gate receipts hit a seven-year low in 2004, when $76,464 was brought in, according to financial information submitted to the state by Island County fair officials.

Total attendance to the fair has stayed near the 23,000 mark. Attendance in 2006 was 22,593, down from 23,029 in 2005 and the seven-year high of 23,643 in 2003.  Many would agree the lifeblood of the county fair is the 4-H youth program. The numbers of 4-H youth who participate in the county fair has also remained stagnant.  A total of 232 kids from 4-H participated in the fair in 2006 and 2005; up from the 227 who participated in 2000 but down from the seven-year high of 262 in 2003.

Fair supporters have raised the possibility that loss of space in the campgrounds could cripple the 4-H program at the fair and loss of space for staging the fair is still a leading complaint among fair board members.

“I have not seen any information as to a 22 foot road, and have only seen plans for a 60 foot easement. I think it may be important that everyone understands the full impact, and not that of just 22 feet,” Ollis said.

Despite the distraction of the ongoing road dispute, fair officials have repeatedly turned to talk about the future of the fair over the past year.  Fair officials approached Langley with the idea of creating new zoning for the fairgrounds, a “fair zone” that would open up the use of the property to special events such as concerts, rodeos and motor sports racing.

The new zoning would also allow new development at the fairgrounds, including offices, hotels and racing facilities.

Fair officials received unanimous support from county commissioners for the zoning change in May 2006. Fair officials talk of creating a strategic plan for the future of the fair with the help of Norm Landerman-Moore, an Anacortes-based consultant who specializes in master planning for fairs and festivals, and Landerman-Moore warns county commissioners that the fair may only have 10 years left in Langley due to nearby development.

Landerman-Moore also told fair officials the fair needed to grow in order to survive, and operate on a year-round basis.  Fair officials also say commissioners should start looking for another piece of property so the fair can be move out of Langley, according to minutes of the association’s August 2006 meeting.  A month later, in September, fair officials looked at internal changes. Some suggest making Sunday a bigger draw, or doing away with Sunday altogether by closing early and starting the fair on Wednesday instead of Thursday.

The impending condemnation lawsuit soon overshadowed talk of a zoning switch or changes in the fair schedule, however. And the idea to hire Landerman-Moore to write a strategic plan is put on hold as the county and the fair association prepare to fight the city’s land grab in superior court.

In late December, Michael Charneski, Langley’s lawyer, questioned fair board chairman Ollis under oath as part of the city’s condemnation lawsuit.

Elaine Spencer, the fair association’s attorney, was also present, along with Island County Deputy Prosecutor David Jamieson Jr., Langley city administrator Walt Blackford and Marilyn Gabelein from the fair association.  Ollis’ testimony – and the line of questioning pursued by the city’s attorney – likely give a few hints into the core of each side’s case.

For the fair association: Without detailed drawings, it was impossible for them to decide how much the road would hurt the fair.

For the city: The new entryway will improve access at the south gate, and the campground will largely be unaffected by the new road. The fair will still be able to use the triangle area of property next to the south gate.  Once the battle actually begins in court, Langley’s lawyer may be able to use Ollis’ deposition to claim that 4-Hers will be camping closer to the fair’s manure disposal stations than the new road. And based on Ollis’ testimony, the city will be able to deflate the safety issue by pointing out that a heavily used road already surrounds the campgrounds.

Likewise, the city can highlight that with no on-site parking, most 4-H families and other fairgoers park just outside the fair gates along Langley Road, along with other cars and trucks that park door to door or bumper to bumper along Langley Road, which has a 50 mph speed limit.

In his December deposition, Ollis said the board’s first reason for opposing the road was that it didn’t have enough information about the road, and that it would hurt the operation of the fair.  The board wanted to see engineering plans “How wide, how big, how long, and what slopes, drainage, curbs, intersection design, fencing, what all that entailed,” Ollis said in his deposition.

Ollis was presented pictures that showed piles of manure near the campgrounds by Langley’s attorney.  Soon after, Ollis was also shown a photograph of gouges in the pavement leading up to the south gate; Ollis said they were probably from horse trailers or other large vehicles.

“Would it be any detriment at all to the fair or the fair association to have the apron up to the gate repaved and designed in such a way that the pavement would not be gouged or damaged by vehicles?” Charneski asked.

“That would depend on what it took to get that,” Ollis replied.

When Charneski tried to ask again if the fair association could get the entryway fixed for free, Spencer objected to the question three times before Ollis said he wanted to see engineering plans that would answer his questions.  In the coming court battle, Langley’s legal team will be able to claim the biggest reason for the fair association to oppose the road — that fair officials had not seen detailed drawings of the new street — has also been addressed by the city.

The city presented the fair board engineering drawings at its next meeting after Ollis’ deposition.

Time is ticking

The city had hoped to get the easement for Fairgrounds Road before construction on the Highlands began, to keep construction off Al Anderson Road, one of the city’s most heavily used pedestrian walkways.  While construction was tentatively scheduled to begin this spring, it has been delayed until all easements were in place and permits were ready.

The last easement needed to the proposed Fairgrounds Road is the easement across the fairgrounds itself.  Other easements uphill across private properties needed for the road were recorded two weeks ago.

“The easements have been recorded with Island County,” said Rick Almberg of RDA and Associates, project manager for the developer.  A date for the construction begin is not scheduled yet. The developer has not received approved plans from the city of Langley, Almberg said.  Locals are getting nervous as the construction begin comes closer.

Neighbors to the Highlands but also people living along Sixth Street are concerned about the construction traffic, and later, the traffic that will come from the 53 new homes nearby. Some of those residents have led an online campaign against the fair association, and have chastized commissioners for not granting the easement outright.  Craig Cyr lives on Sixth Street and is worried that traffic noise will disrupt his neighborhood. Cyr has led the online debate against the county and fair officials, at times taking on the role of cybersleuth/citizen journalist in examining the actions of county and fair officials.

“I realized the Island County Fair Association’s refusal to grant an easement across the southern end of the fairgrounds would have a profound and strikingly negative effect on the city and its pedestrian nature,” he said.   He began posting his concerns to the Langley Community Forum and was gratified that other Langley and South Whidbey citizens held similar concerns, he said.

“I believe that the fundamental problem is that the three Island County commissioners have completely abdicated their responsibility under the Island County code and [state law], to exercise control over the fair board. The fair board is completely out of control,” he said.

“The fair board and commissioners have refused to grant the easement, even when it is clear that it would enhance the public health and safety. In particular, Mike Shelton seems to want to only listen to his patrons and longtime supporters, even when it is clear that there is little impact to the operation of the fair or its other activities during the year,” he said.

Most recently, he has blasted county officials for using public money to help finance the fair association’s legal battle against the road.

“It is also particularly disappointing to me that the commissioners used public funds to pay a private non-profit’s legal expenses, including the fees of a $340 an hour Seattle lawyer. Not one commissioner has forcefully addressed these issues in a way that would lead the community to think that there is a conclusion near,” he said.

Some ask for an end

It may be concerns of traffic on small town streets, or a genuine concern about the future of the fair. It may be the desire on county, city and fair leadership to go back to “normal” and focus on business as usual. Whatever, the motivation may be, many hope a solution can be found fast.  A second wave of a letter writing campaign to the commissioners recently started. Many local families have participated, including community activist Lynn Hays and philanthropist Nancy Nordhoff.

“I am urging you to put an end to this fiasco and have the courage to simply make a decision. It seems quite clear that the fairgrounds road is needed and that an enormous amount of money, time and energy is being spent to avoid doing this. Now it is time to act, so even if you don’t like doing it, get off the dime, please,” they wrote.

With Langley officials refusing the county’s request for a public vote on the road, commissioners have not said what their next step will be.  To get the lawsuit back on track, city officials have to reschedule the “use and necessity” hearing and conclude the discovery phase. A deposition of Commissioner Mac McDowell also needs to be rescheduled; it had been canceled on Jan. 4 because the city hoped the fair board would agree to renewed negotiations.

The “use and necessity” hearing is important because if the judge decides a city street is more important that potential damage to the operation of the fair, the lawsuit could end or just begin.

After a court decision, the losing party could appeal the decision all the way the Supreme Court and that could take years.

County considers public vote on Fairgrounds Road
By RECORD STAFF
Feb 28 2007

Island County commissioners are now considering sending the controversial Fairgrounds Road issue to voters.

Earlier this week, commissioners said they were talking about putting an advisory measure on the ballot to ask voters in the South Whidbey School District if the county should grant the city of Langley an easement for a new city street called Fairgrounds Road.

Commissioners also released a statement to quell the controversy surrounding the county fair association that has been prompted by the Waterman land sale and the association’s refusal to release public records related to the sale.

The dispute over the proposed connector street has been simmering for more than 18 months now. Langley had asked for an easement across the fairgrounds to build the new street, but the dispute has since gone to court after the fair board repeatedly blocked the city’s request for an easement across the southern tip of the county fairgrounds.

Fair officials fear they will lose space for the fair if the road is built, while the city says the street is needed to handle traffic as more homes are built on the south end of town.

After months of failed negotiations, the city filed a condemnation suit against the county in October to get the strip of land needed for the road.

According to county code, the county must ask voters in the South Whidbey School District to convey or sell fair land to a private party. County rules don’t say that a public vote is required, however, if fairgrounds property is used for a public purpose, such as a new street.  Commissioners didn’t suggest a public vote earlier because they felt the easement issue could be resolved faster by simply gaining the agreement of the fair board, Commissioner Mike Shelton said.

The county didn’t get that approval, though, and the city has since taken steps to get the corridor needed for the road through its condemnation lawsuit in Island County Superior Court. The fair association later joined the court case as an intervener.  Some hope a vote would lead to an amicable end to the court battle.

Before the county commits to moving forward on a ballot measure, however, commissioners want the fair board and the city of Langley to agree to accept the outcome of the vote regardless of how it comes out, Shelton said.

“If Langley wouldn’t abide, Langley could go right back to the condemnation,” Shelton said.  Shelton added that he has approached Mayor Neil Colburn and fair association chairman Dan Ollis with the idea.  Ollis said as a individual member of the board he would support the vote as a “means to the end of the conflict.”

He said he hasn’t discussed the idea with his fellow board members.  However, a vote would only have value with a commitment from the city, Ollis added.

“It doesn’t make to sense to have a vote and a condemnation hearing,” he said. The fair board will discuss the issue at their next meeting March 13.

Colburn said he has no problem with a vote, but currently wouldn’t support abandoning the lawsuit.

“Right now, I don’t support it. But before we make a decision, I want to talk it over with city council,” he said.  The city council may discuss the issue in an executive session at its next meeting March 7. Or, Colburn said, he may simply take an informal poll instead. City officials said they need the road not just to ease traffic coming from the future Highlands development — the largest housing project in city history — but also to build infrastructure for future growth. The state’s growth management law requires Langley to take its fair share of growth.

“Both Mac McDowell and Mike [Shelton] have complained bitterly to the city about fulfilling our responsibilities under the Growth Management Act. Now we have this opportunity. First they supported it and now they are fighting. I’m puzzled,” Colburn said.  The potential advisory vote is the first public step taken by county commissioners since a growing chorus of South Enders has called for the county to take action to resolve the road dispute between the city and the fair association.

Commissioners have born the brunt of repeated criticism for a lack of oversight of the activities of the fair association since news surfaced of a recent land sale by the association, and the group refused to release public records related to the sale and the road issue.

Commissioner John Dean said during the meeting he wanted to make sure the relationship between the fair association and the county is clarified, and that the county’s review of the financial management of the fair is adequate.

“We need to all be comfortable that this is being run professionally, and run according to the law,” he said.

“We as a board should have intervened earlier,” Dean added.

“It’s gone on way too long. I’m convinced this board wants to get this resolved. I’m here to try to help to do that.”

Commissioners also discussed the public disclosure of fair records Monday. Commissioners released a public statement defending the land sale, but also said they would ask the association to release some of its records.  Dean said he wanted the fair association to turn over records of meetings, financial transactions and more.

“What I’m after is total transparency. And as especially as a newcomer, I’d like to look at everything; meeting minutes, financial records...People repeatedly say there’s nothing to hide. Let’s put it all on the table. If there’s nothing to hide, show me.”

In a joint statement released Monday afternoon, the county commissioners said they will ask the fair association to provide all records regarding the operation of the Island County Fair for the last seven years.  Shelton said this includes any document related to planning and operation of the fair, including meeting minutes and financial records such as donations to both the fair board and fair association, but wouldn’t include accounting for association activities such as scholarships or the annual Christmas party.

The records, once they are in county hands, are subject to public disclosure and can be reviewed by everyone, he said.  Shelton added the county code clearly outlines how far the fair has to publicly disclose as an agent of the county.

“It clearly says, don’t operate in a vacuum, but it doesn’t mean they can’t have a private meeting,” he said.

In their joint statement, the commissioners also said only donations resulting from the production of the fair have to be deposited in the Island County Fair Fund. The fair fund is an account in the county budget that includes all gate receipts, fees and other revenues from the county fair.  Shelton said he doesn’t consider the assets of the fair fund to be public money.

“The fair board has generated those funds from the fair - gate receipts, vendor fees,” he said. “The county has no right, title or interest in that money.”

Shelton added the county does not give county tax revenues to the fair. The county spends between $15,000 to $30,000 annually to improve the fairgrounds, he said.

According to county budget documents and other public records, however, county support of the fair goes much further than what county commissioners outlined in their statement.  Each year, the county loans the fair $80,000 as seed money for the annual event. The $80,000 comes from the county current expense fund, an account largely comprised of property taxes, sales tax revenues and other revenue sources.

“If they receive a loan from the county, then it’s public money,” said Riffe, the county treasurer.

“The point is, the county does advance them some money to get the fair going,” she said.  Additionally, taxpayers fund the salaries of county employees who oversee the Island County Fair Fund.  It’s a complex and work-intensive task. The budget ledger for the Island County Fair Fund in 2006, for example, takes up 37 pages that contains hundreds of transactions of money received and money spent; the 2005 budget ledger for the Island County Fair Fund runs 36 pages.

The county also issues hundreds of warrants — basically, government checks that pay for supplies, services and payroll — each year to pay fair-related costs.  Last year, Island County issued at least 536 warrant checks to pay for supplies, services and other fair-related items, according to the 2006 budget ledger for the fair fund.  In 2005, the county issued at least 442 warrant checks to cover fair-related costs. And in 2004, the county issued at least 523 warrant checks to pay for fair-related items.

According to a random check of county-issued warrant checks from 2006 and 2005 conducted by The Record this week, county warrants paid for a wide variety of items, the cost of water utilities for two months to the city of Langley ($1,395); and the cost for fair officials to attend the state fairs convention in Yakima ($1,640).

Shelton said he doesn’t know why the county commissioners in the past required the fair to use the county as their “banker,” but said the money is generated by the fair and therefore not county money.  That view is new, however, and conflicts with the opinion of state officials and the prior actions of Island County commissioners.

The state Auditor’s Office has considered ticket receipts and other revenue from the county fair as public money that must be properly tracked and safeguarded.  In the past, county officials have also regarded gate receipts and other proceeds from the county fair as public money, according to documents obtained by The Record.

Island County intensified its oversight of ticket sales and procedures based on recommendations from the state Auditor’s Office in recent years, according to an Aug. 11, 2004 memo from former board of commissioners chairman Bill Byrd.  In the memo, the board of commissioners directed the county’s General Services Administration to review ticket sales and gate receipts annually.

Ticket audits in 2005 and 2006 revealed minor discrepancies; in 2006, for example, ticket sales were reported as $76,370 but should have been $76,465, according to the audit conducted by the county’s Risk Management Division.


APZ showdown
By JESSIE STENSLAND
Whidbey News Times Assistant editor
Sep 26 2008 · UPDATED

An appeal of an Island County land-use ordinance may hinge on whether a state board feels that certain legal notices were descriptive enough.

About 40 people crowded into a small courtroom in the county Law and Justice Center Thursday to hear arguments before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

The majority of the folks were there to support North Whidbey resident Becky Spraitzer, who appealed a county ordinance that restricts usage on land within an accident potential zone, or APZ, around the Whidbey Naval Air Station. About a thousand properties are effected.

The most dramatic moments came at the end of the hearing when members of the board grilled the county’s hired gun, land-use attorney Keith Dearborn. He was a little combative, but ended up admitting that the county’s notices didn’t tell people that the ordinance would impact residents’ use of their property.

“We could have done ourselves a better service if we would have specifically listed what uses were restricted,” he said. Still, he argued that the restrictions were minor and the county complied with requirements outlined in state law.

Spraitzer, a legal novice, appeared to do remarkably well against the county’s counsel, Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Mitchell and Dearborn.

“We want to be able to live on our property and make a living on our property, but we aren’t able to do that,” she said.

Spraitzer presented a wide range of arguments. She claimed that the legal notices for public hearings printed in the classified section of the Whidbey News-Times did not meet the “effective notice” standard in the Growth Management Act. The county only sent out notification letters to the six people with properties large enough to be impacted by a restriction on subdivisions.

“Six people getting something in writing or getting a call is not effective public notice, especially with something of this magnitude,” she said.

Mitchell, on the other hand, detailed the 10 notices published for a series of hearings — all open to the public — before the planning commission and the board of county commissioners.

“The county went above and beyond the requirements of the Growth Management Act,” he said, adding that several members of the public submitted public comment.

In the questioning period, hearings board members seemed to agree with the county that it wasn’t required to send out letters to each and every affected property owner, especially since the ordinance wasn’t site specific.

But board member James McNamara focused on whether the notice the county did provide was effective. Board member William Roehl asked whether anything in the notices mentioned that the ordinance would mean additional impacts on people’s property.

Dearborn said there wasn’t.

“That would have been a good thing to provide, but the county did not do that,” he said.

Yet Dearborn emphasized that the residents are aware of the aircraft flying across their property and that accidents have happened. He said that APZs are not a new concept, but have been identified in the county since the 1970s.

Board member Holly Gadbaw questioned whether there’s anything in county code that describes what should be in a notice. Dearborn said he’s not aware of any.

Gadbaw also pointed out that the ordinance was changed late in the process by the county commissioners.

Against the recommendation of the planning commission, the county commissioners added a “racetrack formation” to the accident potential zone, greatly increasing the amount of land in the zone.

An accident potential zone is the land around an airfield where it’s considered aircraft are most likely to crash. Commissioner Mac McDowell has been a big supporter of increasing APZs.

“What the ordinance is truly about is protecting the Navy, not protecting the citizens or people who live here,” Spraitzer said. “It’s about protecting the Navy from encroachment.”

The hearings board is scheduled to have a response on Nov. 11.




Freeland named as urban growth area
Whidbey News-Times
By Paul Boring
Feb 16 2008

Satisfied with the transition plan ready to accompany Freeland’s designation as a “non-municipal urban growth area,” the Board of Island County Commissioners removed the final barrier Tuesday.  The designation will eventually lead higher densities and more growth for the unincorporated community situated on Holmes Harbor.  The commissioners adopted the Freeland Sub Area Plan and approved the NMUGA designation Dec. 10, but requested a “findings of fact” document from planning staff that outlined the next step for the prospective municipality and what measures needed to be put in place.

“This is really the last step in the process of designating Freeland an NMUGA,” said Planning Director Jeff Tate.

The Sub Area Plan is a policy document that guides the creation of development regulations, which are used to evaluate site-specific development proposals.  The board reaffirmed its earlier decision with Tuesday’s unanimous vote, triggering a 60-day appeal period. Any appeals will go before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Tate said the core issues involved with designation have not met with negative feedback thus far. The only comments have been peripheral and not substantive.

“That’s a pretty good sign,” the planning director said.

During the appeal period, county staff will go through anticipatory steps but refrain from forging ahead with quick action.

“You don’t want to get too far ahead of yourself,” Tate said.

The next step for Freeland will involve setting rules and regulations. Planning staff will now start contacting professionals who, in the past, expressed interest in helping draft the document that will ultimately guide the NMUGA’s future.

“We’ll talk to landscape architects, builders, people with expertise in the construction,” Tate said. “The group that develops the rules will be a Freeland group. We’ll be getting ahold of those people during the next 60 days.”

The regulations will add specificity where only broad strokes currently exist.

“It will address how buildings should look or whether to have sidewalks,” the planning director added as examples.

The regulations will serve as a standard against which each proposed project can be held.  A draft proposal of the regulations will be formulated by county staff and the group of Freeland professionals by Sept. 1, at which time public hearings will be held. The county commissioners will vote on the proposal Nov. 1.  Before changes can be implemented, the planning commission, and then the county commissioners, must sign off on amendments to the county’s comprehensive plan that address housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, parks and recreation.

The amendments will go before the commissioners late next year.

City UGA expansion clears latest hurdle
Whidbey News-Times
By Paul Boring
Dec 13 2006

The Island County Commissioners will now have the ultimate say in whether Oak Harbor’s Urban Growth Area should be increased by 180 acres, including 105 acres of the Fakkema Farm property.

Tuesday, the Island County Planning Commission voted 5-1 in favor of recommending to the commissioners that the UGA be expanded by the proposed acreage. Before the board decides on the recommendation, the Island County Planning and Community Development Department will first perform environmental studies as required by the State Environmental Policy Act.

Citizens concerned with the potential expansion and development packed the commissioners’ hearing room in Coupeville for the meeting. Although the public comment period ended Nov. 18, discontented rumblings could be heard from the attendees.

In addition to the Fakkema property, the planning commission recommended that six other locations be included in the UGA expansion. The Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan Task Force previously conducted a number of meetings in which the city staff’s land use analysis was studied. The task force decided that the UGA should be sized to accommodate 126 percent of projected population capacity, said Jeff Tate, Island County Planning and Community Development assistant director. The percentage should provide a larger cushion to help maintain affordable housing in the future, in turn promoting more housing choices.

Expansion of the UGA into the Fakkema Farm, Tate said, helps meet other comprehensive plan and Growth Management Act goals of open space planning, historic preservation and recreational trail development.

For the Fakkema portion, seven acres would be set aside for maintaining the historic farm building cluster and 10 acres for public open space or active recreational facilities. A public trail easement would also be dedicated along the drainage ditch from Freeway Lane to Swantown Lake.

Estimates show Oak Harbor’s population ballooning in 20 years to 30,419, which necessitated the UGA expansion. The existing UGA can accommodate the 2025 population plus an additional 6 percent.

Planning Commissioner Alan Schell, the one dissenting vote, disagreed with setting the capacity at 126 percent, at least right away.

“I have reservations only on that reason,” he said.

Commissioner Bill Massey, a developer, did not vote because of a possible conflict of interest.

Affordable housing was a major concern for the commissioners, which prompted their recommendation.

Eighty-eight of the 105 Fakkema acres would be dedicated to residential development at four dwelling units per acre. With the decline of agriculture, the property would likely be parceled out in the future if it was not included in the UGA, said commissioner Deb Eidsness.

“I’m afraid it’s going to turn into farmettes,” she said.

Chairperson Val Hillers agreed that the farmland would likely not remain farmland in the future. She acknowledged the double-edged nature of the decision, but again mentioned the decrease in affordable housing in Oak Harbor.

“These are really tough, agonizing decisions,” she said.

The planning commission also voted to recommend to the county commissioners that Coupeville’s population projection horizon of 2,068 be extended from 2020 to 2025. According to Washington State code, urban growth areas contained within a national historic reserve are not required to establish areas sufficient to permit urban growth anticipated for the next 20 years. Therefore, Coupeville did not propose any UGA expansion.

“Coupeville kind of gets an out on some of these issues,” Tate said.

Langley’s population projection was also extended to 2025. With no changes in the population, the city’s UGA boundary was not altered. The planning commission voted to recommend to the county commissioners that they approve extending the 2006 population projection horizon.  


Langley reduced greenhouse gas emissions over five years
South Whidbey RECORD
By MICHAELA MARX WHEATLEY
Aug 19 2006

Langley’s “energy intern” Mariah VanZerr had to check and double-check her numbers.

“I must have done something wrong,” she kept telling herself.

But the numbers didn’t lie. Langley has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2005, while almost anywhere else in the country emissions are on the rise.  As a whole, the community decreased its emissions by 1.2 percent — or 9.3 percent per capita.  Langley’s average emission production per capita in 2000 was 10.15 tons. Last year, it was only 9.5 tons per capita.  To put that in perspective, the average American produced 24.89 tons per capita in 1998, VanZerr said.

VanZerr, a graduate student from California, has spent her summer in Langley analyzing the energy use of the community as a part of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Program. She presented her findings on Wednesday night to the city council.  VanZerr said most greenhouse gas emissions in Langley come from electricity and gasoline. VanZerr attributes the decline in emissions to the reduction of electricity use.  However, the decline is not attributed to the average person turning off the lights when leaving a room or insulating the house more efficiently.

“Residential decline is more varied and may not be statistically significant. Easily explainable,” she said, “by the fact that most electricity use in homes goes to heating, and 2005 was significantly warmer than 2000. Also by the fact that there may be a fuel switching trend from electricity to propane that is difficult to capture, and isn’t accounted for in our data.”

The key for the change can be found in a declining trend in the commercial sector.  Businesses used less energy for a number of reasons, VanZerr said. Sales tax revenues went down, businesses moved out of town, school enrollment declined and some made efficiency upgrades, she said.

“Some businesses, like the Whidbey Record, have left town. This is not confirmed, but other businesses like the Star Store may have put energy-saving measures in place,” she said.

The decline in emissions is an exception for a growing community like Langley and it is not mirrored in neighboring communities.  VanZerr, who also monitored Coupeville’s energy use, said the downward trend was not observed in Coupeville.

VanZerr told audience members and the council that in order to prevent irreversible damage to the climate, experts estimate that emissions need to drop 60 percent from the greenhouse gas emission levels of the 1990s.  VanZerr said that the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection program recommends a more realistic target of 20 percent by 2020 for communities.  But with Langley being well on its way, the town could set its goals higher, she said.

“Langley is a unique locale. It could potentially be poised to attempt a 25-30 percent reduction,” she said.

“Seems like a lot, but remember, there will be outside help. Washington state policies such as the recently passed renewable fuel bill will help to decrease transportation emissions from the outside,” she said.

Additionally, Langley does not have any heavy industry, which is a significant contributor in other communities to high emission levels. Also, VanZerr said she observed above-average community awareness on environmental issues.

VanZerr recommended a number of measures to the city and community to reach the goal.

• Work with Puget Sound Energy to determine next steps in getting an audit/retrofit grant for the wastewater treatment plant;
• Contact Island County to express support for potential curbside recycling program;
• Work with the comp plan energy committee to begin the Community Green Power Challenge Campaign and energy conservation competition;
• Officially adopt the reduction target and Climate Change Action Plan;
• And work with agencies throughout the action plan implementation process and establish a system for monitoring progress toward a reduction target.

She suggested to challenge the community to participate through incentives or simply as a community activity.

“I think with Langley’s small scale and high level of community involvement, a challenge could be a successful program,” she said.  VanZerr’s work was enthusiastically received by the city council, city officials and the comprehensive plan group’s energy committee.

“Mariah has done a wonderful job,” Councilwoman Rene Neff said.  The energy committee members said VanZerr’s work has helped them tremendously in getting started on an outline of their goals and objectives for the planning process.

But Mayor Neil Colburn said Langley doesn’t have to wait for the comp plan process to wrap up before taking action.

“We are a very progressive little city,” Colburn said. “It doesn’t have to be in the comp plan to start implementing these things.”   VanZerr had some parting words for her host city.

“Langley’s small scale and high level of citizen involvement uniquely poise it to become a leader in taking positive community-based action against the challenges of climate change. I look forward to seeing Langley’s progress in the coming years, and feel honored to have been, however briefly, a part of this wonderful community,” VanZerr said.

On Thursday, VanZerr presented her findings at a meeting in Mount Vernon where area government officials and energy interns from other communities outlined their preliminary findings.

Langley, Oak Harbor, Anacortes, Bellingham, Coupeville, Ferndale, La Conner, Lynden, and Whatcom County participated in the Energy Conservation and Climate Protection Project sponsored by the Northwest Clean Air Agency.  The project helps local governments identify the main sources of global warming pollution in their communities, and then develop cost-effective emissions reduction plans.

The predicted local impacts of global warming range from rising sea levels and increased fire danger to disruptions in rainfall patterns that lead to increased drought and flooding and the loss of hydropower generation.

Responding to global warming can help build stronger local economies and communities. Other communities are also tackling greenhouse gases:

• Oak Harbor expects to reduce energy costs by $10,000 and global warming pollution by 76 tons per year by changing all its traffic signals to efficient LED lights.
• The cost-saving realized by implementing a curbside composting program would allow the town of Coupeville to purchase green power for all of their energy needs.  

 
Where the power lies
Whidbey News-Times
By Jessie Stensland
Aug 12 2006

Members of the Oak Harbor Planning Commission are suddenly sitting in rather hot seats.

The seven members of the commission will be listening to public input on a couple of scorching topics at their next meeting, which has been scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, Aug. 22 at Parker Hall at Oak Harbor High School. The public will get the chance to speak about proposals that could lead to a large shopping center south of the city and a residential development on the Fakkema Farm.

Judging from the last meeting — which the fire marshal shut down because of overcrowding — many dozens or even hundreds of opinionated people will be giving the planning commission a piece of their minds.

So who are the commission members and what do they do?

The commission has straightforward and sometimes mundane duties — largely reviewing plats, permits, and zoning changes — but it does have its critics. The commissioners’ decisions are strictly recommendations to the elected decision-making body, the City Council, but still some people feel the mayor-appointed members wield too much power.

When Oak Harbor Mayor Patty Cohen appointed Kristi Jensen to the planning commission in June, Cohen said she chose the real estate agent because she wanted a balance of interests and backgrounds on the important board.

But in fact, the seven-member commission was already heavy with what critics deem as real estate and development interests.

With the newest member, there’s a real estate agent, a real estate appraiser, a man who works in “insurance and real estate,” a construction manager, a retired banker, a retired stock broker and a health care administrator, according to biography forms on file with the city.

“I look for a gender balance, a professional balance, a nice cross section of the city,” Cohen said, though she doesn’t have a set criteria to qualify people for the commission.  Cohen appointed Jensen, she said, because she has experience with revitalization efforts in the downtown.

Keith Fakkema, a retired banker who spent most of his life in the city, said Cohen called him about six months ago and asked if he would serve on the commission. He agreed.  Cohen feels that the commission isn’t skewed toward development and business interests. Everyone, she added, has some interest in development because “we all rely on the local economy in order to survive.”

Jerry Jones, a member of the comprehensive plan task force, disagrees. “They are very biased toward development interests,” he said.

Oak Harbor architect Chris Saxman, the former chairman of the planning commission and 15-year member, said the group has always been “fairly balanced, but weighted toward pro-growth.”

Bob Pettyjohn, chairman of the planning commission, and Fakkema both said that the commissioners don’t seem to have any agendas or axes to grind. They are all just citizens who want to do their parts to make the city a better place.

“We’re really a filtering agency,” Pettyjohn said. “Our job is to make sure all the ‘i’s are dotted and ‘t’s are crossed.”

Pettyjohn said he understands the frustration some residents might feel when they speak at a meeting in opposition to a development in their neighborhood, but the planning commission allows the work to go forward. It’s not because the commission members are biased toward developers, he said, but that the commission has to follow the rules and codes created by the community.

Oak Harbor Councilwoman Sue Karahalios said it makes sense to appoint people with development experience to the commission since it deals with technical aspects of zoning, land use and construction that regular folks may not understand.

“There is a need for them to have a knowledge about land use,” she said, “and they are not the final say.”

The City Council has the final say on the matters that go before the planning commission, but the fact is that the council members almost always accept the planning commissioners’ decision without changes. The appointed members of the commission spent much more time on each matter than the council members do.  Oak Harbor Development Services Director Steve Powers said city staff doesn’t have undue influence over the commission members.

“They consider what our analysis is,” he said, “but they certainly or occasionally feel free, as they should, to provide their own analysis and add to our recommendations.”

Karahalios said she almost always agrees with the planning commission’s recommendations after reading through the minutes of their meetings and seeing that their decisions are well reasoned and based on city code.

Councilman Paul Brewer has a different concern.

“I have a real problem with the planning commission because they are appointed by one person,” Brewer said.  The mayor appoints the members, but like in any level of government, appointments are approved by the legislative branch — the City Council.

Brewer added that it’s virtually impossible to turn down one of the mayor’s appointments because it would mean singling out a member of the small community. “No one is going to insult the person...” he said. “I don’t want to embarrass the person and question their qualifications.”

Jones shares Brewer’s concerns. “The people who are making decisions are almost entirely appointed by the mayor, who is a part-time politician,” he said.

The remedy to the planning commission’s “bias,” Brewer said, is another appointed board, the comprehensive plan task force. But there’s been some wrangling over the relationship between the planning commission and the comprehensive plan task force.  The task force is made up of 15 members, one appointed by each council member and eight by the mayor.

Jones, a task force member, points out that the mayor still appoints most of the members, but he said it’s a more balanced body. He said the task force meetings are rather informal and allow for a lot of public input and dialogue.

“The planning commission doesn’t want two-way public participation,” he said.

The task force is tasked with hearing issues dealing with the comprehensive plan, which includes a broad swath of issues like transportation, land use, utilities, housing and capital facilities. The task force makes recommendations to the planning commission, which in turn makes recommendations to the City Council.  Saxman said he quit his chairmanship because he felt that the task force, which was created about 10 years ago, preempted the planning commission.

“The City Council enacted policies that took the planning and future planning of the city of Oak Harbor and put it in the hands of the task force,” he said.

But this year, the City Council voted to bypass the comp plan task force and send the controversial comprehensive plan amendments directly to the planning commission. Cohen said that officials wanted to make sure the task force had enough time to focus on the vital update to the capital facilities plan.  Yet Jones and another task force member, Richard Pasewark, were not happy and questioned the decision at a recent city open house. In fact, Jones said the task force may make a formal complaint at their first meeting of the year at 6 p.m., Wednesday, Aug. 16 at the municipal shops.

“We’re going to vote about how we feel about being excluded from land use,” Jones said.

You can reach News-Times reporter Jessie Stensland at jstensland@whidbeynewstimes.com or call 675-6611.

Planners find a bigger room

The Oak Harbor Planning Commission meeting that was shut down last month due to overcrowding has been rescheduled to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, Aug. 22 at Parker Hall in Oak Harbor High School. The commission will conduct a public hearing to review the sponsored amendments to the Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan.

Sponsored amendments are those for which an applicant has paid a fee to guarantee consideration of the proposed amendment during the 2006 amendment year. Public comments on any of the sponsored amendment proposals will be welcomed at this meeting. The planning commission may take action at this meeting, which would be to make a recommendation to the ultimate decision-makers, the City Council.

The two controversial amendments involve the city urban growth area, or UGA, which is the ring of land around the city identified for future annexation. Two proponents want to bring property into the UGA in order to develop.

An out-of-town developer hopes to build a shopping center on 33 acres at the south end of the city, on Highway 20 south of Waterloo Road.

Dick and Hap Fakkema want to turn their former 377-acre, historic dairy farm into a combination of residential development and public park land. Options ranged from several hundred to more than a thousand homes.

Leaders of the Calvary Church on SE Ninth Avenue withdrew their request to change the zoning on the church property to allow for possible condominium development.  
 

Is this "smart growth"?  Conceptually it is, but the devil is in the details...read on!
City council postpones Highlands decision
South Whidbey RECORD
By MICHAELA MARX WHEATLEY
Jul 12 2006

The Langley City Council postponed a decision on the Highlands, the largest development in city history, after council members raised a multitude of questions about the project last week.

Water issues and traffic concerns ignited an extended discussion about the preliminary approval of the development. Talk stretched to almost 10 p.m., forcing the council finally to continue its review until the next council meeting on Aug. 2.  The council’s preliminary approval would have given the developer of the Highlands the go ahead for initial on-site work, including clearing and the installation of roadways and utilities.

The city council was particularly concerned about potential impacts to the city’s water supply, as the development is planned within Langley’s wellhead protection area. 
City planner Alice Schisel, however, said the Highlands will be a model for water resource protection. Residents of the new neighborhood will also help prevent damage to the city’s water supply.

Even so, Councilwoman Faith Bushby had her doubts.

“How do we enforce these rules?” Bushby asked.  The project will be the model development for the conservation district’s low-impact development project, Schisel explained.   The district has $75,000 to educate the public and implement low-impact development strategies.

But while it is great to teach the public how to live in a water protection area, Busby said, it was unclear how anybody would enforce the rules if fertilizers or other hazardous material get spilled.  Once damage is done, it will be too late, she said.

Mayor Neil Colburn said the city has taken necessary steps to protect Langley’s water.

“I feel we have taken all available precautions. We’ve held the developer’s feet to the fire,” he said. “This development will have more protection than any other project.”

Schisel noted the county’s hydrologist has said the biggest threat to water quality would come from septic systems, and the Highlands development will be served by sewers instead.  Still, some wanted more. Councilman Robert Gilman suggested that well monitoring efforts be increased to ensure water quality.

The council raised other issues about the project during its review last Wednesday.  The council also asked about the ownership and maintenance of trails and walkways at the development.

Ross Chapin, architect for the Highlands, said an extensive trail system is planned to connect the new neighborhood with surrounding areas.  The majority of trails will be public, though some will connect to smaller, private trails that lead up to homes.  Because public trails must be maintained by city public works staff, Rick Hill, Langley’s director of public works, said he was concerned that narrow trails won’t be easily accessible for maintenance crews with heavy equipment.

Wheelchair accessibility was also an issue. Not only must trails be safe and wide enough to navigate with a wheelchair, but the system must also be connected so wheelchair users don’t have to take a detour to get from one end of the development to the other, Schisel explained.  Gilman said he would like to see the walkways built around trees, which may mean that the city must be flexible on its requirements for 6-foot-wide walkways. The wider the walkway, Gilman said, the more trees that might have to be cut down.

Construction traffic also worried council members.

With the future of the proposed Fairgrounds Road into the Highlands uncertain, the council said that multiple trips of logging and construction trucks up and down Al Anderson Road would be unacceptable because traffic would significantly impact the quality of life for nearby residents.  Most council members said that the majority of construction traffic should use the new road once it is built.

The subdivision is the largest development in Langley’s history, with 53 homes on a 14.57-acre lot on Al Anderson Road. Twenty-eight single-family lots and three clustered home groups with common courtyards are planned.


Farming near streams targeted;  An environmental group files a lawsuit arguing that Island County laws don't do enough to protect sensitive wetland areas.
By Kaitlin Manry, Herald Writer
Published: Thursday, November 23, 2006
 
A lawsuit has delayed Island County from implementing new rules that would allow some farmers to continue working near wetlands and streams.

Whidbey Environmental Action Network is suing the county. It alleged the new rules are based on faulty science and fail to protect these critical areas. The environmental advocacy organization has asked a Thurston County Superior Court judge to force Island County to redraft the rules and protect environmentally sensitive areas.

Ultimately, the group would like to eliminate farming near wetlands and streams, litigation coordinator Steve Erickson said.

"We don't think, by and large, streams and wetlands are the place to have livestock," he said. "Someone who lives downstream shouldn't have to worry about getting sick from someone's livestock (up) the stream. A trip to the beach shouldn't mean a trip to the emergency room."

County Planning and Community Development Director Phillip Bakke countered that the new rules would protect the environment. They also would make it tougher for farmers to practice near critical areas, he said.  For example, the new rules would force some farmers to develop farm plans in conjunction with conservation districts. Others would need to create setbacks from streams and confinement areas for manure.

Additionally, the rules would only apply to current farmers. New farmers would have to abide by the county's critical areas ordinance, which limits development around wetlands and streams. Though the ordinance was created with urban development in mind, it also applies to farming, Bakke said.

"These regulations provide far superior wetlands protection than the critical areas ordinance because they're designed for farming," Bakke said. "The impact on land from farming is vastly different than the impact on land from urban development. These rules are customized to those farming impacts and we believe strongly this will lead to greater environmental protection."

If that is what the people challenging the rules really want "I'm at a loss for why they'd appeal it," he said.

The rules already passed muster with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board earlier this year. The environmental group is appealing the board's decision in its current lawsuit.

The issue has been a lightning rod for controversy in recent years. Farmers, even those pursuing agriculture recreationally, have feared losing the right to use their land. Meanwhile, environmentalists have fought to impose tighter regulations on developments near water.  When the county was drafting the rules, a record 3,000 people attended meetings on the issue, Bakke said. The county spent around $150,000 developing the rules and defending them to the growth hearings board, he said. Bakke expects to spend another $25,000 defending them this time around.

Since the environmental group filed its lawsuit, the county has postponed explanatory meetings on the rules and delayed implementing them.

"I am unwilling to ask property owners to comply with these rules, knowing there will be out-of-pocket expense to do so, before we know they're going to be upheld," Bakke said. "I couldn't face these farmers six months from now if we didn't prevail."

A hearing date has not yet been set. The State Supreme Court is expected to rule on a similar case soon. The outcome of that case could affect the direction of Whidbey Environmental Action Network's case, Erickson said.
New farm rules clear final phase
South Whidbey RECORD
By BRIAN KELLY
Apr 28 2006
 
Island County is finally nearing the end of the years’ long controversy over farming near environmentally-sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands.

Island County commissioners approved new rules covering farming near “sensitive areas” earlier this week, and the board will adopt “findings of fact” that lay out the legal basis for the new rules on May 1.  The county was under a court order to revisit the rules after the Whidbey Environmental Action Network challenged the county’s regulations on farming near critical areas in the late 1990s.

The WEAN challenge has wound its way through a growth board review, through Superior Court, and the Court of Appeals. Island County lost, and was facing a May 1 deadline to fix its regulations. Controversy has followed the rule revision since the big push came last year to resolve the case.  While WEAN has complained that the new regulations do not go far enough to protect the environment, farmers have repeatedly said that additional regulation of their agriculture operations will push them out of business.

Under the new rules, all farmers will have to complete farm plans; landowners with agriculture operations that have been defined as “medium” or “high intensity” must complete custom plans. During earlier public hearings, farmers bitterly opposed the requirement for farm plans.  That requirement, however, was subject to a twist late in the game.

After WEAN requested farm plans from the Whidbey Island Conservation District under the state’s open records law, farmers said that their privacy was being violated and lawmakers in Olympia voted to make farm plans exempt from disclosure.  WEAN, however, had already received the farm plans and found that many plans did not include requirements that would put no-go zones around streams and wetlands.

Earlier this week, Keith Dearborn, the county’s consultant on the revision to the farm rules, said the county would now not be able to review the farm plans it was requiring farmers to complete.

“This isn’t something we created,” he said.  Even so, Dearborn said the county had two safeguards put into place. The conservation district will submit a report to the county detailing the farmers who have completed a farm plan. And the district will also file a second report that will say how the farm plans are being followed.

“We don’t know what else we can do under the circumstances,” he said.

“I just simply don’t see what more we can do here.”

Under the new rules, farmers will have 18 months to complete custom farm plans.  County officials said they will be able to see if farm plans are protecting the environment once monitoring efforts begin under the county’s new surface water monitoring program.  County commissioners unanimously adopted the program Monday; baseline monitoring of watersheds begins this year. The monitoring effort will cover about 42 percent of the watersheds in Island County over the next five years.

Dearborn said the new rules — which require farmers to apply “best management practices” to their agriculture operations — will cover farms that have been in operation for years; new farmers will have to abide by stricter rules within the county’s “sensitive areas ordinance.”

“We believe the water quality monitoring program will provide the indicator of whether agricultural practices are in fact working or not,” Dearborn said.  Education is key, he said.

“People are going to do the right thing if they know what that is,” Dearborn said. “Owners of property in Island County who have horticulture or livestock are dedicated to good husbandry.”

The county’s revised rules were the best that could be expected, he said, given the state law that keeps farm plans secret.

“I just simply don’t see what more we can do here.”

“We are talking about people who have been practicing farming in this county, in some cases, for generations,” Dearborn said. “And they are at least as best we can tell, for the most part, the reason we have rural character in this county. they are our rural character. And they are a character that people prize and want to see stay in place.”

Erickson, though, said WEAN’s review of farm plans showed that few farms had plans that included provisions to protect streams and wetlands with adequate buffers.  He doubted the new regulations would work.

“If the plans are secret, nobody will know,” Erickson said.

“How will the county know if the plans are being followed?” Erickson asked.

“This is secret government. It doesn’t work,” he added.  A growth management hearings board is scheduled to review the county’s rewrite of its farm rules on June 24.
 

ON THE SUBJECT OF CRITICAL AREAS...(COUNTY LOST IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COURT)...
Prepare to be regulated
Whidbey News-Times
By Jim Larsen
Jan 21 2006

Approximately 2,500 Island County residents identified in a “windshield survey” will be among the first regulated by the county’s new critical areas land use rules once they are adopted by the commissioners.  After a summer and fall of emotional meetings pitting small farmers against proposed regulations, the critical areas ordinance is nearing completion.
 
The commissioners have scheduled only one hearing on the issue, and it’s set for 3 p.m., Monday, Jan. 23 at North Whidbey Middle School in Oak Harbor. The commissioners had hoped to adopt the ordinance by the end of January, but that schedule was delayed when the Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN) appealed the county’s determination that it won’t significantly impact the environment. The county’s hearings examiner has to rule on the appeal before the ordinance can be adopted, said Jeff Tate, assistant director of the Department of Planning and Community Development.

The ordinance will apply to landowners doing agricultural activities in the rural zone, which comprises about 60 percent of the land in Island County. The aim is to protect streams, wetlands and other sensitive areas, as required by the state Growth Management Act. Past efforts to do this by the county have been ruled insufficient by the courts and Growth Management Hearings Board.  To identify affected landowners, Tate said county personnel literally drove along county roads last summer, doing a “windshield survey” of agricultural activities.
 
“We drove down every road in the county and made notes on parcel maps,” Tate said. He said they came up with approximately 2,500 landowners “who we really suspect are conducting an agricultural activity.” One thing the survey counted was “animal units,” which is planning lingo for livestock. Each unit equals 1,000 pounds of livestock, ranging from a single cow to 10 alpacas.
 
Those people, and others the county is aware of or who step forward voluntarily, will receive mailings after the critical areas ordinance is adopted, explaining what they will have to do to comply with the law.  In a nutshell, people with a long history of farming in rural zones and who own land along streams or wetlands will have to come up with a plan. For those who started farming before 1998 when the county’s land use plan was adopted, and who have just a few head of livestock, a county-approved “standard farm plan” might suffice. Others will have to produce a more complex “custom plan.” The Whidbey Island Conservation District is ready to work with farmers to complete their plans.

One recent brouhaha involved WEAN’s access to individual farm plans, which has angered some farmers who think their plans should be private. Tate said this concern could keep some farmers from coming forward to comply with the new ordinance. WEAN’s action, he said, “will make it substantially harder to get people to comply.”
WEAN’s Steve Erickson said they are looking at farm plans to make sure the plans really protect the environment. In a written statement he explained, “”If the farm plans are actually implemented -- which is unknown -- do they provide this minimal protection for wetlands and streams, as required by state law . . . what, exactly, do these voluntary farm plans advise people to do? That’s what we’re now finding out.”

The commissioners will be considering an ordinance that is different in some ways from the one recommended by the Planning Commission. County staff made changes to satisfy WEAN and the Growth Board.  Erickson said this week that the end product is “a vast improvement” over what was recommended, primarily because setbacks are now required in wetland areas and that Best Management Practices must be followed.

However, WEAN still isn’t satisfied with the proposed protections. Erickson criticized buffers along salmon habitat areas as too narrow, and said mowing should not be allowed in wetland areas, among other concerns.  Once the commissioners adopt the critical areas ordinance, landowners will have up to 18 months to submit a management plan, Tate said, and up to two years after that to fully implement a standard plan, or three years for a custom plan.
 
Anyone who doesn’t do a plan would instead have to follow the more restrictive rules in the ordinance, such as providing a 100-foot setbacks next to critical areas in which animals could never roam and mowing could not take place.  Tate said county officials disagree with WEAN’s assertion that setbacks are not restrictive enough. “We think the setbacks are consistent, we feel good about what the numbers are,” he said.
From the official source:
READ ABOUT AN ISLAND COUNTY PROPOSAL RE: R.A.I.D.'s HERE:
http://www.islandcounty.net/planning/docket/2005/cpa062_05.pdf
Ridge developers make pitch to Freeland
By GAYLE SARAN
Aug 06 2005

Commissioners of a small sewer plant built for a senior housing development in Freeland hope to convince the town’s downtown property owners that hooking up with their sewer system will save them money.

Erl Bangston, developer of the Village at Maple Ridge senior condominiums, hosted a meeting at Freeland Hall Thursday afternoon to explain why the Main Street sewer system will work for downtown Freeland. Bangston is one of the sewer district’s three commissioners.

About 25 people, mostly residents of Maple Ridge, were there to hear engineers explain why Main Street is a possible alternative to the county’s sewer plan. They wanted to know if the expansion would cost them money, or if more connections on the system would lower their monthly sewer bill.

“It would solve a lot of problems for business owners for a lot less money. The core of Freeland could be expanded,” Bangson said.

The sewer system installed at Maple Ridge is designed to grow. Cost of the upgrade is estimated at $6 million; the county’s sewer plan is estimated at $8 million. David Voight, an engineer with CHS, detailed the technical aspects of the proposed expansion. Modifications to the plant would have to be made to expand its capability to handle the downtown area, he said. But connecting with Main Street could happen sooner and for less money than waiting for the county’s plan to materialize.

Main Street can expand to handle 80 percent of the business district (Phase 1 of the county’s plan), and 95 percent of Phase 2 of the county’s plan, which includes Nichols Brothers and Myrtle Avenue. Voight said Main Street could handle the sewage from Freeland’s business core for eight to 10 years, at 90,000 gallons per day. According to Voight, Main Street can only provide service for Phases I and 2. Another system would need to be built in 2016.

Island County Commissioner Mike Shelton questioned the reasoning behind connecting with the plant now when it will only last a few more years.

“So basically, businesses would connect for 10 years. Why would they support a new system?” Shelton asked. Shelton said the problem is the sewer plant depends on the business owners to support the expansion.

“This is the same group of people we want to support the county’s plan,” he said. “What’s to prevent them from saying, ‘County, we don’t need your plan now.’”

“It’s a short-term fix for a long-term problem,” Shelton said. Representatives from the state Department of Health and the Department of Ecology were also at the meeting.

“It is not unusual to have have more than one sewer system in an area,” said Dave Henley of Ecology.

“But our preference is to have a centralized system where possible. But it is not a requirement,” Henley said.  Bangtson said it is up to business owners to now decide whether they want to support the Main Street plan.



County tosses big building proposal
Whidbey News-Times
By Eric Berto
Jul 30 2005

Island County dropped a proposal to increase the maximum building size in Clinton and Freeland Tuesday.
County Planning Director Phil Bakke said that the proposal, which would alter the county’s Comprehensive Plan to allow buildings up to 50,000 square feet, generated a lot of negative feedback from citizens. He said the county will continue to work with residents to develop a plan that is suitable to them.
“I think it is a wise decision to drop this at this time,” Island County Commissioner Mike Shelton said. “All of the messages I received were negative — I didn’t receive any positive ones.”
John Coleman, an assistant planner with the county, said that the county was merely testing the waters with the proposal.
“This code change caught most people off guard,” Shelton said. “I think we need to do a bit more community outreach before we propose this kind of dramatic change to code.”
A couple of people had approached the county about constructing buildings that exceed current limitations.
Currently, buildings can not exceed 24,000 square feet in Freeland and 14,000 in Clinton. Those are the sizes of the largest buildings that existed when the ordinance was written in 1998.
Payless Foods in Freeland and a person interested in building an adult-care home approached the county about a potential change in the Comprehensive Plan.
“The county was looking at a way to to address some questions,” Coleman said. “We wanted to look at whether or not larger buildings are appropriate for Clinton or Freeland.”
Shelton said that the issue came forward a bit too rapidly. After an initial outpouring of negative sentiment, Bakke approached Shelton and asked if the issue should be dropped.
“I think that certainly this issue was moved forward by the planning department without a lot of discussion by the Board of County Commissioners if this was the direction we wanted to move,” Shelton said. “When Phil (Bakke) asked me if I wanted to drop the issue, I said ‘yes.’ I certainly didn’t pressure the planning department.”
Bakke did not return phone calls seeking further comment.
One of the opponents to the increase was Steve Shapiro, who worked with the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee. That was a citizen’s group that sought to guide the future of the area.
“I don’t think it should have been introduced,” Shapiro said. “I’m personally opposed to buildings of that size and will speak out against them in the future.”
Shapiro and Shelton both said that the fear of an invasion of “big-box” stores fueled the negative response.
“It doesn’t seem to me or most of the other people that buildings of that size are necessary,” Shapiro said.
Shelton questioned the need for the proposal in the Clinton area, as well. He said that Freeland has established itself as an area of growth, both currently and in the future.
“It made zero sense to me to increase the building size in Clinton,” Shelton said. “Freeland is, without a doubt, becoming the commercial center of South Whidbey — Clinton is not.”
Coleman said that even if the increase had gone through, it would have included design standards to limit the impacts a larger building would have on the surrounding areas.
Those standards would have included guidelines for the building’s appearance to keep it in context with other buildings.
“If we moved to the larger buildings, we would allow them to be more in tune with the character,” Coleman said.
For now, the issue is dropped, Shelton said. A solution to the problem of a potential lack of some vital services still needs to be found, he said.
The proposal for a large assisted-living facility is something that should be considered, he said.
“Certainly there probably needs to be something in the code in order to accommodate certain uses,” Shelton said. “One of the things that comes to mind is senior assisted living. Assisted living on South Whidbey is something that we desperately need.”


From an unofficial source:
Island County Planning Needs to Stop Misleading its Citizens and Protect Rural Residents, Family Farmers, Drinking Water, and Water Quality (e-mail received April 28, 2005 - refers to a recent news article)

"Island County Planning Sends Misleading Public Notice..." this e-mail sent by http://www.futurewise.org/

Island County Planning & Community Development wasted your tax payer dollars by sending a misleading and inappropriate meeting notice.  It’s April 18, 2005 meeting notice states that it is “highly possible” that Island County residents and property owners in the rural zones will not be able to farm, have vegetable gardens, graze animals, raise animals, lease pasture, cut hay, or have children in 4-H who raise animals on their property.

These misleading claims are untrue, or will only be true if the county adopts development regulations that go well beyond what good sense requires and what the Growth Management Act allows.  Many counties and cities have carefully crafted provisions that enhance agriculture and conserve the environment.  Island County should stop wasting tax dollars and start protecting our family farms and our drinking water.

The Growth Management Act Requires that Farming be Permitted in Rural Areas and Island County must Maintain and Enhance Farming in the County

Washington’s forward thinking Growth Management Act has protected hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland from strip malls and pavement.  Just down I-5 from Island County, the Growth Management Act has prevented the conversion of farmland in the flood plain of the Stillaquamish River into a strip mall and auto dealer.  In fact the Growth Management Act requires Island County to permit farming and agriculture in rural Island County.  The county must also “maintain and enhance” agriculture.  The county must also “protect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life,” including water quality and the availability of drinking water.

What the Does the Court of Appeals Decision Mean?

The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and the Washington State Court of Appeals both held that Island County cannot exempt agriculture in the Rural Residential zone from provisions to protect water quality, drinking water, streams, wetlands and people and property from natural hazards.  In fact both the court and board agreed that there was no evidence this exemption was needed to protect agricultural activities.

What Does Island County Need to Do?

County growth plan ready:  With up to 300,000 more residents over the next 20 years, the county proposes new self-contained towns and urban villages. WORKSHOP & PLAN SCHEDULE.
By Brian Kelly, kelly@heraldnet.com.
Everett Herald

EVERETT - Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon says the county's just-released plan for handling growth over the next 20 years is a notable departure from the county's previous growth-management plan.

"We've seen tremendous sprawl. We've seen unplanned, unmanaged growth," Reardon said. "We've seen growth that's turned into blight. We've seen schools become overcrowded.

"Our plan changes the direction of this county," he said.  With growth comes challenges.

The costs of transportation improvements and services alone over the next 20 years, for example, are expected to cost more than $2 billion. And the county faces a funding shortfall as high as $727 million under one scenario.

Closing that budget hole - which will be only a $225 million deficit if improvements are focused on critical bottlenecks and intersections - may require annual property tax increases, a hike in traffic impact fees for developers, higher fuel taxes and a new local "car tab" fee ranging from $20 to $30 per vehicle.  Tonight, the county will hold its first workshop on the draft comprehensive plan at 5 p.m. in the main conference room of the county's new administration building.

More workshops will be held in the coming weeks before the first public hearing on the plan is held in late May.  Almost 300,000 more people are expected to live here by the year 2025, pushing the population from about 645,000 today to 930,000. The county's plan directs much of the growth to existing cities and their urban growth areas.

"We're going to grow. It's how you grow that makes a difference," Reardon said.  Many components of the growth plan are also expected to attract interest.

The plan includes new policies for fully-contained communities, built-from-scratch towns on rural lands that have been controversial in other parts of the state.

Another new proposal: Designating "urban villages" within urban growth areas that will have a mix of retail, office, and medium- to high-density residential development.  The county has identified places to put more than 10 such villages, including at 148th Street SE and Seattle Hill Road, and Maltby Road and 39th Avenue SE.

Because much of the future growth will be focused in urban areas, zoning will be intensified in 6 square miles of land already within cities' urban growth areas.

More rural lands will be opened up for urban development under the proposed plan, however.  Ten growth areas will be expanded, and 3.5 square miles of rural land will be added to urban expansion areas.  It may not be enough for some, however.

Dozens of property owners have asked for their lands to be added to urban expansion areas. Not all of those properties have been included in the proposed changes to the growth plan.  Mary Lynne Evans, manager of the county's long-range planning division, said there is ample room in the urban growth areas to accommodate the next 20 years' of development.

"We found there were many, many places within the urban growth areas that could develop," Evans said. "Our numbers show that it is enough."

Still, that may not satisfy developers who have asked the county to expand the cities' growth areas to bigger boundaries than those in the rewritten plan.  Beyond builders, others may find fault with the proposed plan.  Kristin Kelly, the local spokeswoman for Futurewise, a controlled-growth group, said county policies that preserve the natural environment have been weakened.

"It is disappointing to see the policy language weakened at a time when we need stronger protections of our environment," Kelly said.
--------------------------

Growth workshops

What: County officials present a draft of the county's comprehensive plan, the document that will guide development over the next two decades.

Where:


When: 5-8 p.m.

What's next

* Land to be rezoned will be posted by May 13.

* Joint planning commission-County Council public hearing in Everett, May 24.

* Joint planning commission-County Council public hearing in Arlington, May 26.

* Joint planning commission-County Council public hearing in Monroe, June 1.

* Joint planning commission-County Council public hearing in the southwest part of the county, June 2.

* Planning commission deliberations, June 7.

* County Council public hearing, Sept. 7.

* County Council deliberations tentatively start Sept. 14.


WHAT IS IT?
GROWTH ISSUES - GMA of 1990 as amended takes hold and says "no" to Counties and cities that want "local control" SEE HOW IT WORKS...

City of Everett, WA now updating its 10-year Plan:


South Whidbey examples:

  • Island County - and specifically, the Clinton Water District argument:  http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/western/decisions/2004/04-2-0001_Braathen_OrderDismissingPetition_20040603.pdf.
  • Bayview-West Beach RAIDS issue (1999):  http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/western/decisions/1998/98-23cCompOrderLiftingInvalidityWBeachandBayvwRaids.htm.




    • FOUND ON INTERNET...HOW THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GREW AND GETS IMPLEMENTED...
    Office of Governor Gary Locke
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - September 9, 2003
    Contact:  Governor's Communications Office, 360-902-4136

    Gov. Locke Calls for Thoughtful Growth Management in Snohomish County
    Gov. Gary Locke has directed the state Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to appeal amendments to the countywide planning policies adopted by the Snohomish County Council in July.

    The governor stated in a letter to CTED Director Martha Choe that the appeal is necessary because the county’s amendments could result in an inappropriate expansion of the county urban growth areas, leading to sprawl.

    “We must maintain our commitment to the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act,” Locke said. “Thoughtful planning helps local governments provide more cost-effective public services, while protecting our environment.”

    Snohomish County’s countywide planning policies have been in place since 1994 and have limited the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped rural land into urban or suburban development. Recent changes to the policies by the Snohomish County Council have adversely affected important protections against sprawl. The county executive opposed the recent changes and returned the adoption ordinance unsigned.

    “Decisions on converting rural and agricultural land to urban development go beyond today or tomorrow – they affect future generations,” Choe said. “We want to work with Snohomish County to resolve these issues.”

    Countywide planning policies provide a framework for local planning. The subsequent local plans, such as a comprehensive plan and development regulations, must then be consistent with the countywide planning policies. Previous court decisions have held that countywide planning policies must be consistent with the Growth Management Act. Only the governor or affected cities may appeal a countywide planning policy.

    The Petition for Review of the Snohomish County amendments was filed with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board on Sept. 8.

    Office of Governor Gary Locke
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 10, 2004
    Contact:  Governor's Communications Office, 360-902-4136

    Gov. Gary Locke Announces Growth Management Hearings Boards Appointments
    Gov. Gary Locke today announced the appointment of Gayle Rothrock of Vancouver to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and the reappointment of Judy Wall of Chelan to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

    Rothrock will serve on the board for a term beginning July 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2006. Rothrock is a self-employed consultant and community volunteer. She is currently a member of the Board of Trustees for Washington Water Trust and the city of Vancouver Charter Review Commission. She has also served on the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council and the Columbia River Gorge Commission.

    Rothrock will receive an annual salary of $88,145.

    Wall will serve on the board for a term ending June 30, 2006. She has served on the board since May 1992. Wall has also served on the board of the Lake Chelan Community Hospital Foundation, the Chelan/Douglas Counties Mental Health Advisory Board and as commissioner of the Lake Chelan Community Hospital District.

    The Growth Management Hearings Board hears and determines allegations that a city, county or state agency has not complied with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA), and related provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. The board reviews local actions when a Petition for Review is filed to determine if a local policy choice or action complies with the goals and requirements of the GMA.

    Wall will receive an annual salary of $88,145.


    Actually, this is about Snohomish County (next-door neighbor to Island county);  the"Growth Management" concept established in the State of Washington 10 years ago is one idea that is seen as possibly being an answer to "sprawl" in CT...
    Published: Thursday, December 30, 2004
    Roads won't suffer, at first;  Despite governor's order to withhold gas taxes from the county, projects won't immediately shut down.
    By Brian Kelly, Everett, WA Herald

    Gov. Gary Locke's sanctions against Snohomish County won't mean an immediate shutdown of county road projects if the state follows through on withholding the county's portion of gas taxes starting March 1.

    Earlier this week, Locke ordered state Treasurer Mike Murphy to withhold the county's motor vehicle fuel taxes. Snohomish County had expected to receive about $9.2 million in gas taxes over the next year. The money was earmarked for road construction projects, repairs and maintenance.

    Locke imposed sanctions because of the County Council's attempts to put farmland at Island Crossing into the city of Arlington's urban growth area, counter to the state's the Growth Management Act. It was the first time Locke had ordered such sanctions, and just the second time sanctions have been leveled against a county since the Growth Management Act was adopted more than a decade ago.

    Peter Hahn, director of the county's public works department, said the county would move forward with road projects that have already been planned and are in the pipeline. "I'm not pulling the plug on anything," he said.

    "For the time being, we're going ahead with whatever we have," Hahn added. "We're just going to continue our annual construction program."

    The bulk of spending on road projects starts in the spring. If the sanctions aren't immediately lifted and gas tax revenues are withheld, Hahn said the county has enough in its fund balance to keep the 2005 road projects moving forward. The fund balance contains previously received revenues that have been set aside for future projects.

    If the county and the state can't resolve the land-use dispute that led to the sanctions, the county's six-year plan that details capital improvement projects may have to be revised. However, Hahn said he is optimistic it won't come to that.

    "At this point, I think there is some expectation that the executive and the council and the governor's office are planning to address this whole issue," Hahn said. "Everyone is working feverishly on it."

    Elaine Emans, deputy treasurer for operations in the state treasurer's office, said the monthly payments of gas tax revenues to Snohomish County will stop in March unless the sanctions are lifted.

    Once the governor determines the county has complied with the Growth Management Act, the payments will resume on the next regularly scheduled disbursement date. The county would also receive any taxes withheld during the sanction period.

    The County Council will meet in a closed-door session Monday to talk about its response to the sanctions.


    Published: Wednesday, December 29, 2004, Everett WA Herald (just across the water from South Whidbey)
    Locke says he'll sanction county

    Gov. Gary Locke on Tuesday ordered sanctions against Snohomish County because of the County Council's efforts to put Island Crossing farmland into Arlington's urban growth area.

    Locke asked the state treasurer's office to withhold the county's portion of the gas tax starting March 1 - an amount expected to top $9.2 million in the next year. The county planned to use the money for road construction, repair and maintenance.

    The county's push to urbanize Island Crossing violates the state's Growth Management Act, Locke said. It's the first time he has ordered sanctions against a county deemed out of compliance with the act.  In a statement, the governor said the County Council hasn't done enough to comply with the June decision of a state growth hearings board on the Island Crossing dispute.

    "It was my desire to avoid the imposition of sanctions and work together on a solution," Locke said in a statement.

    "We do not intend to punish the people of Snohomish County," he said. "We would simply like the council to comply with the order of the board." Locke's decision to impose sanctions, announced just weeks before he leaves office, was met with glum reaction by county leaders.

    "I'm not surprised, because I knew this could happen," County Executive Aaron Reardon said. "But I am disappointed that we're at this point."

    Reardon asked Locke in July not to impose sanctions. Later that month, Locke wrote County Council Chairman John Koster a letter requesting that they work together to bring the county into compliance.  Koster said he thought the council had taken adequate steps and that the land had reverted to its earlier designation for agricultural use after the council passed a law following the growth board's decision.

    "We believed we were in compliance," Koster said. "We don't think there is any ambiguity. As far as we're concerned, this ground is designated 'ag' ground."  Koster said the governor's move to levy sanctions left him puzzled.

    "You've got to wonder if this isn't somewhat political - a parting salvo by our soon-to-be parting governor," he said.  Ron Shultz, an environmental policy adviser for Locke, said the council needs to completely repeal the law that removed the land from agriculture uses.  Koster said the council will meet in a closed-door session on Monday to discuss its next step. He said it would be up to the council to decide if it wants to ask the state's next governor to drop the sanctions.

    "I'd like to tell them to go pound sand. But I can't make that decision," Koster said.

    Car dealer Dwayne Lane has lobbied the county for years to let Arlington expand into Island Crossing so he can build an auto dealership at a high-profile location next to I-5. Lane is one of 23 property owners in the Island Crossing area who want the land-use designation changed.  But the idea of removing the land from farming and opening the Stillaguamish River flood plain to more development has ignited opposition from farmers, growth-management activists and others.

    The controversy moves to Superior Court in April. Lane is pursuing an appeal of the growth board's decision that prevents further development at Island Crossing.

    "The reason that our lame-duck governor has again brought out the hammer of imposing sanctions on Snohomish County is to influence the trial in Superior Court that is scheduled to begin in just 12 weeks," Lane said in a statement.

    Recent court decisions have supported local control of land-use policies, Lane added.

    The Growth Management Act is the sweeping land-use law adopted more than a decade ago to protect farmland and forests from urban sprawl.



    New septic rules hard on small lots
    Whidbey Island News-Times
    Dec. 18, 2004
    By Eric Burns

    Island County’s septic systems are a-changin’ and Tuesday, people had an opportunity to hear how.

    The Washington State Board of Health sponsored a workshop to present the proposed changes to the state’s on-site septic system regulations. More than 80 people squeezed into the Commissioners’ Hearing Room and another 15 gathered on Camano Island to hear the changes.

    Among the major changes will a reclassification of the soil types. This will affect the allowable size of drainfields, said septic designer Reid Tascia.
    The reclassification has lowered the rates that runoff from the septic system is absorbed into the ground. This dramatically increases the size of the required drainfields, Tascia said.

    “It’s going to stop development of small lots up and down the island,” he said.

    Mike Trask, a partner at Diamond Construction and a licensed installer, said the restrictions will make designing a new system much more difficult.
    “People buy these lots with the idea of building a retirement home,” he said. “And 20 years later, they want to build their home and they can’t.”
    Systems that are already installed will be grandfathered in under the new rules, but any upgrades or major repairs must comply with the changes.
    The Rules Development Committee, of which Tascia is a member, proposed the changes in an effort to modernize the regulations, which have not been updated since 1994. The workshop was an effort to educate septic owners and installers of the pending changes. Approximately 70 percent of Island County homes have a septic system.

    “The people from the state did not tell Island County what the changes mean for Island County,” Tascia said. “They did not (say) directly how it would effect us.”

    Tascia said he is preparing a presentation for how it would increase property owners’ costs in Island County. The main impact will be the amount of land needed for larger drain fields. In places such as Smuggler’s Cove, the smaller lots will be undevelopable, he said.  “We won’t have enough land to put the drainfields in,” he said.

    One thing that would save Island County lot owners would be to revisit the minimum amount of outflow into the drainfields. It is locally required that a designer must build the system based on a house producing 150 gallons per day per bedroom, but the state’s minimum is 120 gallons. Changing to the state minimum would help cancel out the changes from soil reclassification, Tascia said.

    The new regulations also call for more stringent inspection requirements. System owners would be required to have an inspection at least once every three years. Some systems would need an annual inspection.

    “I guess I’m in favor of having septic checked,” Trask said. “But, having it done one time each year is a heavy-duty thing.”

    He said he can estimate how often an inspection is necessary based on a family’s output. Inspections are necessary, however, Trask said.
    “It’s like checking or changing the oil in a car — a lack of maintenance does promote failure,” he said.

    Beginning in mid-January, members of the public can submit comments on the changes to the state Department of Health. People can e-mail comments to: WastewaterMgmt@doh.wa.gov  or send comments by regular mail to: Wastewater Management Program Washington State Department of Health, PO Box 47825, 7171 Cleanwater Lane Olympia, WA 98504-7825. 



    Nichols plan draws opposition in debate
    South Whidbey RECORD
    December 18, 2004
    By MATT JOHNSON

    Christine Goodwin is having a hard time believing that having a major shipyard near her back yard will not impact her life.
    Goodwin, a Holmes Harbor resident, remembers the day in 2003 when logs and waves slammed into her dock, dislodging one of the pilings that held the dock in place. The rough water and debris in the normally calm, 10-mile harbor came off the props of two huge tugboats working to pull the 360-foot long cruise ship Empress of the North off the bottom of the harbor. The stern of the vessel had crashed into the muck when it slipped down a pair of launching rails, rails placed in the water by Nichols Brothers Boat Builders to float its largest ship construction project ever.

    Now the president of the newly formed Friends of Holmes Harbor, Goodwin is at the head of a movement to oppose Nichols Brothers’ intent to more than double the size of its 5-acre shipyard, move to a 24-hour work schedule, and compete for military and state ferry shipbuilding contracts — contracts that could have the shipbuilder launching vessels as large or larger than the one that got stuck last year.

    Goodwin and members of her group are also getting ready to battle Island County on a procedural matter — its recent declaration that it plans to issue a “determination of non-significance” in relation to the impact of the proposed expansion on the surrounding area.

    While she claims she and other members of her non-profit political action group support Nichols Brothers’ current work at the tip of Holmes Harbor, Goodwin said Whidbey Island’s largest industrial employer is trying to grow too large for its location. That location is in the middle of a seaside residential community that has grown to hundreds of houses over the past 40 years.

    If Nichols is going to build big ships, Goodwin said, the company should move to a place that already encourages that sort of industry, such as Everett.

    “They’re becoming something that is not in balance with this community,” she said.

    Shipbuilder encourages, gets debate

    Since Nichols Brothers made its new, 15-year growth plan public in late October, Whidbey Islanders who both oppose and support the company’s intention to expand have been debating the merits of having a large shipyard in the midst of one of the more densely populated areas of South Whidbey. On their part, Nichols Brothers officials have encouraged the debate, making copies of the plan available at public libraries and holding two public, informational meetings during the past month — an unprecedented move for the firm. The growth plan is currently being reviewed by the Island County planning department, which has stated that it intends to issue a master permit to allow Nichols to build a permanent rail launch system in the Holmes Harbor tidelands, construct more than a dozen 65-foot high work buildings, and more than double the size of its yard.

    In a notice published in local newspapers, the planning department has also stated it will likely issue a determination of non-significance, or DNS, when it recommends the approval of the master permit. That determination — though issued for most development projects, as is required by county development rules — has brought opposition to the Nichols proposal to a head during the past week.

    “It’s just astonishing to me the county can maintain that there’s no environmental significance,” said Steve Erickson, one of the founders of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network while commenting recently on the permit process.

    WEAN has allied itself with the Friends of Holmes Harbor and is currently engaged in doing legal research of the proposed shipyard expansion. At the same time, the proposal is being scrutinized by not only Island County, but the Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the state Department of Ecology. The state and federal agencies will issue permits relating to the shipyard’s expansion plan separate of and after Island County issues a master permit.

    Jeff Tate, an assistant planner with Island County, said there will be no rubber stamping of any aspect of the Nichols permit. The current row over the intended DNS is a fight he said that will be better fought as the permit is examined and put out for public comment. While state law allows planning agencies to choose between DNS and determination of significance options in the permitting process, Tate said the planning department is required by county code to go with the DNS.

    However, planners can and will write environmental provisions into the permit as needed, Tate said. And they will be needed: the Holmes Harbor tidelands at the Nichols Brothers tidelands are home to a growing community of eelgrass, a forage habitat for endangered Northwest salmon. Nichols Brothers was cited and fined by several state and federal agencies when the Empress of the North incident destroyed portions eelgrass beds in the harbor last year.

    Why does it have to be so big?

    Established in Holmes Harbor as a builder of small boats in 1964, Nichols Brothers has expanded its operations over the years. According to company literature, Nichols got its start building small fishing and tug boats, but by the early 1990s was best known for the high-speed aluminum catamarans it built for ferry companies and tourism firms.

    During the past three years, Nichols has moved from building these mid-size boats — averaging about 150 feet long — toward larger projects, including the 3,500 ton Empress and a 265-foot-long, 1,100 ton prototype military catamaran dubbed the X-Craft. At a Nichols-sponsored community meeting held in Freeland on Dec. 14, Nichols chairman Matt Nichols confirmed that big boats are his company’s future. He said he hopes to win contracts to build large car ferry boats and production versions of the X-Craft.

    “We will be chasing after more military work,” he said.

    Through the 1980s, the shipyard went through several small expansion phases, building its facility to its current size — large enough to build one large boat at a time or two medium-sized boats simultaneously.

    Bryan Nichols, Matt Nichols’ son and company co-president, has explained that the planned expansion of the shipyard — which includes a controversial, 1,400-foot-long rail launching system designed to accommodate ships weighing up to 5,000 tons — must happen if the company is to continue to business on Whidbey Island. Currently employing about 250 people, the company might move off the island if its expansion plans are rejected, Bryan Nichols said.

    That’s not something even opponents of the expansion want to see. Friends of Holmes Harbor’s Goodwin said harbor residents can coexist with the company in its current configuration.

    “We don’t want to take their jobs,” she said.

    But the company’s drive to build large ships on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-per-week schedule is unacceptable, she said. The highest-profile issue associated with these expanded hours is the amount of noise the constant work would generate.

    At the Dec. 14 meeting, sound engineers working for Nichols Brothers attempted to explain their testing of the noise currently produced at the shipyard. According to their presentation, current noise levels meet state standards, on average.

    With a larger shipyard, Bryan Nichols pledged his company will work more quietly than the state standard — 60 decibels during the day, 50 decibels at night — primarily through scheduling appropriate work for appropriate times of day, and by using noise dampening materials in the company’s construction sheds.

    By comparison, the sound of someone playing the piano is the same level of noise that would be allowed the shipyard for daytime work.

    This week, Bryan Nichols clarified Nichols Brothers’ aim. He said the master plan his company developed was required by Island County and other permitting agencies. The company will be required by 2007 to have a new type of boat launching system, something that does not involved the long concrete ramp and mechanical crawler tracks currently used.

    Nichols said the growth scheme included in the plan is more an indication of what the shipyards future could be, not necessarily what it will be. For Nichols Brothers to grow to the full extent laid out in the plan — expected to cost about $10 million — the company would have to win a large number of big boat contracts.

    “Right now we don’t have that sort of work behind us,” he said.

    There’s going to be a showdown

    Per a request by Nichols Brothers, the public review of the company’s expansion plan has been extended a month beyond what is required, giving islanders until Jan. 15 to submit commentary on the proposal to Island County.

    During that time, county planners will be preparing a recommendation on the permit to go to Island County Hearings Examiner Michael Bobbink, who has the final signoff on any permit to be issued. Also in that time, both Nichols and those opposing the permit will be getting ready for a showdown in a public hearing, and if necessary, in court.

    Nichols Brothers has hired a consulting attorney on the issue who is intimately familiar with Island County’s development regulations. Alison Moss, one half of the husband-and-wife team that helped write and defend Island County’s comprehensive land use plan when it was presented to the state for approval in 1999, is representing Nichols in matters relating to the master permit. Moss and her husband, Keith Dearborn, worked for Island County to the tune of about $722,000 during the two-year period required to finish the county’s comprehensive plan.

    For their part, the Friends of Holmes Harbor are currently going through Nichols’ permit application and master plan in detail. At the same time, WEAN founders Erickson and Marianne Edain are researching several lists of permits pertaining to the proposed shipyard expansion, looking for any commissions in Nichols permit application. That application has been accepted as complete by Island County.

    Both organizations have given credit to Nichols Brothers for its move to extend the public comment period on the permit. That will be a help to the public, Erickson said.

    “That in itself is an improvement.”

    No public hearing is currently scheduled for a final public review of the permit. Island County’s Jeff Tate said the hearing will be scheduled when the planning department finishes its permit review.


    Wetlands rules finally adopted
    Whidbey News-Times
    By Paul Boring
    Mar 26 2008

    A three-year process that prompted more than 40 newspaper articles, five radio broadcasts, two countywide mailings, presentations to 16 community groups and nine workshops, culminated last week in Coupeville with the County Commissioners’ approval of the new wetlands ordinance.

    The revised critical areas ordinance updates the county’s 23-year-old wetland protections against future development of property affected by wetlands. The initial draft received myriad amendments from its infancy in the hands of the Island County Planning Commission, to its adulthood spent in the company of the commissioners. Some changes were made as a result of community feedback, and others direct recommendations from state agencies.

    The new CAO, which goes into effect July 1, employs a highly-adaptable, site-specific approach, in stark contrast to other state jurisdictions that use a “one-size-fits-all” strategy.

    For a property affected by wetlands or a wetland buffer, the type and function of the critical areas are considered along with the intensity of the proposed land use.

    The county uses a property’s particular conditions when determining buffer size, or “wetland setback.” A buffer is a vegetated strip around a wetland that filters surface water and contaminants and provides habitat for many species that cannot flourish in other environments.

    Under the revised ordinance, some buffers will be larger than current regulations require, while others will be smaller, and some will remain the same. A buffer’s size is based on whether it provides high quality habitat value or water quality protection.

    Dr. Paul Adamus, a wetlands biologist, and county planning staff conducted the fieldwork in 2005. The 12-month first phase, coupled with exhaustive research, yielded a report describing the wetlands and their general health. Utilizing the data, the proposed CAO was drafted. Over the spring and summer, numerous public workshops were conducted to solicit comments and questions. State agencies reviewed the draft, as did peers in the scientific and professional fields, and county commissioners have been reviewing the updated CAO since January.

    “We believe this new ordinance will provide an appropriate balance of scientific wetlands protection and attention to people’s need to live and prosper here,” said Board Chairman John Dean.

    Adamus categorized wetlands using the state Department of Ecology’s system and evaluated the health of wetlands according to his professional opinion, which he formulated using his own system.

    The biologist used an esoteric, statistical correlation process to determine how closely the state’s set of “scores” tracked the modified county method. He boiled down the results for the commissioners and said the outcome for both methods, which overlap in some areas, are comparable.

    The commissioners were satisfied last week with the final four amendments, one of which dealt with clearing thresholds. Planning staff initially drafted the changes to address concerns issued in letters sent by Whidbey Environmental Action Network, South Whidbey resident Jeanne Hunsinger and the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.

    The remaining three amendments included language that prohibits the creation of new lots around wetlands, considers continued agricultural activity on properties that have historically used the land for that purpose, and laid out “findings of fact” with revised verbiage.

    A Rural Stewardship Plan embedded in the new ordinance provides monetary incentives for owners with parcels one acre or greater who learn and practice conservation strategies for long-term development goals or property tax benefits.

    Steve Erickson of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network, one of two audience members present last week, said reducing land use intensity with the rural stewardship option is not enough. He further said an amendment needs to provide limits on impervious surfaces and address non-residential developments.

    The stewardship plans also accord landowners with “head of the line,” expedited permit review. Plan requirements will be officially recorded by the county on the property title or deed.

    The type and size of wetlands protected under the new CAO have also changed. A fifth category has been added and they will now be categorized A through E based on their relative significance. The size threshold has also changed; some wetlands as small as 1,000 square feet will now be regulated, up from the previous quarter-acre minimum.

    Erickson said he was “disappointed” in the commissioners’ treatment of the agricultural issue. He added that the only reason they removed the original wording was because it is “patently illegal.”

    Regarding the findings of fact, Erickson bemoaned ordinance wording that he said did not classify anything as reasonable use, leaving the issue open to interpretation. He recommended the document state specifically that projects can be denied.

    “Protecting property rights does not mean that anything goes,” he said.

    Planning Director Jeff Tate and Keith Dearborn, the longtime county-contracted attorney, both disagreed with Erickson’s assertion.

    “There may be circumstances when a project is denied,” Dearborn said. “I expect that will be very rare.”

    Phil Bakke, who was appointed commissioner last September, initiated the CAO update while serving in his former capacity as planning director. He said regardless of their respective political bent, all residents share a desire to retain the county’s rural character.

    “This protects the environment and land rights, and gives property owners options,” he said.

    All three commissioners profusely supported the ordinance, praising the work of county planners and the wetlands biologist. Dean said he began his county tenure with a degree of cynicism. Observing the wetlands ordinance process turned him into “a believer in the planning department.”

    Commissioner Mac McDowell underscored the state agencies’ support of the county’s program.

    “It’s been a fine balancing act,” he said in a press release. “We feel Island County planners, planning commissioners, consultants, state reviewers and peer review scientists from around the country - and most importantly, the citizens from our two islands – have walked that tightrope well, and we thank them all for their efforts.”

    The board’s approval was punctuated by Bakke’s quick and emphatic “Ay.”

    The Planning department’s Web site contains a CAO primer with downloadable guidebooks at www.islandcounty.net/planning. The site will be constantly updated until July to include final amendments.

    County planning commission starts deliberations on wetlands rules; Rules criticized for allowing building on all lands
    South Whidbey RECORD
    By Brian Kelly
    Dec 12 2007

    The first overhaul of the county’s rules for developing property with wetlands in more than two decades is nearing completion. Island County planning commissioners were scheduled to begin their review of the county’s new wetlands rules this week.

    The rewrite of the wetlands rules — a set of dictates that define how property owners can use lands with natural wet spots — is part of an extensive remodel of the county’s critical areas regulations. The regulations cover development of properties with environmentally sensitive spots, such as steep slopes, streams and wildlife habitat areas.  While the new wetlands rules have not been as controversial as the county’s new rules that cover farming on lands with critical areas, the proposed wetland regulations do have their critics.

    WEAN, the Whidbey Environmental Action Network, said the new rules don’t go far enough in protecting wetlands because they won’t stop development that can hurt critical areas.

    “The new critical area policies and regulations do not deliver,” Steve Erickson and Marianne Edain of WEAN wrote in a recent 21-page memo to the county. “We urge the county to step back and start over, with a perspective that protecting the environment is not an annoyance required by state law, but a responsibility to the people who are here today and those who will come after; to all the plants and critters that make these islands what they are.”

    Island County planning director Jeff Tate said he has heard concern about the new wetlands rules from all sides.  Public hearings on the proposed regulations wrapped up late last month and the complexity of the new rules was a common theme, he said.

    “I think everybody, whether they are very concerned about property rights or whether they are concerned on the environment, are saying how complex the ordinance is,” Tate said.

    “We would love to keep the existing ordinance because of its simplicity,” he added.

    “We recognize that’s not a reality,” Tate said, explaining that the county is now required by the state to base its rules on the “best available science.” That’s led the county to hire a team of outside consultants, scientists and experts to help rewrite the rules, which have undergone peer review not only by the county’s hired help, but also a group of state agencies.

    Despite the rewrite of the rules, the county has discovered its existing wetland rules have worked pretty good over the years in protecting sensitive waterways. A comprehensive study released in August 2006 said the county’s wetlands were generally in good health.

    “While the ordinance that we’ve had in place for the past 23 years has done a pretty good job in protecting wetlands ...

    I don’t think that it would be realistic to say that the existing regulations are going to be capable of handling growth for an infinite period of time,” Tate said.

    Adding to the complexity of the new rules, he said, is that the application of the new rules will be site-specific. What might work on one property might not work on another. And that has some people worried.

    “A lot of people when they start looking at the ordinance ... they have concerns about discretion, about how the ordinance will be implemented,” Tate said.

    Others, he said, have quite the opposite in mind.

    “It cuts both ways. They’re concerned that the department may exercise too much discretion and further infringe upon property rights and an equal number of people are saying we’re not exercising enough discretion and will not do enough to protect the environment.”

    The proposed rules have recently drawn harsh criticism for allowing land – any land – with wetlands to be developed.  Tate, however, said the county has many parcels that were created before wetlands rules even existed. And though development is allowed on any parcel, it’s restricted.  The county has also long had a policy that legally created lots can be developed, despite the environmental constraints found on some properties. Even so, Tate said the new rules do limit development.

    “We have a lot of ability within the ordinance to make sure that the property is developed with the least impact,” he said.

    “If you come to the counter and propose a very large 10,000-square-foot house, but because it’s so big it’s going to intrude into the buffer, we may respond ‘You may have bought the wrong piece of property,’ and reduce the house (size) to avoid impacts to the critical area.

    “If you have a property that is entirely covered with wetlands or buffer or both, the ordinance will allow you to use that property to construct a modest sized home,” he said.

    Such an approach is reasonable, Tate said.

    “Until the county or state is prepared to purchase that property, that’s the way it’s going to be,” he said.

    Restarting the rewrite of the rules from scratch is not an option.

    Work on the rewrite of the county’s critical areas ordinance got underway in early 2005 and the county has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the effort since then. Multiple public hearings have been held over the past two years on Whidbey and Camano islands.  Tate said the wetlands rules are just one piece of the county’s update of its critical areas ordinance.

    After the wetlands rules are finalized, just one piece of work remains: a rewrite of the rules covering fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The other components of the critical areas ordinance — farming rules, regulations on aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas - have all been finished.  The county’s new farming rules, however, are still tied up in a lawsuit filed by WEAN.

    WEAN said the controversial farm rules, which were completed in fall 2006, were inadequate and challenged the regulations before a state growth hearings board.  When the growth hearings board sided with the county, WEAN filed an appeal of the rules in Thurston County Superior Court.  A court review of the farm rules was then put on hold as WEAN waited for a decision in the state Supreme Court case between Skagit County and the Swinomish Tribe that WEAN said would help its battle against Island County’s farming rules. The tribe said Skagit County’s critical areas rules did not go far enough in protecting environmentally sensitive lands.

    In October, however, the high court ruled that Skagit County’s “no harm” standard of protecting wetlands and other critical areas was sufficient, and WEAN recently decided to move forward with its superior court lawsuit against Island County.  The planning commission is scheduled to continue its deliberations on the county’s new wetlands rules through mid-December. A vote on the rules is expected on Dec. 18.

    “They are going to makes some changes; there is no doubt,” Tate said.

    County commissioners are then expected to take up the new rules in early January.  But they won’t be seeing the regulations for the first time; Tate said the board has received numerous updates and briefings as the regulations were being rewritten.

    “Nothing is going to be new to them, so there’s not much of a learning curve. They may be able to proceed very quickly,” Tate said.

    Since the new rules will take effect 90 days after they are approved by county commissioners, the earliest the new rules could be on the books is in April.
    A closer look: Island County's new wetlands rules
    South Whidbey RECORD
    By BRIAN KELLY
    May 19 2007

    The hand wringing has begun over Island County’s new rules covering development near wetlands.

    County officials unveiled the new rules last week as part of the overhaul of the county’s “critical areas” regulations that were last updated in 1998. “Critical areas” are environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes.  County officials have acknowledged that the new wetlands rules are complex and confusing.
    “It is complex, and that’s a bit of a worry to me,” County Commissioner Mike Shelton said.

    Beyond new rules, the package includes the adoption of different policies in the county’s comprehensive plan — its long-range guide for handling growth and development. Included at the same time, too, is the launching of a new land stewardship program, and the regulatory adoption of a “best available science” standard to support the new rules.

    “It’s a huge bite to swallow. If there was some simple way to do it, we would pursue simplicity in a heartbeat,” Shelton said.

    A major update

    Island County was the first county in the state to adopt wetland regulations in 1984, but few changes have been made to the rules in the two decades since they were adopted.   In the existing rules, the no-go areas around wetlands called “buffers” were based solely on the type of the wetland being regulated.

    Under the new regulations, Island County will categorize wetlands into four classes, and the county will work with property owners to determine the size of buffers, which will range from 20 feet to 300 feet based on a number of factors.  Rufus Rose, president of the Island County Property Rights Alliance, said there were multiple areas of the new rules that concern him.

    “The hardest question I have is why is it prohibited to open up wet marshes and peat marshes to open water?” Rose asked. “Every wet area started out as open water, and to make it illegal to return some of this to wildlife habitat — why would it be wrong?”

    Rose also cautioned that buffers of any size will pose impacts to property owners, especially farmers. As trees continue to grow in buffer areas, for example, they will cast bigger shadows and reduce the productivity of adjacent farmland.  Although the new rules include provisions for “buffer averaging” — which would reduce what Rose calls “no touch ’em” areas in certain spots — and ways to mitigate development impacts to wetlands through the use of wetlands banking on off-site lands, Rose said such efforts are limited.

    “It’s kind of like saying, when you whip me, do I like it when you only whip me on the left side and not the right side,” he said.

    “I think there is a religious zeal in protecting wetlands now that does not reflect balance,” Rose said. “I’m very concerned that we are overreacting and over-regulating.”

    The old way

    Beyond the obvious types of wetlands — ponds, bogs, streams and lagoons — scientists say wetlands can also include land that wouldn’t wet a frog’s bottom.

    Wetlands can be land that’s soggy enough to support plants that live in saturated soils, or places where there is never any water on the surface, so long as the ground 1-foot-deep is saturated two weeks a year.  The county has broken down wetlands into three groups since 1984: Category A (tidal wetlands or wetlands where there are mostly native plants); Category B (where there are mostly non-native plants); and Category C (man-made wetlands such as pond farms).

    Category A currently carries a 100-foot buffer; Category B,  50 feet; and Category C, 25 feet.  More than 80 percent of wetlands in Island County are now categorized as “A,” according to a recent report on wetlands.

    The new regulations are focused on three factors: type of wetland, vegetation and land use, said Phil Bakke, director of the Island County planning department.  And under the new rules, wetlands will be labeled under four categories. Category A wetlands are bogs, coastal lagoon wetlands, delta estuary wetlands and wetlands with mature forests.

    Category B wetlands are large, non-tidal ponded wetlands, wetlands associated with bogs, coastal lagoons or delta estuaries, and streams with “anadromous fish,” fish that are born in freshwater but migrate to the ocean before returning to reproduce.

    Category C wetlands are other tidal wetlands, streams with resident salmon and native plant wetlands.

    Category D wetlands are all other wetlands not already classified.

    The county has 2,301 acres of wetlands in Category A. In Category B, 3,666 acres. In Category C and D, 3,682 acres.  According to the county wetlands report, all but 1,019 of the 9,649 acres of the wetlands in Island County are owned by the public.

    The new rules

    The draft regulations come as development consumes more and more rural land in Island County.  The number of clearing and grading permits in Island County has more than doubled since 2000, when 36 permits were issued. A total of 72 permits were issued in 2004, and 81 were issued in 2005.  Most of the clearing permits issued over the past five years have been for properties between 5 and 9.9 acres.

    Bakke said the new rules will be difficult for some property owners to understand, largely because buffer sizes will be determined after a wetlands review is conducted by the county and the property owner.   The county will consider the type of wetland, the vegetation found there, and the use of the land before applying a set of rules to the property.

    “There’s a reason for the complexity,” Bakke said.

    “Our ordinance today is pretty simple. When we try to cater regulations to meet your specific conditions. You can’t help but get more complicated.”

    Buffers that are set to maintain water quality, for example, range depending on the land use from 40 feet to 200 feet for Category A wetlands, 35 feet to 175 feet for Category B wetlands, 30 feet to 150 feet for Category C wetlands, and from 20 feet to 70 feet for Category D wetlands.  Overall, buffers will be even larger on some properties.

    “There will be people who will have larger buffers,” Bakke said.

    “We don’t think there is going to be a rash of 300-foot buffers,” he added.  Also, unlike the existing ordinance, there will be no size limits to wetlands that fall under regulation.

    “That will cause a lot of concern,” Bakke said.  One potential problem, however, is that the smallest wetlands are hard to find and identify.

    By the numbers

    The county has 958 wetlands that cover 13,429 acres; roughly 2,079 acres are outside the county’s jurisdiction.

    Last August, the county issued a comprehensive study that said wetlands were healthy on Whidbey and Camano islands. The study used maps, aerial photography, satellite images, information from 720 permit files and site visits to 103 wetlands to gauge the health of wetlands on Whidbey and Camano islands.

    The 244-page report, written by wetlands scientist Paul Adamus, also said the 1984 rules to protect critical areas looked like they were working.

    Study offers details

    The August 2006 report examined key indicators of wetland health, including plants, wildlife and wetland quality.

    Historically, Island County has been drying out since settlers started coming in numbers in the mid-1800s. It’s estimated the islands had 22,574 acres of wetlands, about 17 percent of the county, which has since dropped to 13,428 acres of wetlands today.  The amount of original wetlands lost here, about 41 percent in Island County, is close to wetlands loss rate for the lower 48 states during the same time frame.

    Most wetlands were lost, the study says, at the turn of the late 1890s/early 1900s as pioneers drained and diked wetlands.  Not only has the number of wetlands dropped, but the area covered has, too, and wetlands in Island County are becoming increasingly isolated; no longer connected to each other by streams, estuaries and other wetlands.

    The Adamus study did not extensively address water quality, saying that such data was lacking and difficult to collect.  To overcome the data gap, the county has adopted a new water quality monitoring program to get information on water quality, the study says.  The county’s wetland study also notes other data deficiencies.  It says that trends in wetland species cannot be scientifically defended due to a lack of a historical, quantitative baseline. There is not enough local data to pinpoint trends on plant and animal species before and after the county adopted its first wetlands regulations in 1984. There’s also almost no historical data in Island County on water quality, sediment contamination and the spread of non-native plants.

    Based on science

    State rules require Island County to use the “best available science” as it overhauls its critical area rules. If the county doesn’t, it’s likely a state growth board would reject the rules.  With the public release of the new rules, the county has also issued its report on the “best available science” it used as the basis for its wetlands rules. Bakke said the county’s “best available science,” or BAS, will meet the mandatory milestone set by the state.

    Adamus, who has been working as a consultant on wetlands issues for the county’s critical areas rules for more than two years, wrote the 77-page BAS report. It was released last week.

    “This is the spine of the regulations. This provides the scientific basis for the ordinance,” Bakke said of the BAS report.

    “We have leading experts in the world reviewing things specific to Island County.

    “This is a remarkable effort,” Bakke said, adding that many jurisdictions have simply adopted the state Department of Ecology’s guidelines, which were based on a review of 100 wetlands across Washington state.  Island County’s “from scratch” effort, however, is based on local conditions.

    “Ours is based on 100 wetlands in Island County,” Bakke said.  Island County’s wetlands are vastly different than those found in King County, for example; Whidbey and Camano wetlands aren’t influenced by floodplains and rain-soaked rivers.  Bakke said he expects the county to be challenged on what it says is its BAS.

    “I think the county will be challenged, but the county will prevail,” he said.

    The county has been regularly meeting with state agencies as the new rules were put together, and three peer review groups have examined the new rules. The groups included agency scientists, public and private sector scientists from across Puget Sound, and internationally recognized wetlands scientists from Maine, Oregon and Canada.

    Shelton said the rules themselves were tailored to Island County and did not rely on the template established by the state.

    “I believe our ordinance will be a better ordinance,” he said.

    Shelton recalled the model ordinance suggested by the state Department of Ecology, and how property owners needed to hire biologists to examine their property, at $1,500 to $2,000 a pop, to complete an evaluation. Evaluations of the same property, he added, can have different results.

    “The thing that we are finding with the counties that have adopted the ordinance is there appears to be little consistency,” Shelton said.  Other new changes include a new “rural stewardship plan,” an idea inspired by the backyard habitat program that’s been so popular on Camano Island.

    The rural stewardship plan is a voluntary program for people who own rural parcels 1 acre or larger. It will give property owners the chance to get reduced regulations and property tax breaks if they make a long-term commitment to protect important habitat, using environmentally friendly fertilizers and pesticides, and keeping clearing to a minimum. Other options include designating conservation easements, reducing the size of lawns, building narrower driveways or using other low-impact development techniques, or installing drought-tolerant vegetation.

    “The plan can serve two purposes; it can serve as a way to get points for the Public Benefit Rating System,” Bakke said, referring to the property tax reduction program. “Or, if you commit, you can be put into a less intensive classification for wetlands.”

    “We’re trying to change the culture from a heavy reliance on regulations to one that has an equal reliance on education,” he said.

    Meetings planned

    A series of public workshops on the new wetlands rules will be held this month and next.  The schedule is:


    • Monday, May 21 (6 to 8 p.m.) at South Camano Grange Hall, 2221 S. Camano Dr., Camano Island;

    • Wednesday, May 30 (6 to 8 p.m.) at the Race Road Fire Station, 1164 Race Road, south of Coupeville;

    • Thursday, May 31 (7 to 9 p.m.) at the Taylor Road Fire Station, 3440 Taylor Road, North Whidbey;

    • Saturday, June 2 (10 a.m. to noon) at Four Springs Lake Preserve, 585 Lewis Lane, Camano Island;

    • Wednesday, June 6 (6 to 8 p.m.) at the Race Road Fire Station;

    • Thursday, June 7 (6 to 8 p.m.) at Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 Highway 525, Freeland.

    The Property Rights Alliance is also initiating a public conversation on the new rules that Rose hopes will last for months. It starts with a public meeting the alliance is hosting from 2 to 4 p.m. Saturday, May 19 at Grigware Hall at Trinity Lutheran Church in Freeland.

    The county planning commission will hold hearings on the rules this summer and fall.  Rose said the Property Rights Alliance will do its part to help Islanders understand the new regulations.

    “It is so complex and time-consuming that the average citizen can’t participate,” Rose said.

    “It’s incredibly complex.”

    State hands county major victory in fight over farming rules
    South Whidbey RECORD
    By BRIAN KELLY
    Sep 02 2006

    In a lopsided victory for Island County, a state growth board said this week that the county’s new rules for farming will protect both farmers and the islands’ streams and wetlands.  The landmark decision ends a dispute between the county and the Whidbey Environmental Action Network that stretches back to 1998.

    WEAN has fought the county’s rules for farming near “critical areas” — environmentally sensitive areas with wetlands and streams — because the activist group believes the county’s regulations aren’t tough enough.  Unlike previous growth board and court rulings that resulted in split decisions, the Wednesday decision was a one-sided win for county officials.

    County officials called it “unprecedented.”

    “I was thrilled,” said County Commissioner Mike Shelton. “This had been going on since 1998. Here we are eight years later and we finally got a decision that we believe the people of Island County, specifically the agriculture people ... can live with,” he said.

    “My hope is that they will continue to do their agriculture practices, and I think that’s critical to maintaining the rural character of Island County,” Shelton said.

    In its decision, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board heaped praise on the county’s new farming rules.

    “Island County has achieved compliance in an impressive way that could be a model for other jurisdictions,” the board said in its decision.  County commissioners unanimously adopted new farming rules to regulate existing farms in May.  The rules require farmers to apply “best management practices,” called BMPs, to their agriculture operations or complete custom farm plans that detail how they will manage their farms in earth-friendly ways.

    WEAN spokesman Steve Erickson called parts of the growth board’s 22-page decision inaccurate. But he stopped short of saying the group would fight the ruling.  WEAN can ask the hearings board to reconsider its decision, or WEAN can appeal it to Superior Court.

    “We’re evaluating this decision and we’ll be deciding whether or not we’ll appeal,” Erickson said. “We need to talk that over between the people involved in WEAN, and various people in the community.”

    “It’s not a trivial decision, it’s also real expensive,” he said, adding that a challenge that would go all the way to the Court of Appeals could cost between $30,000 and $50,000.  WEAN has intensely criticized the new farming rules, which were highly controversial with farmers, as well. The rules led to the biggest public hearings in Island County history and attracted crowds numbering in the hundreds. Many farmers said the rules were excessive and would drive them out of business.

    WEAN, however, said the rules did not go far enough. The activist group claimed that existing and ongoing agriculture operations is hurting environmentally sensitive lands, and polluting streams and groundwater.

    WEAN also said the county’s plan to protect critical areas focused too much on water quality, and was too reactive, because nothing would happen until state water quality standards are violated.  The group complained that no one would be able to know if farmers were following the new rules, because farm plans will be kept secret from the county and public.

    WEAN also said the regulations were not based on “best available science,” which the state requires as the basis for creating critical areas regulations.

    The growth board, however, lauded the new rules.

    “Island County has done a thorough analysis of its local circumstances and (has) come up with an admirable commitment to preserving its rural character while protecting the functions and values of critical areas...The involvement of landowners is one of the many strengths of the county’s program, since it makes the consideration of the protection of critical areas an everyday part of agricultural practices,” the decision said.

    “The county’s involvement in every step of the process — from gathering questionnaires to working with the Conservation District on farm plans, to investigation of complaints, to monitoring of water quality, to prompt adaptive management of ineffective BMPs — represents an active engagement in the protection of critical areas,” the growth board concluded.

    “The growth board unanimously ruled in favor of the county on every single point - every single point,” said Phil Bakke, Island County’s planning director.

    “I think this is a community victory, whether you own agricultural land or a home next to the golf course,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if you’re a farmer or a homeowner on a little lot, it goes a long ways to protect rural character.”

    Even so, the new rules are not popular with farmers who already feel over-regulated.

    “One of the things that I’ve always been concerned about is even though the county has won this, this puts a significant burden on farmers,” Shelton said.  It won’t be business as usual for farmers, he added.  Farmers will be need to fill out a questionnaire, and some will be required to complete custom farm plans.

    “I just hope that farmers will do that rather than saying ‘This is too much trouble, I’m just going to bag the whole thing and forget about agriculture,’” Shelton said.

    Farmers who don’t complete the questionnaires will lose their ability to farm by using only BMPs, and will be forced to abide by even more restrictive critical areas regulations.  Erickson, of WEAN, was skeptical that the new rules will work.

    “Overall, our expectation is that water quality is going to be impacted and is going to continue to deteriorate because this ordinance is not going to do the job,” Erickson said.
    WEAN now focusing on farm plans in battle over new ag rules
    South Whidbey RECORD
    By BRIAN KELLY
    Dec 24 2005

    Farmers are being pulled even further into the fight between Island County and an environmental group over new rules that restrict agriculture on properties with sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands.  Earlier this week, the county planning commission passed its recommendations on 21 changes to the agriculture rules to the board of county commissioners.

    The controversial regulations — criticized by some farmers because they are too restrictive and by some environmentalists because they are too lax — would require farmers to complete standard or customized “farm plans.”   Hundreds of farmers in Island County have already completed farm plans voluntarily by working with the Whidbey Island Conservation District.

    But last week, the Whidbey Environmental Action Network, or WEAN, filed an information request so the group could get copies of every farm plan that’s been done since 2000.  That move has farmers and others worried.  The county’s planning commission has noted that some farmers have already said they’re worried about “harassment by zealous environmentalists,” and the commission said it fears many farmers will just stop farming rather than complete a farm plan.

    WEAN spokesman Steve Erickson said there are two reasons why the group has asked the conservation district for the farm plans.

    “This is a government agency. The public has the right and duty to oversee it,” he said.  Secondly, Erickson said, the county has said critical areas will be protected through the use of the farm plans.

    “We’re going to see, what is the management that’s proposed, what kind of buffers, if any, if there’s a grazed wetland. Is there any kind of proposed management that restricts seasonal access to it when the soils are wet?” Erickson explained.  The county is modifying its farm rules in response to a WEAN lawsuit and a 2004 court decision. That ruling said farmers on land that isn’t zoned for “rural agriculture” or “commercial agriculture” must abide by regulations that protect “critical areas” such as streams and wetlands.

    Karen Krug, supervisor of the board for the Whidbey Island Conservation District, said the information request came in last week.

    The district must now hand over more than 200 farm plans dating back to 2000 so WEAN can make copies of the documents.  Whether the request will have a chilling effect on farmers asking the district for help in completing farm plans in the future remains to be seen, however.

    “We would hope it wouldn’t have an impact, but clearly, some people will be concerned,” Krug said.  The district notified farmers who had submitted plans of the WEAN request as a matter of policy, and the notice will also give farmers a chance to seek a court injunction against disclosure.

    “We have had people call in with concerns with having their farm plans disclosed,” she said.  The district had gotten five calls by Thursday.  Duke LeBaron, a self-described organic “mini-farmer” who owns five acres in the Langley area with sheep, chickens, rabbits, ducks and other animals, completed his farm plan four years ago. His plan will be one of the ones handed over to WEAN.  While the information request is legal, LeBaron said, he expects it to have an impact.
    “It will put a real damper on the ability of the conservation district to their job,” he said.

    “It will make it more difficult for the conservation district to convince new people to use them,” LeBaron said of the farm plans, because the district won’t be able to keep farmers’ information confidential.

    “The confidentiality has been broken by WEAN,” he said.  LeBaron once served on the district board. And he said he is “ticked off” that the leaders of WEAN are hypocritical when it comes to protecting the environment, because their own land is covered with hulks of old vehicles that are “rotting away.”

    “They’re not walking their talk,” he said.

    Phil Bakke, planning director for Island County, said the new rules must be finished by Jan. 31.  He noted that the planning commission reluctantly reviewed the new rules because many farmers are already struggling financially, and they’ve said more restrictions will force them out of farming.

    “I don’t believe what we have got right now is necessarily what the farming community said we could live with,” Bakke said. “The farming community said, ‘Please leave us alone.’”

    WEAN is expected to again challenge the new rules when they are reviewed by state decision-makers. The group has consistently criticized the county’s review of the rules, most especially, a mailer that was sent to property owners that warned of the upcoming changes.  The new restrictions don’t go far enough, said WEAN’s Erickson.

    “You’ve got some default minimum regulations in there that don’t match what the science says needs to be done to protect streams and wetlands. It’s got buffers as close as 35 feet; they’re not really buffers at all, because you can mow in them right up to the stream edge. It doesn’t have limitations on grazing on wetlands during the wet season,” he said.

    “And there’s no enforcement, anyway. They’re proposing a monitoring program which isn’t developed yet. And unless it shows a decline in water quality, no action will be taken.”

    “It doesn’t satisfy the court order. And it doesn’t protect wetlands and streams like it’s supposed to,” Erickson said.  WEAN was harshly and repeatedly criticized by some farmers and property owners throughout the county’s public hearings on the new farm rules. The perception exists that the activist group has unfairly focused on farmers, while it has ignored more major causes of environmental damage, such as failing septic systems or storm-water runoff from development.

    Erickson readily agrees there are other sources of pollution, but says he has heard harsh words about WEAN at public meetings in the past.

    “If you look at what WEAN actually does, just to say our legal work, we try to act systematically,” he said. “We don’t go around looking for individual people to find in violation. We try to deal with the law at a higher level.”   And people would rather call WEAN than the county about environmental problems.
    “People call us when there’s a bulldozer in the backyard, when there’s a bulldozer in the wetland,” he added.

    The county has muddied the water on which landowners will be affected by the new rules with its misleading mailers, and has also demonized WEAN in the process, Erickson said.
     
    “We’re not going to do a mailing to 28,000 rural residents. So all I can say is look at what we do, not what people say we do,” he said.
     

     Buffer variations suggested at meeting
    South Whidbey RECORD
    By STEPHEN MERCER
    May 14 2005

    The right to develop on personal property versus protecting the environment is likely a touchy subject among many South Whidbey residents. One example of that tension is stream and wetland buffers.

    Using strict criteria from the best scientific evidence available in 1998, the county determined that depending on vegetation type, land zoning and land acreage size, landowners may not develop anywhere from 25 to 100 feet from a designated wetland. The distances, or buffer zones, reflected the best available science at the time which showed substances could be filtered between the developed property and the wetland, said Jeff Tate, assistant planning director for Island County.

    The rules are part of the Critical Areas Ordinance passed by the county in 1999. The ordinance addresses dual purposes, Tate said. It protects the environment and personal property rights.  With the Critical Areas Ordinance under review this year, however, Dyanne Sheldon, a wetland ecologist, said the strict system used by the county may need changes.

    Her suggestions were making the dimensions of buffers more subjective to each wetland, changing the county’s rating system and modifying the compensatory mitigation.  She also said the county receives compensation, such as the person restoring a historical habitat or enhancing a buffer area. That would apply for anyone who either performs an illegal action in a wetland or who will impact a wetland with a proposed action.

    They are suggested changes to the Critical Areas Ordinance, which one county official said has met with a mixed reaction even with the borders now in place.

    Some do not support setting aside their land while other landowners understand the need to protect wetland areas, said Justin Craven, Island County’s critical areas planner. However, county officials say an advantage of the rigid wetland structure is that it is easier for the three-member county staff that enforces it to understand. It is also easier to educate landowners on the rules because of the rigid rules used by the county.

    But in the view of Sheldon, those rigid standards do not follow what the latest science shows best preserves wetlands.

    “One size does not fit all,” she said at the Lyceum meeting Tuesday.  Instead, buffers of variable sizes are needed to better protect the environment, she said. What happens in one wetland, such as building development, effects the adjacent wetlands and watersheds as a whole, Sheldon said.

    “The more intense and potentially harmful the activity, the greater the setback,” she said. That especially holds true as residential development in the county increasingly takes up open space.  Sheldon said the wetland rating system used by the county needs expanding to include factors such as potential development, habitat complexity and physical attributes of the wetland.

    Craven said natural designated wetlands are presently separated into categories. Whether the lands are zoned for rural or non-rural use, if native or non-native vegetation grows in the wetland and the size of the property.  Although she said she does not know how the county will decide to change the size of buffers, Sheldon said the county may need to approve permits on a case-by-case basis.

    Craven said if that does happen, it may slow down the permit process because the county’s three member staff would need to spend more time to approve permits.  But he added that he doesn’t disagree with Sheldon’s view that one size does not fit all. To make the change to the variable system, however, the most current science, called Best Available Science, must show that variable buffers are necessary to clean out the water.

    To determine that, he said Paul Adamus is examining wetland and stream buffers throughout the county. The county hired Adamus earlier this year to conduct the research for the update.

    All of Sheldon’s suggestions were made during the final meeting of the Lyceum lecture series Tuesday. The six-week series, which mixed artistic performances with scientific lectures, was intended to provide attendees with more in depth information about Critical Areas Ordinance topics such as bluffs, forests and wetlands. Lyceum organizers from the Whidbey Institute wanted attendees to use that knowledge to provide more informed input to changes in the Critical Areas Ordinance.

    Tate said the county plans to complete the Critical Areas Ordinance by February 2006.


    Big turn-out at first meeting 
    By MICHAELA MARX WHEATLEY
    South Whidbey RECORD
    Apr 29 2006

    Langley citizens took full advantage of their chance to shape the city’s future.

    More than 120 people gathered at the Fellowship Hall at the Langley Methodist Church for a special town hall meeting with the city’s comprehensive plan group Thursday night.

    Robert Gilman, chairman of the comprehensive plan team, started the meeting with a brief presentation about the work of the committee and the challenges that lie ahead for Langley. He discussed growth and economic development, among other livability issues.

    The group plans to update Langley’s comprehensive plan, the document that will guide the city’s growth over the next two decades. As part of the update of the plan, the group will look at a new vision for Langley and consider issues such as land use, housing, parks and open space, transportation and more.

    The group will work on the update over the next two years, and the early stages will focus on education.

    On May 9, a planning training session will be held for those interested in participating in one of the comp plan sub-committees that will form as the process continues. The training will be held from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the Fellowship Hall at the Langley Methodist Church.

    The next step will be to create a vision for Langley. A town meeting of the same format will be held about the community vision at 7 p.m. on May 25.

    Then the research and update drafting will begin. First results will be implemented in late 2006.

    Cities are only allowed to update the plan once a year, Gilman explained. The process will continue through 2007 with more changes finalized at the end of the year.

    Gilman called on the citizens and friends of Langley to get involved. There are many different ways to contribute, ranging from committee work to simply sharing ideas.

    “A large part of these committees is about ideas,” he said.

    Most cities adopted comprehensive plans in the early 1990s, after Washington adopted the Growth Management Act, a sweeping state law meant to protect farms and forests from urban sprawl.

    Gilman said it was time for the city to revisit its growth plan.

    “It’s normal to look at a 20-year time horizon,” he said. Gilman pointed out that in the past two decades, changes have taken place at an unprecedented pace and that must be reflected in the city’s comp plan vision.

    “Langley has changed. Think 2026. Think 1986,” he said.

    Gilman said the update process also means an opportunity for city government and business to work together.

    Among the specific problems addressed were:

    • Langley’s age profile. Langley is aging and few young people are moving in to fill the gap.

    • Langley’s role in the commercial make-up of South Whidbey, as well as economic development.

    • The rapidly changing world. Technology and dwindling energy resources, for example, affect life on the island and elsewhere.

    - Growth and zoning. How big can Langley grow? How is it possible to keep a healthy balance between residential and commercial growth?

    Following the presentation, Gilman asked the audience to participate in a poster walk. Volunteers had prepared charts, photomontages and information boards outlining some typical Langley issues such as the marina, zoning, how to protect the bluff areas and handle water run-off.

    One poster outlined the development of Langley over the last century, and in line with economic planning, one sign showed the major economic forces over time: logging, farming, hippies, now tourism followed by a question mark for the future.

    People were encouraged to write comments on notes and stick them on the posters.

    After the poster walk, Vicki Robin led the community discussion.

    Citizens were particularly concerned about building a sustainable economy, as well as a diversified economy that is less dependent on tourism. They also raised the issues of quality of life and balanced growth, affordable housing and average income.

    Rene Neff said she would like to see economic development that caters to residents, not just to tourists.

    Other issues were alternative energy sources such as solar and tidal power. Local food production and sustainable agriculture were other topics of concern.

    People also discussed how to keep artists and creative energy thriving on South Whidbey.

    The most popular idea of the evening was to create a public space for exchange among citizens, based on the European model of public houses, or pubs, where people pay a community fee and use the community space to eat, drink and be merry.

    Oak Harbor loses 16-0 in its appeal

    By JESSIE STENSLAND, Whidbey News Times Assistant editor
    December 19, 2011 · Updated 7:44 AM

    The board charged with enforcing the state’s Growth Management Act ruled against the city of Oak Harbor in its wide-ranging appeal of the Island County commissioners’ effort to prevent urban sprawl.

    The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board rejected all 16 legal questions raised by the city. It was an especially stinging refutation of the city’s arguments since a former member of the hearings board, City Attorney Margery Hite, represented Oak Harbor.

    The hearings board concluded the “county prevented further sprawl and encouraged growth within the existing UGA,” and that it is “not within cities’ discretion to determine UGA boundaries.”

    “To me, it was an unnecessary and expensive lawsuit. We’re just wasting the taxpayers’ time and money doing this,” County Commissioner Angie Homola said. She’s been involved in efforts to protect rural areas west of the city since before she became a commissioner.

    Homola said she hopes that this will mark “a turning point” and that planners from the city and county will start working together. She’s been trying to get the two planning departments to be more collaborative.

    “I’ve reached out many times with very little success,” she said. “The response has been in the form of lawsuits.”

    The decision by the hearings board may not put an end to a controversy that’s been brewing since 1995. Hite said the issue will likely be on the City Council agenda Jan. 3 for an executive session and council members will have to decide whether to appeal. She said she couldn’t discuss the decision because it may be part of ongoing litigation, depending on the council decision.

    The city filed the petition for review with the Growth Management Hearings Board about six months ago. The board came to the city in November to hear arguments from the city, the county and Whidbey Environmental Action Network, which filed as an intervenor on the county’s side. Deputy Attorney Daniel Mitchell and Planning Director Bob Pederson argued on behalf of the county.

    City officials were upset that the county commissioners denied the city’s request to expand its urban growth area, or UGA, by 180 acres. The UGA is a ring of property outside the city limits that’s earmarked for annexation and development. Last year, the county commissioners stripped out all of the areas of low-density residential property from the city’s expansion request and allowed only an 18-acre, commercial property into the UGA.

    The entire issue goes back to 2005, when Oak Harbor was updating its comprehensive plan. Property owners submitted seven requests to have properties in the county included in the city’s UGA. The biggest request was for 105 acres of the 377-acre Fakkema farm. Hap and Dick Fakkema’s plan for developing the property included housing, walking trails, large sections of open space and the gift of a park and historic buildings to the community.

    City planners completed a housing analysis which showed that the city already had more than enough property within the city — a total of 105 percent — to accommodate projected growth for the 20-year planning horizon. After receiving the request from the Fakkemas, city officials decided that the UGA should be expanded to accommodate 126 percent of projected growth. In the decision, the hearings board referred to this as a “questionable 126 percent growth factor.”

    Under the Growth Management Act, the city’s request to expand its UGA had to be sent to the county commissioners, who have the final say. The former planning director, who worked under a Republican-majority board of commissioners, identified environmental concerns with the expansion and proposed an interlocal agreement to mitigate the issues. The city, however, appealed to the hearings examiner, along with a couple of environmental groups, and the county withdrew the proposal.

    As a result, the UGA expansion request was in limbo for years, until city officials pressed county planners to take up the issue last year. But to the  disappointment of city officials, the new planning director, Pederson, recommended against expanding the residential UGA. He pointed out that the population projections the city used in 2005 turned out to be inflated and that the city’s housing analysis may not have been completely accurate. He also emphasized that the city’s own land capacity analysis showed there was more than enough land capacity in the current UGA to accommodate even the inflated population projections.

    The commissioners agreed with Pederson and approved the inclusion of only the 18-acre commercial parcel. City officials appealed to the hearings board.

    In a recent interview, Homola said only a handful of people would have benefited from the larger expansion of the UGA.

    “Expanding urban growth areas will only cost taxpayers more money,” she said, referring to the increased cost of providing urban services. She added that building more houses on the periphery will cause the value of existing homes to decline.

    But mostly, she said, her decision was about protecting the environment and the quality of life.

    “Citizens here have said over and over again that they really value the island’s quality of life. That’s why they are here,” she said. “They expect us to be good stewards.”

    Likewise, the leaders of Whidbey Environmental Action Network are pleased with the ruling.

    “Unless appealed, the Hearings Board’s decision lays to rest this 7-year long attempt by Oak Harbor to sprawl out onto surrounding farmland,” the group said in a press release.





    Editorial: Growth should pay its way
    Whidbey News-Times editorial
    Oct 11 2006

    Island County will grow by 8,000 people every five years from now through 2025.

    So says the state Office of Financial Management, which came up with a 20-year population projection of 110,050 people by 2025, up more than 42 percent from the present population.

    What the office doesn’t say is where to put all these people and how to provide them with the resources they need.

    It’s easy to draw larger growth boundaries around Whidbey Island’s three incorporated towns, and easy to persuade builders to construct homes for all these newcomers. The island life, after all, is appealing to millions of well-heeled citizens sweltering in the southwest sun or freezing in the northeast winters. And home prices here aren’t bad compared to there.

    But where do we get the resources to handle all these new people? Only Oak Harbor has an outside water source, and that is limited by how much Anacortes can sell us from the Skagit River. Elsewhere, the county is entirely dependent on ground water.

    With non-source pollution a problem, the county hardly needs thousands of more septic systems. But existing sewer systems are centered in the three towns and limited to how much growth they can handle. Who’s going to pay for the major expansions needed to accommodate the increased population?

    In Island County, growth has not been paying for itself. It might be time to rethink the old idea of adopting impact fees for basic necessities, like schools, roads, parks and sewer systems. Islanders can’t afford to continue to pay for everyone else to move here.
    Whidbey News-Times
    By Paul Boring
    Sep 30 2006

    If population projections from the Office of Financial Management are accurate indicators, Island County could have 110,050 people by 2025.

    John Coleman, Island County Planning and Development assistant planner, presented the population projections to the Island County Planning Commission Wednesday. The process for determining the likely county population over approximately the next two decades began in 2004 when the county presented OFM’s numbers to the commission.

    The commission deliberated on the figures and decided on a compromise between the medium and high figures, or 110,050. The projections were then forwarded to cities and towns to enable personnel to incorporate the numbers into their population projections.

    The jump from 77,261 people in 2005 to 110,050 in 2025 represents a 20-year increase of 32,789 people or 30 percent. The projections show the county’s population increasing by about 8,000 people every five years beginning in 2005.

    “The data was broken down by regions, so we could fine-tune the projections and growth rates,” Coleman said.

    Experts used two separate methods when crunching the numbers. The proportionate share method showed North Whidbey experiencing the most growth, the population increasing from 34,737 in 2000 to 49,523 in 2025. Central Whidbey would increase from 9,467 to 12,106; South Whidbey from 14,007 to 25,312; and Camano Island from 13,347 to 23,111. Employing the growth method, the numbers were within a similar range, slightly higher for the first two regions, but lower for the latter two.

    Coupeville, because it is in the Ebey’s Landing Historical Reserve, is a unique town in that it does not need to accommodate growth or expand its urban growth area, Coleman said. The town projected a population of 2,165 for 2025, 165 more than it had projected for 2020 in the 1998 comprehensive plan.

    As a result of the 2000 census information that yielded a smaller population than anticipated, Langley extended its projection from 2,200 for 2020 five years to 2025.

    Oak Harbor was an entirely different beast. Examining the number of permits issued over the last five years, city staff projected the population at 30,419 in 2025, approximately 500 fewer than had been projected for the year 2020 in the 1998 comprehensive plan.

    The city performed a “buildable lands analysis” that determined the current urban growth area could accommodate the projected housing need, but allowed for very little room for unforeseeable environmental constraints and market factors. The Growth Management Hearings Boards have found that 25 percent additional space is an acceptable amount. If a city wants to include substantially more than 25 percent additional space, the city would need to show good reason. Oak Harbor’s recent inclusion of 26.5 percent additional land in the UGA is on par with the state’s acceptable number.

    Jeff Tate, Planning and Community Development assistant director, applauded the city for the undertaking, which was not required.

    After concluding that additional land needed to be included in the UGA, the city solicited letters of interest from property owners wanting to have their property considered for inclusion in the UGA. The Comprehensive Plan Task Force recommended seven additions, which at the recommended density, will be able to handle 126.5 percent of the city’s projected growth through the year 2025.

    With all of the numbers in, planning staff, with guidance from the Planning Commission, will incorporate the cities’ projections into the Island County Comprehensive Plan.

    So when all those new people arrive over the next 20 years, Oak Harbor at least will be ready for them.