Council sets hearing to remove Planning Commissioner

||| BY STEVE BERNHEIM, theORCASONIAN REPORTER |||

At its last meeting on April 15, the Planning Commission reviewed and revised a number of draft goals and policies proposed to be included in the Water Resources element of the County’s comprehensive plan, which was intended to govern the planning period from 2016-2036 but is still unfinished. The County Council hopes to pass a final plan by the end of this year.

Here follows the Planning Commission’s discussions of the Water Resources element’s proposed Policy Number 6, or “DCD 6,” which aims between now and 2036 to reduce harmful pesticide levels in the county:

Chair Gaquin (Orcas): Let’s move on to Number 6 “Develop and fund programs to reduce the use of harmful chemicals and pesticides,” Number 6? [Technical issue/staff discussion]

Commissioner Hoffman (Lopez): Reducing chemicals is a good thing, I’m fine. [Technical issue]

Chair: OK, any other concerns or additions, deletions, for number 6? [Moving on.]

Commissioner Smith (Orcas): Before you do that, Sheila, staying on DCD 6, “Develop and fund programs,” I’m assuming that by “fund” that means either we’re going to hire staff, we’re going to put in the budget some type of enforcement mechanism or we’re going to create some type of tax incentive to do something. Just asking, what is it we’re actually doing here, what is it we’re recommending, are we recommending a tax, are we recommending staffing are we recommending what, how do we develop programs to encourage these things?

Development Director: That would be the basis for the Council to decide.

Chair: I think it just offers the Council the opportunity of saying, “it’s in the comp plan, that we can fund a program like this,” if they feel it’s called for, or to apply for grants, or whatever, we’re not saying it’s a tax or it’s an incentive or anything, we’re just, that component of funding is available to them.

Commissioner Smith: So here’s my question for [the Development Director]: it’s my understanding that if the comp plan has a goal and has a policy, it must have a regulation which seeks to accomplish that goal and policy. It’s not, so right now, we’re treating in the way in which described, we’re treating this as a “Here’s our recommendation, you as County Council decide whether or not you want to do it but here, this is what we’d like to do as a wish list.”

Development Director: Yes, that’s correct, and the Council can go through, they can strike this out if they don’t want to develop that plan, if they don’t want to fund that plan, they can absolutely strike that out.

Commissioner Smith: They can, obviously if we’re going to ask the County Council to go through all of the comp plan process line by line and do that which they obviously have the perfect right to do etc. Obviously, that puts a, we’re asking them to do the same thing we’re doing, spend a tremendous amount of time doing it, obviously they typically don’t do that, they will defer back to Planning Commission and DCD and say, “look you guys have spent hours on it, we don’t have time, so we’re going to accept your recommendation.” So I don’t think it’s reasonable or fair for us to say “well, this is a wish list and we expect you to deal with our wish list,” because in reality, I think, if I were a County Council member I would appreciate having practical reasonable policy recommended that I can deal with. I don’t want to have to go through line by line by line and reguess everything the Planning Commission’s done because they’re not realistic. [Staff says goals and policies of the comprehensive plan need not lead to code changes and County Council will have from July through December to review draft plan element by element.] So I guess my questions is, “what is it we are recommending?” “Develop and fund,” what does that mean to us as a Planning Commission? And if we’re just doing a generic broad based, “we recommend you do something,” OK, but I’d like to know what it is we’re recommending, and then I’d specify that. [Development Director says proposed policy could help the Environmental Stewardship Team develop educational materials or build backbone for state grant applications.]

Chair: The other thing I would say is that the County Council may not go through and know word by word everything in the comp plan but I served on the Deer Harbor Plan Review Committee and we started looking for elements in the comp plan to back up some of the things that we wanted to do in the community, and having the goal and policy in place, for example “safe walking areas and pathways,” is what we used to then go forward to get a grant that then built a mile or two of pedestrian pathways in the community. So the comp plan to me has a broad-based, possibilities for the entire county depending on which organizations are looking to say, you know, “was this even something reasonable? Yeah, it’s already in the comp plan, so we can go forward with this, we have some authority, if you will, to pursue this idea.” Peter?

Commissioner Kilpatrick (Orcas): Yes, I would point out that a few of these are just a continuation of existing programs that are already in place, so, you know, as a statement of intent, I would support this.

Chair: So, since we have a couple of people who aren’t, do we need to have a vote on whether to include number 6 or not? I think I’ll just do a quick roll call here to see where you stand on number 6: Peter, are you in support of 6?

Commissioner Kilpatrick: Yes.

Chair: And Rick?

Commissioner Hoffman: Yes.

Chair: Nick?

Commissioner Knoellinger: [Technical discussion] Yes, I’m in support of that.

Chair: Steve Smith?

Commissioner Smith: No.

Chair: And I support it, did I get everybody? Yes, I think so, we have four in support of number 6 so that item passes. [Technical question.] Four in favor of including six and one opposed. [Technical question]. The opposed was Steve. [Staff.]

Smith: Just as a comment, I am supportive of the idea of making sure that we have clean water and all that, what I’m objecting to is that we haven’t identified what it is we’re recommending.

The Commission moved to the next, Policy Number 7 of the 17 proposed draft policies for the Water Resources element of the draft comprehensive plan, which addresses vegetation and forest cover. While the County Vision Statement, now in effect, reads, “Our community sets an example with its response to climate change. We prepare to address the negative effects in advance before they become crises. Our community encourages voluntary efforts and enacts incentives and regulations if necessary to reduce our carbon footprint,” the following discussion took place:

Chair: Perhaps if we could take a minute or two and everyone look through the list and note the ones that you’re not ok with that need more discussion, for example 7 seems pretty straightforward, “Encourage the retention of healthy native soils, vegetation and forest cover.” Any objections to that? Steve Smith. [Technical.]

Commissioner Smith: We want to encourage the retention of forest cover. I love trees, I moved here because of trees, I didn’t have them where I came from, I like trees, but my question is, “do we want to make it a policy that we discourage anybody from removing trees or of thinning trees or anything?,” I guess that’s my question. What is it we’re actually specifically encouraging? We have a large number of ag lands, or pieces of property which are designated as ag land, which are completely covered in trees, cannot actually be used as ag land. Do we want to say we’re either going to change the land use designation or are we saying we want them to maintain forests because we like trees? I’m just, what is it we’re actually trying to accomplish with this goal? Yes, we all want healthy soil, we all want good vegetation, we all like trees.

Chair: What about forest cover for water quality because they hold soil particularly on slopes?

Commissioner Smith: Right, we had one of our neighbors who clearcut their trees and caused a landslide into our reservoir. What should we do about it? We called the county and the county says, “that’s nice.” There’s no policy there, there’s no regulation, there’s no way to enforce it, so I’m in favor of making sure that we have good forest cover especially if it’s going to protect, I don’t want a land slide into my reservoir — your reservoir — because somebody didn’t do it properly. So I love trees, but I’m trying to, I could encourage the retention of healthy native soils, vegetation, forest cover, clear air, because I don’t want dirty water falling onto my ground. I mean it’s a pretty generic statement, so there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s all so just so generic it doesn’t say much is my point.

Chair: OK, Nick do you have a comment?

Commissioner Knoellinger: Yeah, I’m wondering if that statement belongs in a different section that may be better suited into forest land use section than in this section. That it’s just way too broad. Because they’re, forest cover and forest management and stewardship is a multi-faceted thing and that’s just way too broad. There are some really good documentation on that in that DNR Forest Management Plan that I had [staff] forward to everyone, I think this is, actually should be placed in a different section, not in this one.

Chair: What if this were amended to, at the end of that sentence, to, “facilitate,” or whatever, “clean water.” To add “water quality,” adding something to that sentence to make it specific to this element.

Commissioner Knoellinger: I think we would be playing with two elements and having different policies. I think forest, we should put forest land use policies in forest land use because healthy forest would encourage clean water, so I think it doesn’t need to be in two places, I think we should pick one or the other, I think it belongs in the forest land use section. I think Steve’s right, it’s just way too broad, I don’t think it belongs here.

Chair: Other comments on number 7? OK, so we have two people who feel like it doesn’t, number 7 on the DCD document does not belong here. I don’t see a problem personally, I don’t see a problem with having forest covered in multiple places, particularly when it’s, if it’s specified for water quality. I know there’s a lot of steep slopes like Steve was saying, when they’re clearcut or end up causing a problem with soil erosion, which compromises water quality. Nick?

Commissioner Knoellinger: I guess my point is there’s a when it comes to forest management, forest land use, DNR does set a lot of the standards and practice requirements for forest management, and this goes back to our previous discussions of what [staff] has said before, is we do have to follow that state law versus county law in kind of mixing and matching so that’s my point with that is we have those in the forest land use, if we want to mention it and change the wordsmithing a little bit, I just think it’s a broad thing that’s going to be covered in forest land use in healthy forest management practices, which is what we want to encourage. So I’m not against it, I just feel that that should be in the forest land use section, not in this section.

Chair: OK, one of the things that I was thinking is there are lots of land, lots of parcel with trees on them, some of the parcels are steep but they’re not technically listed as forest resource lands, they may be agriculture, rural, whatever, and the, but they’re on steep slopes, they’re near drainages, and it does impact water quality if they were to go and cut the trees so that they would, so the property owner would have a view or a larger building site or sunny spot on their property. And so somehow or another, protecting the water quality by keeping trees seems like a reasonable policy to have. Go ahead Nick.

Commissioner Knoellinger: Yes, and I support that. The conundrum here is when you look at a clearcut you can’t just go clearcut your property, there is a process that is involved with DNR permitting and the necessary steps. If someone goes and clearcuts their property without a logging permit, they’re going to face punishment on that from the state level, so there are restrictions on that. And I think, I kind of hear where you’re coming from and I think there’s a better way to word this because it’s not just forest cover and forest lands, I think we need to wordsmith it a little bit to hit your goal Sheila and I think there’s a way to do that and I would support that, because there are areas that we should create that in a sustainable way and that’s kind of why I was leaning on the forest land use side of this, but I kind of I hear where you’re coming from on it, I do I think I understand what you’re saying.

Chair: Do you have some suggestions for how to word that?

Commissioner Knoellinger: [Technical] I think there is a way, “encourage retention of healthy native soils, vegetation, forest cover,” let me think on this, I’ve got to ponder this, I don’t know if any of the other members have ideas. I support wordsmithing it a little bit, I think it just needs to be more narrowed down.

Development Director: I just wanted to kind of put out here to everybody, sounds like everybody is supportive of number 7, it’s just very vague and general. I want to point out we are still on our first agenda item and we have two more items, I don’t think Archeology and Historical Preservation will be bad, but the Land Use element’s got a lot of meat on it that you
have not yet seen, so I just kind of wanted to put that out there for everybody.

Chair: Yes, we have nineteen, we’re only on seven of nineteen. Rick?

Commissioner Hoffman: What if we just add, “encourage the retention of healthy native soils, vegetation and forest cover where it relates to water quality”?

Chair: Works for me.

Commissioner Knoellinger: I could support that Madam Chair.

Chair: OK are there any objections to the addition that Rick suggested?

Commissioner Smith: Isn’t that everywhere? Trees always affect water quality in everywhere they’re at?

Chair: Possibly.

Commissioner Knoellinger: Just for the record, too, there are stream offsets and creek offsets and river offsets for all logging permits in forest management practices so it kind of goes hand in hand with that, that goes back to that whole forest land use section. [Discussion of time remaining for meeting.]

Commissioner Hoffman: I’d just like to get to bed by 10.

Chair: We’ll try to do that.

Commissioner Kilpatrick: And I want to have dinner by 7. [Discussion of staff time available.]

Chair: Can we add Rick’s suggestion where it relates to water, and yeah, I take your point, Steve, that trees do, in general, but it seems like that can put that one to bed and we can move on.

Commissioner Smith: I just think it’s so general and since every tree affects water quality in some way shape or form, effectively what we’re doing is we’re creating a policy that leaves it such that we could if we wanted to say, “you can’t cut any trees down anywhere on the island for any reason.” That is a possibility that this policy creates.

Chair: It says “encourage.”

Commissioner Smith: Right, it does. We could then make a regulation which followed that encouragement, that’s my problem with it, so, I mean, if everyone wants to vote for it, that’s fine, I just simply think that it’s so broad and general that it does create the possibility, if you had a group who wanted to, they could say, “we’re gonna treat trees as spirits and we’re not gonna cut another tree down anywhere on the island for any reason.” Obviously, most of us aren’t going to do that, but that would be allowed under this policy;

Chair: Nick?

Commissioner Knoellinger: So I hear Steve’s comment in the, and correct me if I’m wrong, but really what it comes down to, logging permits and all that, that’s state level, it’s all DNR permitting, the county cannot, like, you can apply for DNR permit and the county can’t say no to it because it’s a state level logging permit. They manage it all, they send a representative out here, they do all that. Now inside the UGA, this could affect policy inside there, is my understanding, so there is cause for concern with Steve’s point if I’m correct, inside the UGA could affect policy for preventing trees and removal of trees and all that.

Development Director: It absolutely could, but if we’re interpreting everything on the extreme end, then any section of this document is going to prohibit every single thing we do. You know I think we have to keep this in the view of the reasonable standard and understand you know, trees are going to get cut down, that’s just a fact of life, there’s a lot of reasons to cut a tree down that aren’t development related. So I think we need to really view these in the lens of reasonable standards because again, anything we do is going to go through a public process well above and beyond this, this is not the last bite at the apple for anything.

Commissioner Knoellinger: Well, and I will say this, we do have a docket request pertaining to this tree issue, so I do now want to exercise some caution here, I’m putting this in because that goes with the docket request that we haven’t dealt with yet on trees inside the UGA, so this may be something that needs to actually be really wordsmithed into a policy and not be very broad, we may need to fine tune this one thinking now about what we have on our schedule coming up, too.

Chair: OK.

Development Director: The only thing I’ll add here is that any docket request again is going to be vetted multiple, multiple times, so.

Chair: So in the interest of time, looking at seven, I hear two people who have  real concerns, does anyone else have a major concern with this policy? We could take a quick vote, Peter, how do you feel about number seven are you in support?

Commissioner Kilpatrick: Yeah, I would approve it as amended.

Chair: OK, Rick?

Commissioner Hoffman: I’m fine with it as amended.

Chair: Nick, you’re opposed is that correct?

Commissioner Knoellinger: I need to be, I’m for and against it at the same time. It’s, I need to be honest, my personal business, I do work in the woods, so I have some experience in it, I’m going to actually, because this does deal with forest and stuff and what I do, abstain from any vote on it because that just removes any conflict that I may have.

Chair: OK, Steve Smith.

Smith: I’ll vote no simply because I think it’s too broad and vague.

Chair: And I vote yes, so we have three yes, one abstention and one no.

The County Council has set a public hearing for May 17 at 9:15 a.m. to consider whether to remove a planning commissioner from the Planning Commission as per RCW 36.70.110 which says that “after public hearing, any appointee … may be removed … for inefficiency.”

The Planning Commission’s next meeting starts Friday morning May 6 at 8:30 a.m. On the agenda:

• Public Hearing on code change to allow construction of any government building in rural areas to save money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make it possible to provide county office space in town for public housing. See previous Orcasonian summary and suggested revisions from Friends of the San Juans
• Continued re-review of Water Element of the draft Comprehensive Plan
• Review of Transportation, Capital Facilities, Utilities, and Economic Development elements of the draft comprehensive plan.

The May 6 Planning Commission’s agenda and materials is located HERE.