Fred R. Klein Petitioner, Case N. 97-2-0017Ä


Respondent, TO APPEAR AS



Maile N. Johnson P.O. Box 5E Orcas, WA 98280

2. Applicant applies to the Board for leave to appear as amicus is the above-captioned proceeding and to present written as well as oral argument at any hearings to be convened by the Board. This application is brought pursuant to WAC 242-02-280 and WAC 242-02-530 and is based on the attached memorandum in support thereof.

3. Applicant is a resident of San Juan County and has participated since its inception in 1992 in the District 2 Citizens Advisory Committee meetings to amend the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the State Growth Management Act. Applicant represents no one else in this proceeding.

4. Applicant read and commented in meetings, letters or testimony before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on all drafts of the Plan, the Draft Economic and Environmental Impact Study (EEIS), the Draft Uniform Development Code to implement the Plan, the Final EIS, and changes proposed by the Planning Commission and BOCC. Applicant attended most committee meetings and served on a Subcommittee on Forestry. Applicant is familiar with the issues involved in the Petition for Review and with the scope of the argument presented by the parties.


The specific issues to which the amicus brief will be directed all allege noncompliance by the SJC plan with State law as follows:

(a.)The plan fails to comply with RCW 43.21C.020(2)(a)(c) and (f) and with RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a) which require inter alia a systematic and interdisciplinary approach to planning, in that the planning process was irrational and incomplete for failing to consider density of development even with regard to the most central goals of GMA;

(b.)The plan fails to comply with the RCW 36.70A.070 in that it lacks internal consistency by having a Vision Statement articulating goals contradicted by the policy of retaining in the body of the plan the 1979 density zoning; and

(c.)The plan fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.140 in that public participation was unreasonably compromised because the Vision Statement articulated goals the plan did not effectuate.

That a county is not in compliance with RCW 36.70A or 43.21C are matters subject to this Hearing Board's review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280.

6. Applicant believes additional argument is necessary on these specific issues in support of the solitary voice of Petitioner who attempts to inform the Board of the nature of the public meetings and planning process over a five year period. The instruction of SJC Commissioners that unexamined and possibly ill-founded 1979 zoning laws were to be imported untouched into the new plan, forming its core and defining the nature of development in the county for the next twenty years, was the single greatest influence on, nay mold for the plan, yet this was conveyed verbally and informally. Only those present at the hundreds of hours of meetings could have a full perception of how this constraint limited analysis and precluded consideration of numerous aspects of development, its effects and possible mitigation or modification. This announced policy had a chilling effect on the rational consideration of the basic issues and approaches to planning required by GMA and State environmental policy (RCW 43.21C) to be considered in the formulation of a plan. Further, Applicant believes it important to inform the Board that grave harm will be done to the citizens of SJC if the present plan is upheld. While it might occur to the Board to uphold the plan because the county can amend its plan to address any issues raised here, Applicant believes this is not an adequate remedy. The present plan is profoundly misleading in that it suggests it is something it is not and its failure to comply with the law is equally profound and fundamental. Dated: This ___day of April, 1997

Respectfully Submitted, Maile N. Johnson.