Members of the Griffin Neighborhood Association who attended our Annual Meeting, on January 31st, voted in a new Board. At a special Board Meeting, this last Tuesday night, the Board elected its officers. The Board Members, officers and committee heads are:

Gayle Broadbent-Ferris, Community Outreach Committee Head
Matt Coyle
Fred Finn
Gary Goodwin, Chair
Jerry Handfield
Steve Lundin
Mark Messinger, Secretary & Webmaster
Eric Moll, Treasurer
Kathleen O’Shaunessy
Joyce Roper
Dave Schuett-Hames, Vice Chair
Velma Rogers, Habitat Committee Head
Jack Sisco
Bob Whitener
Chris Wickham

Contact information for the Board is online at http://www.griffinneighbors.org/ Just click the “Contact Us” link.

Not yet a member of the GNA? Members need only live or work within the boundaries of the Griffin School District. Join us online at https://www.steamboatisland.org/joinus/

On Tuesday, County Commissioners faced a standing room only crowd of Steamboat Peninsula residents, wearing “No Conference Center” stickers, to vote 2-to-1 against the Griffin Neighborhood Association appeal to declare the conference center application to be expired. While the Commissioners admitted county staff made errors in the handling of the timelines associated with the application, Diane Oberquell and Cathy Wolfe voted to allow the application to go forward. Bob Macleod expressed concerns that this or any developer could, as reported in The Olympian, tie up projects for years by “banking development rights” only to “have them be reviewed later under archaic guidelines.” Macleod voted with the GNA.

You may want to read that again. The commissioners agreed that our county staff should have monitored the approval process deadlines better. But, county staff didn’t, so the application to build a large, commercial conference center, on residential property, can move forward. Incredible.

In related news, the Thurston County League of Women Voters has officially come out against the conference center. In an email to commissioners, E.L. Johnson, president of the League, wrote, “The availability of water, sewer, roads and other utilities cannot sustain a large development on that small tract of land. We join [the] Griffin Neighborhood Association in opposing this effort to put a totally inappropriate ‘community center’ in an area designated rural.” The Olympian is reporting that Johnson said, at Tuesday’s meeting, “The cost of that project will be borne by everyone from Tenino on up to Lacey.” “A variance is not called for.”

What This Means – When the Application is Complete

At any time convenient to them, the Willis Family Trust will file the Environmental Impact Statement required by the County to complete the application. There will then be a public hearing on whether to grant the Special Use Permit required to allow this commercial facility to be built on land zoned for residential use.

Public testimony will be taken, at the hearing, and you had better believe that your neighbors and the Griffin Neighborhood Association will be there.

When will that happen? The County has given this developer carte blanche to take however long they want.

What This Means – Possible Legal Action

Meanwhile, legal counsel for the GNA is awaiting the Commissioner’s vote on whether to issue a formal written decision on this appeal. The Board and its lawyer will review that decision and will need to choose whether to appeal the county’s ruling to the Thurston County Superior Court or abandon a challenge in the courts.

A decision to challenge the conference center in court cannot be made without the financial support of the community. Click here to contribute to the GNA legal fund.

If we succeed, in Superior Court, we will not only squash this application, but we will set an important precedent which can be used by others seeking to ensure that development applications are handled by the County in a timely manner.

A case before the Superior Court will also put us in an excellent position if we need to appeal a decision by the County to grant the Special Use Permit, or if we need to defend an appeal by the Willis Family Trust, should the County deny their application.

What You Can Do

Do you feel that developers should not be able to grab residential land for their commercial use? Do you think large, commercial developments are out of place in our rural community? What do you think about the county’s decision to let this building go up along a two-lane road, sending traffic through the interchange with US-101 (to say nothing of that underpass heading south with the intersection of WA-8)? Does your idea of a “community center” include a for-profit facility which competes with the Little Creek Casino, St. Martin’s University, and the Greater Tacoma Convention and Trade Center?

Make your opinion known.

Tell your neighbors. Ask them to visit our web site to learn more about this development.

Click here to write a letter to the Editor of The Olympian. Stuck on some of the details? Click here for plenty of information about this development.

Join the Griffin Neighborhood Association. If you’re not yet a member, we need your support. We don’t want the Willis Family Trust and their plans to keep us from our other projects on the peninsula, such as our partnership with the Griffin Fire Department and Griffin School District to prepare for major disasters. Join us online at https://www.steamboatisland.org/joinus/

Together, we can work to ensure that large, commercial facilities that don’t serve our community won’t get built near our school, our homes, or our shorelines.

On Tuesday, February 20 at 4PM, the County Commissioners will announce their decision regarding an appeal made by the Griffin Neighborhood Association against the Conference Center.

No public testimony will be taken.

The GNA Board is asking all opponents of the Conference Center to turn out and demonstrate their opposition to this project.

Last year, the GNA asked the county to declare the application to build the Center had expired. When the county refused to do so, the GNA went to a Hearing Examiner for the County. The Hearing Examiner found the developer of the Conference Center was under no deadline to complete the Environmental Impact Study requested by the county more than a year ago. The EIS is required for the county to consider the application for approval.

The GNA appealed the decision of the hearing examiner and filed legal arguments with the County Commissioners. This Tuesday we will hear the decision of the Commissioners on that appeal.

If the Commissioners rule against the Conference Center, any new application to build would be filed under more restrictive rules for facilities of this kind. Even the representative of the conference center developer has admitted an application made under the current regulations is unlikely to pass.

If the Commissioners rule against the GNA, we will have to decide whether to take our appeal to the courts. We could only do that with the continued financial support of those in the community who don’t want to see residential property converted for commercial use in the way necessary to grant the Special Use Permit.

Join the GNA for the Commissioner’s meeting this Tuesday afternoon. We will have stickers to wear, so the Commissioners will know where we stand on the project, even if we cannot speak at the meeting.

Meeting of the County Commissioners
Tuesday, February 20
4PM
Thurston County Courthouse
2000 Lakeridge Road, Building 1
Click here for a map.

To download a poster you can put in your car, click here

To contribute to our legal fund, click here

For more information on this project, see our web site here

Vesting refers to the ability of a land owner to lock in (“vest”) the right to develop property consistent with existing zoning laws and other development regulations, so that the development is not subject to subsequent changes in zoning or development laws.

Washington, however, has an approach to vesting that allows irresponsible developers to surprise communities and circumvent the community’s vision for their future.

There are basically three points in time that different states use to determine vesting rights. In most (about 30) states, a landowner vests when they have obtained approval for the project and taken substantial steps to develop the property. In most of the remaining states, landowners vest when they actually obtain a permit.

Washington is in the minority in allowing vesting to occur so early in the process – all a developer need do is apply for certain permits.

While developers and others should be assured a reasonable level of certainty in the rules after investing substantial sums in the development process, Washington’s liberal vesting rules create major loopholes for irresponsible developers seeking to sidestep community standards.

Representatives Simpson (D-47th Legislative District) and Williams (D-22nd Legislative District) have sponsored HB 1463. Companion bill SB 5507 has been introduced by a number of Senators. The effect of these bills will bring Washington’s vesting rules up the standard the majority of states are using and close this loophole that gives developers an easy way around new protections for critical areas, farmland, and rural communities.

Click on the links above to read the bills, track their progress and tell your elected representatives where you stand on the issue of property vesting rules in Washington state.

Steamboat area residents with waterfront property are probably already familiar with some of the questions surrounding commercial shellfish harvesting, particularly some of the techniques employed to harvest geoduck. It is no surprise, then, to read in The Olympian about hearings held on two bills presently working their way through committees in the State House.

Where does the truth lie? Is geoduck harvesting harmful to the environment or does the benefits to the Sound of shellfish outweigh some of the practices employed by harvesters?

House Bill 1547, sponsored by Gig Harbor Democrat Pat Lantz, would prevent the state Department of Natural Resources from granting new geoduck farm leases on state-owned lands until scientists figure out whether the practices cause environmental damage.

House Bill 1728, was introduced by our own Representative Bill Eickmeyer on behalf of the growers. It extols the benefits of the shellfish industry. It seeks to streamline regulation and create a job in the state Department of Agriculture to promote the industry.

Click on the links above to learn more about these two bills and to make your opinion known to Representative Eickmeyer.

“In Washington state, you’ve got more consumer-protection rights when you buy a $25 toaster than you do when buying a $500,000 home, says a former high-stakes trial lawyer who now heads the Senate consumer protection committee.

Sen. Brian Weinstein, D-Mercer Island, wants to change that, but his “Homeowner Bill of Rights” proposals are facing tough opposition from builders as well as fellow Democrats.”

The paragraphs above appear in the Seattle P-I on February 5 and is regarding SB 5550, now in committee.

The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) has vowed to kill the bill. “These bills are at the top of our agenda right now — we want them dead,” said Erin Shannon, spokeswoman for the BIAW.

If enacted, the bill would require that:

• For two years, the home is free from defects in materials and workmanship.
• For three years, the home is free from defects in electrical, plumbing, heating, cooling and ventilating systems.
• For five years, the home is free from defects resulting from water penetration.
• For 10 years, the home is free from structural defects.

One would think a trade group that was honest and ethical would support reform. Why honest builders continue to support the BIAW – an organization that has lost so much credibility over the last 2 years, is beyond me.

There are a lot of homeowners who have either experienced the kinds of shoddy workmanship SB 5550 is targetting, or know of someone who has. What do you think about regulation of this kind? Click here to read more about the bill and to contact your representatives regarding your support or opposition. While you’re about it, click here to contact Tom McCabe, Executive Vice President of the BIAW regarding his organization’s position on the bill.

UPDATE:

Representative Williams, D-Olympia in the 22nd Legislative District, prime sponsor of House Bill 1935: The Homeowners’ Bill of Rights, wrote an editorial that appeared in the Olympian. Click here to read that piece, which was published February 11.

A companion to the Williams editorial was this piece, written by Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester in the 20th Legislative District.

MARK MESSINGER

Off-road vehicle noise can be a real problem, here in rural Thurston County. Two bills, one in the state Senate and the other in the state House, are well worth supporting. Griffin residents may express support by calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. You may also email your support of these bills by visiting the web site of the Washington State Legislature.

To address the need for peace and quiet in homes in residential neighborhoods, free from unnecessary engine noise from Off Road Vehicles (ORVs), this legislation sets reasonable limits on noise from recreational ORV operation in residential neighborhoods, sets fines, and allows costs and fees to be reimbursed to a party who has to sue to enforce the law.

Sets Reasonable Limits

• It reduces allowable tailpipe noise from 105 decibels to 96 decibels, consistent with the national standard and industry recommendations.
• It makes it a violation of the motor vehicle code (RCW 46.09) and the Noise Control Act (RCW 70.107) to cause noise from an ORV in a residential neighborhood that can be heard inside or immediately adjacent to a residence.

This new state law provision is reasonable because it focuses on keeping noise out of homes. It supplements the current decibel noise limits for ORVs in state regulation and is easier and less costly to enforce. It also does not unnecessarily restrict ORV use as long as the ORV is operated so that noise cannot be heard in and around the home. This legislation does not change any of the current exemptions set in state regulation (173-60-050).

• It establishes reasonable lengths of time where ORV noise can exceed decibel standards set in current state regulation for express purposes, such as loading and unloading the ORV for transport.

Sets Fines

• It establishes penalties for violations ranging from $100 for the first violation and increasing penalties for subsequent violations, up to a maximum of $800.

Allows Costs and Fees

• It allows attorneys fees and costs to the prevailing party who brings an action to enforce the noise standards.

This legislation does not prevent local governments from taking actions under local ordinances in addition to those authorized by this legislation.

The increasing use of ORVs in residential neighborhoods, especially rural ones, is disrupting the peace and quiet of communities and negatively impacting the health of residents. This legislation allows simple, common sense tools to be available to neighbors so that peace and quiet can continue to be available in residential areas.

These bills are SB 5544 and HB 1434. Click on the links, in the bill numbers, for more details regarding each.