DDES looks to community to be eyes and ears
by Jeanette Knutson
Woodinville Weekly Staff Writer
The Tuesday, April 26, meeting of the Upper Bear Creek Community Council (UBCCC) was live-ly. Before the meeting, picketers lined both sides of the Woodinville-Duvall Road in front of the Woodinville Water District complex, where the meeting was held. They carried orange balloons to attract attention and signs, many more than are mentioned here, that read “Ron Sims’ King County Grievance Tour,” “Sims’ Gestapo jails landowner. Who’s next?” “Mr. Sims, clean up your mess.” At the county’s request, a King County Sheriff’s officer was present in case the meeting went “sideways,” the officer said.
This was not a typical UBCCC meeting. Nancy Stafford, UBCCC vice president, said before the meeting that her group invited DDES to the meeting.
“Yes, we requested this meeting,” said Stafford. “But we didn’t request that,” motioning to the street where the picketers stood.
She said the UBCCC was a conduit of community concerns to King County. When the community had questions, the county was supposed to come and address those concerns. She said UBCCC specifically asked for someone to explain parcel / permit finding.
“We’ve had questions about this,” Stafford said.
Folks from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) were the guest speakers. There were probably seven county employees present. Stephanie Warden, director of DDES, was a no-show. The topic that drew the crowd was “How to find a parcel of property on the Internet and how to determine if that property had the necessary permits for the activity taking place on that property.”
The idea of teaching community members how to look up another person’s property to see if what they are doing on their land is properly permitted was offensive to some present. Despite the sometimes-strained communication, occasionally punctuated with voices risen in frustration and anger, UBCCC President Geoff Clayton did a good job chairing the meeting. He was gracious. It was clear he respected presenters and audience alike. He set ground rules, welcomed dialogue, sought good constructive conversation.
It was difficult to say how many long-standing UBCCC members participated in the dialogue, however. Nancy Stafford, vice president of UBCCC, said she did not feel intimidated by the CAO opponents.
“I was annoyed they were impolite,” said Stafford. “They did not honor or respect the other speakers. Their mission was to interrupt, damn, and misconstrue everything the county said. The UBCCC tries to be an educational arm in the county. The meeting turned out to be a rant.”
She and other UBCCC members said after the meeting that they hesitated to participate for fear of “putting coals on the fire,” causing the meeting to spin out of control.
“We tried by our quiet presence to douse the fire,” said Stafford.
Had more spoken up, the CAO opponents may have learned there is common ground.
Stafford said in a phone conversation after the meeting that she had three children. She found that the way to be most affective as a parent was to be consistent.
“I see all kinds of inconsistencies in the county,” said Stafford. “I understand that we have to have rules so that everybody has a chance at fairness. But just to make rules because they can (is not right). ... King County isn’t doing a good job of convincing us that (their rules) are necessary.”
Wendy Walsh left after five minutes. “What bothered me,” said Walsh in an e-mail, “was that the meeting was not structured to deal with these protesters, and those of us who wanted important information were reduced to silence. There seemed to be no one in charge of respecting the county representatives’ rights to present their information uninterrupted. I left in disgust over the lack of structure, and letting these bullies control the meeting.”
Pati An, on the other hand, expressed admiration and gratitude for the way Clayton handled the meeting.
“This means that an opening,” said An, “however small, was made for dialogue, and maybe, just maybe, (Clayton) planted some seeds of peaceful communication. Ö I also want to add that as painful as that meeting was, it may have been a more helpful than a more comfortable one, as we need to bridge the gap between the property-rights folks and the greenies. None of us are as purely one or the other as we might believe.”
Dick Schaetzel also said in an e-mail, “I was wondering how I would deal with the ‘No CAO’ group. I would not have handled it as well as Geoff did. He was put in a tough position and he dealt with a difficult situation quite admirably.”
There were many instances when Clayton agreed with or sympathized with the CAO opponents. Everyone loved their land and Clayton understood and identified with the pride landowners have in their property. He seemed to prefer working out solutions between neighbors without calling in the county.
“Many have a real reluctance,” said Clayton, “to call DDES to turn in their neighbors. We are here to educate neighbors and improve communication with the county.”
He said the purpose of the meeting was not to turn people into Nazis, not to turn people into (informants). Discovering whether a neighbor’s actions on their own property were permitted or not, he said, served as an opportunity for someone to go talk to their neighbor.
Joe Miles spoke on behalf of DDES.
“Our department approves building and construction permits. We issue between 6,000 and 8,000 permits a year. Those are permits for decks, subdivisions, cell towers, churches, including grading and clearing.”
Permit issuance represents a large portion of the DDES workload. The money those permit fees generate keeps the approximately 270-member department afloat. During a one-on-one interview after the meeting, Miles adjusted upward his first-mentioned 190 DDES staff count.
Another task DDES handles is code enforcement, the codes being the critical areas code, the surface water manual, the clearing and grading code, the International Building Code, the fire code.
“We are the jurisdiction that enforces the code,” said Miles. “We have between 1,500 and 2,000 new code-enforcement cases a year. We have 12 (tax-supported, not fee-supported) officers assigned to code enforcement.”
And here’s the rub for some: The vast majority of code-enforcement cases are complaint driven.
After the meeting, Miles said, “We don’t have the eyes and ears to (keep tabs on whether the codes are being followed). We have 12 officers in the whole county. If we could do it without complaints, we would.”
He explained during the meeting that the county has some property owners that don’t want the CAO enforced. They have other property owners that do.
Robert Larsen, vocal opponent of the CAO, asked whether the county would double its workload by increasing complaints due showing people how to track permits.
“Will (providing these Internet demonstrations) generate more violations?” asked Larsen.
He didn’t get an answer.
Miles said, “We will look strongly to the UBCCC to give input to our code enforcement officers. We’ll be looking for help from you.”
He also said the department was adjusting inspection areas, and Mary Impson would be the code enforcement officer for the Upper Bear Creek community.
One woman asked if someone cuts down trees, should it be reported? Is a permit necessary to cut down trees? Are arborists or homeowners required to get the permit?
Another woman referred to the question-asker as a “nark.” “Why is it her business if someone cuts trees down?” the second woman asked.
Tempers flared. Clayton settled things down.
In the same vein, someone asked whether loggers or bulldozer operators were supposed to tell a property owner when they needed a permit.
The answer was not entirely clear. Miles said, “It isn’t the role of a logger to inform you that you need a permit. Sometimes we list both parties (on the violation).”
How do people know when they need a permit? the person asked, something many in the audience wanted to know.
It’s very complicated, was the reply. You can review the code yourself, or find a person to help you.
It seems the situational aspect of the CAO makes giving a simple answer very difficult. Some laud the move from “one size fits all” environmental laws to “site specific” laws; others find the move confusing, preferring not to ask the county anything for fear the county will use its treasury against them.
One man stood up to say some of the DDES cases are driven solely by neighbors who are mad at one another. The county investigates even small cases, he said. They have an anonymous tip and they roll with it, he said.
Miles agreed that did happen.
Another man said he lived in “a neighborhood from hell.” Neighbors investigated paving their community’s primary access. They were told by DDES that they did not require a permit. One man, he said, complained and complained. DDES listened to that person, not to the majority of the community. The complainer moved out of the community and those who remain are still hopping through DDES “do-loops.”
“You will start a war if you start turning people in,” he said.
Another man said, as a builder, he built a home using plans from a previously built house.
“DDES had us doing more and more engineering. It cost us an additional $30,000 to build the house.”
When it came time for an inspection, the inspector told the man, “This is the most over-built thing I ever saw.”
The builder said he would have been better off building the house and then applying for the permit. That way he would have been slapped with a $500 fine and had the house he intended to build.
“You’re encouraging us to build quick and fast before you can catch up with us,” he said. “Now we have a house that is over-engineered.”
One man said King County’s DDES is trying to do a good job. They just don’t realize that they are prostituting themselves, he said.
“(In essence, the county is saying) not only are we going to steal your money, we are going to steal your land,” he said.
This gentleman said to do a project on his property, he needed a permit. He went to the DDES office and was told he could access permit information on the Internet.
“I’m a farm boy,” he said. “I can run a truck. I can run a tractor.” On and on, he listed the equipment he could handle with ease.
“But I don’t know how to go on the Internet,” he said.
Someone in the department told him that they didn’t have time to help him. He persisted with his questions and found out (from someone with a forced smile) that he could hire someone to come to his property to do a study. That could run between $1,000 and $2,000.
Would that be all he needed to do? he asked.
No, he was told. Then DDES would have to come out and do their evaluation.
What would that cost, he asked.
You would have to pay by the hour (at a rate of $144 per hour), he was told.
This gentleman said, “When I left, I was wondering how can I get some help?”
One man stood and said, “I’m going to cut to the chase. What is happening is the county is writing more and more laws, squeezing rural landowners. There’s going to be a war. People are going to start rebelling. It’s only going to get worse day by day. This war is mounting all across the county Ö . This thing has only begun.”
He held up a “No Trespassing” sign and asked those interested in obtaining one to see him after the meeting.