(The “surprise” of this post is the decision last Friday by Langley Planner Jeff Arango to require an outside “third party” to monitor all mitigation (plantings, etc.) on the Kwarsick/McNeil and Atwood properties on Minnie Lane, at the edge of the Fossek wetland. The Mayor agreed to go along in order to get “closure.” Here’s how it went down.) You can read Part 1 by clicking here.
Mother nature is a tremendous force that can spread disease, collapse cities, swamp shorelines, burn thousands of acres of forests, and create and destroy entire species of animals. But often she seems alone and helpless, vulnerable and unprotected from unwanted human advances. That’s where the Department of Ecology comes in. And planners, lawmakers, activists, and researchers.
Part 1 of this story relates how in 2006 Langley Planner Alice Schisel sought advice from the Department of Ecology’s Susan Meyer, who identified a rough, but specific plan for the Atwood property, with planted islands of vegetation and a ten-year monitoring plan. Alice Schisel moved on, and over the years Langley Planners Larry Cort and Fred Evander handled Larry Kwarsick’s requests to remove and modify requirements. Let’s just say the plan was watered down, so to speak. And, ultimately, the plan and permit were approved for Kwarsick’s client (his stepdaughter), even though wasn’t officially signed by anyone. Then five months ago, when he was the Planning Director, and within days of becoming Mayor on Jan. 1, Kwarsick sought and received from Jeff Arango a signature and approval for his own application.
Langley Mayor and former "acting" Planning Director Larry Kwarsick. SW Record Photo.
Arango did nothing wrong, but seriously, I believe the adults should’ve known better. Schisel, Cort, and Evander were long gone, and Arango was new on the job with very limited knowledge of the 5-6 year saga. At the end, Kwarsick was the last man standing.
All along, I wanted this story to be fair, so they would know where I was going. I emailed ten questions to Kwarsick and Arango. Arango answered them in writing. I followed up on the phone to clarify some points. I wanted to avoid surprises.
I also spoke at length on the phone with Mayor Kwarsick about his two projects. To tell the truth, he did almost all the talking. He shared that he is “proud” of the mitigation work that’s completed on the Atwood property, and reported that “two…no three….of the phases are complete.” I asked if he thought it was appropriate for Jeff Arango to sign the final approval of his development plan, given that he “supervised” Arango. Kwarsick said he has no problem with his employee signing off on the complicated plan. I pointed out his persistence in removing numerous “conditions” on both applications, and he told me this is the normal ‘give and take’ of the process. I said it didn’t look good. That was about it.
Honestly, I can’t tell at this point exactly what the plan is, or how much is complete. Moreover, I’ve suggested to both Arango and Kwarsick that final approvals and monitoring might best be provided by disinterested third parties. Until recently, they both vehemently disagreed, claiming the process is legit.
Langley Planner Jeff Arango conducting a tree survey. SW Record photo.
Then, last Friday, I received an email “update” from Jeff Arango, saying he’d changed his mind after conducting an on-site inspection of the Atwood property. Here’s what he wrote me (edited) on Friday 4/5/12:
So, the city (me) will be requesting a monitoring report (on Atwood) that addresses very specifically how the mitigation plan is being satisfied (reviewed by a third party). I still can’t explain the December 2010 “decision” that says the mitigation plan is complete (unsigned). I’m working on the specific requirements and am glad to share once completed………A third party review of the mitigation plan for 350 Minnie Lane (Kwarsick/McNeil) will also be required.
Within a few hours, while I was still digesting this turn-of-events (requirement of third party monitoring), I received a second email—this time from Mayor Kwarsick. Here’s what he wrote:
Skip – I will glad (sic) agree to a third party review of the final mitigation plan for our future house. While I believe we have done everything correctly I also acknowledge that I have a greater burden than others. I would even be glad to sit down with Steve and Marriane (sic) to discuss the objectives of the plan so that the third party has a clear understanding to avoid a continuation of these discussions. I would rather spend my time and energy toward a resolution then living with the bad karma generated by the current situation. If this will bring closer (sic) I am all in.…..The Atwoods will most certainly work with Jeff and complete their mitigation and monitoring obligations again which I believe are beyond the standard requirement but because they are connected to me they share in the burden. I will only advise Jeff on the intent of the plan and the work to date with absolutely no oversight in his decision making process and future requirements. (bold added)
Then the “marimba” tone played on my Iphone and it was the Mayor. He just wanted to personally reiterate his comfort with third-party monitoring of the mitigation plans on both properties. Because just two hours earlier Arango had informed me of this fait accompli, my reaction was, “Isn’t that Jeff Arango’s decision?”
“Well, yes..,” the Mayor responded. It was kind of a moot point since Arango had finally dropped the hammer, and Kwarsick was left to simply react—a position he’s not often in, I think it’s fair to say.
Kwarsick mainly wanted me to know that that he feels he “has a target” on his back and therefore must meet higher than normal standards for mitigation and monitoring to avoid “living with the bad karma generated by the current situation.” Holy cow.
I’m thinking some of these hats have to come off. The Mayor can’t be the planner, the consultant, the owner, the family member, the wetland expert, the monitor, and the “decider” on everything. Will the Mayor let Planner Arango do his job, “going forward?” Common sense and ethical considerations demand it, target or no target on his back.
(I want to acknowledge the valuable contributions to this post by Marianne Edain of the Whidbey Environmental Action Network. However, any errors belong solely to me. Note: The mayor’s email refers to “Steve,” intending Steve Erickson of WEAN, who did not participate in this report.)
Mike, I hear you complain of ‘dithering’ in city hall in the past, and you claim that previous administrations were anti-growth. Some basic facts are in order: GMA directs that the state Office of Financial Management set high, medium, and low 20 year population projections for each county. The county and municipalities then come to agreement as to how much population each municipality can accommodate. Back in the 1990s, with Larry Kwarsick as county planning director, Langley agreed to accept a total population of 2200 people. That figure has now been extended to 2025. A capacity study showed that with the present zoning and parcelization, 4000 people could live in Langley, nearly double the official projection. A large part of what Robert Gilman was trying to accomplish was to reduce the development potential to the OFM projection of 2200 people.
The part few people think about in this equation is that GMA requires municipalities to provide the necessary services and infrastructure to support that projected population. That means increased sewer, water, roads, policing, library, schools, etc. That costs money. It is good to have an accurate population projection so that you neither over-build nor under-build.
Technology and I are not friends. I was not finished with my posting when I hit the wrong button.
I was going to mention that the last 3 administrations in Langley were all in support of the development on Edgecliff. It was the people whose properties are crumbling away down the bluff who objected to the patent lack of serious study of what was going to happen to all that storm water.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every action has an impact. It is important to identify both the positive and negative impacts of any given action – and who wins and loses by the action. Being able to take a dispassionate long range view of any proposal is both useful and necessary to prevent dumping resources into a pit. You can only spend it once, and there’s not a whole lot to go around right now. Which argues for being all the more thoughtful before committing public funds.
Marianne, I believe you realize that Langley could not be incorporated as a City today, it is too small. But, it is a City, and as you know, the growth is to go to the cities, not the rural areas. In my opinion, there is no way the GMA board would allow a 2200 population to stand for an incorporated city in an area such as Langley. You may believe otherwise, but I think you’d be on the losing team if push came to shove in that type of legal action.
Langleys’ goal as a city should be to take the growth in the south end of the county, in conjuction with Freeland. Perhaps, the southend of Whidbey should do what Bainbridge Island did — become one city instead of several little entities with individual government costs.
In no way can you connect the present Mayor and the “spending” in Langley, Mike. To do so would be suggesting that he has ridden in on a white horse in a Superman outfit. There is absolutely zero actions that the current mayor may have taken that would connect him with the spending you are alluding to.
However, there is ample evidence of the actions and work of the previous mayor and administration, including the relationship with the Chamber, the spirit of volunteerism that helped further beautify the city for our guests, the triggering of events that led to the Main Street program, and work going all the way back to the comp plan, that can be credited for having an influence on this community’s economy.
Russ, I don’t agree with you that the previous administration did anything to create the positive energy in Langley today.
All they seemed intent on doing was trying to thwart the new construction neighborhood, and to try to keep Langley’s zoning rules from letting property owners build according to city codes. All those meetings that Mr. Gilman lead were very frustrating, and appeared to us to be geared to keeping growth out of the city, which as you should know, is directly opposite of what the GMA requires.
What I see about the new city elected folks is a willingness to cut to the chase, and make decisions, rather than dither endlessly. This means people who want to live or work in Langley feel that their goals will be assisted by the city leadership, not thwarted.
I support Kwarsick and the energized Langley that appears to be full of people spending money. A very welcome change.
If you attended the Experience Langley program yesterday, you would have learned that the energizing of Langley began long before Larry was mayor. The energy we feel today is the power we have to define who we are, not others from outside Langley doing that for us. The EDC has a host of information (that was presented yesterday) comparing Langley’s retail sales tax figures as compared to the entire County. Since at least 2006, our city has trended better than every other community and unincorporated Island County. This is a testament to all of our efforts. Hopefully this “third party review” won’t cost as much as the taxpayer monies spent on the public records requests (upwards of $30,000 with legal review) that were prompted by the last blown whistle that went absolutely nowhere.
I have no idea what Experience Langley is, a new tourism promotion?
What I see in Langley today is a new attitude that says “can do”, not dither-dather, endless process and do nothing. It is a beautiful thing to see the new pub restaurant doing well. I hope to see more businesses doing as well too.
It saddens me to see this sort of confusion and possible back-pedaling in a village where we all know each others’ names and addresses. As a design and planning professional, I find it frustrating. As a taxpayer in Langley, I find myself wondering “Who pays for the third party review?” as well as “What better things could the city planner be doing with his time in lieu of untangling this ball of string…?”
Thanks for your courage and questioning, Skip.
Great Job Skip. I once had an editor who bemoaned the impossible task of writing about land use planning without instantly causing readers eyes to glaze over and heads set a nodding. You have met the challenge head on and overcome mightily. Well done.
Your concluding paragraph is precisely right. It’s way too many hats. No matter how one feels about the individual or the merits, it’s just common sense to design checks and balances into public processes. The mayor should want nothing less. It sounds like damage control has swung into action belatedly, having no choice. This was a wake-up call.
Thanks Skip for this illuminating report. Mayor Kwarsick was quoted in a recent Record article about another of his unilateral decisions as sayng, “Process is not my strong point.” Hopefully this report will remind him that his title does not grant him the position of sole decider.