— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter —

Everyone was present (one by phone) for the SJC Planning Commission’s third meeting of 2019 which took place on Friday, April 19. As data accumulates, comments come in, and Plan elements get updated, the process itself and its intended objectives become incrementally more real. It’s an impressively transparent process that will continue to benefit from an engaged public as the many policy decisions at stake continue to become more palpable.

Planning Dept. Director Erika Shook began the morning with a short update on the Lopez Subarea Plan (little to report as deliberations continue) and marijuana production licensing: A six-month moratorium has been put in place, there will be a public hearing, and since this is ultimately a land use issue, its future will be addressed via the Comp Plan.

The Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) is finally nearing completion as code issues are sorted and permits are updated. The public access portal to those permits will be launched in May; the public comment period on the LCA ends on April 25. In June the Planning Department will brief the Commission on the methodology used for the LCA and the final categories selected. An August briefing will address capacity issues and build-out estimates. A draft Housing Needs Assessment (mostly “background”) has been completed and is available on the website. There is more work to do on this.

Among the wildcards in the data, noted Shook, will be landowners weighing in on the categorization of their own properties and discussion over what is and what isn’t considered “developable.” Once the LCA goes public, there will be an additional comment period and Fall public workshops regarding actual policies. A timeline for all this will be posted on the website.

Public Access Time

Jennifer Barcelos, a staff attorney for Friends of the San Juans, referred to comments already submitted to the draft Economic Development Element (EDE) of the CP as she emphasized the following:

  • The overall “tone” of the document, e.g., use of gender-neutral language and outdated terms (“old timers”)
  • Some listed resources are linked to outdated information
  • Vacation rentals: “As a community we need to decide if these are commercial in nature, and if so, we need to name that explicitly.”

A barely restrained and sometimes emotional Tim Blanchard (PC Chair), “speaking as a citizen representing a group of Orcas Islanders,” then delivered a strongly worded statement of community outrage regarding the excess tree-cutting and road revisions of Orcas Road in the vicinity of McNally Lane and the Orcas Exchange. Noting a “major blow-up on social media,” he stated that the work recently done

“looks like a clear-cut . . . community members did not know this was part of the project . . . the workshops conducted at the time [implied] that the road would swing east to maintain island character . . . [what happened] was inconsistent with what was presented at the original workshop . . . if folks had understood this would happen, [the project] would not have been approved. This was a direct misrepresentation that was not evident by looking at the plans and is inconsistent with the intentions of the current CP and its ‘scenic roads manual.’ Public Works needs to present its thinking to the Planning Commission. This is a gigantic step backwards in bridging the trust gap . . . Random ribbons on trees suggested an evaluation, but it turned out to be a clear-cut, changing a beautiful shaded road into [fill in the blank].

Apologizing that he exceeded the three-minute time limit for comments, he admitted there may be reasons that this happened the way it did – Owner issues? Technical issues? – but nothing has been communicated. If it’s a matter of adhering to “traffic engineering ‘standards’,” he said, then such standards “are not appropriate for this County.” Public Works will be asked to appear at the next PC meeting to explain its actions, which have permanently defiled one of the most sacred scenic stretches of road in the County.

[Note: Orcas Issues has contacted Public Works for comment but no response yet as of the posting of this article.]

EDE Draft Update

Representing the Economic Development Council, Bill Appel gave another update on the Economic Development Element (EDE) of the Plan that reflected new comments on various plan elements:

“In normal economic plans, the tension is between economics and the environment. What’s unique in this county is that the ecology is the economy. The necessity for balance is thus extreme. Which raises the issue: The EDE/CP deals only with County expenses; it does not address private capital. So the Comp Plan is not truly regulatory in this regard. It is not effective in controlling how money is spent here [and thus] unable to steer the future of the county economy.”

His preamble sparked a wide-ranging discussion on how best to balance the two.

Georgette Wong spoke to the issue by offering to put people in touch with credible resources that quantify the value of ecology. “There’s a huge movement of people looking at this, as well as the intersection of philanthropy and investment capital. There are emerging precedents.”

A question was raised on defining “improvement,” e.g., do smoother and straighter roads improve quality of life? “People may use straight roads to get here,” said Brent Snow, “but they come for our special island character.”

In response to a statement in the EDE endorsing the provision of long-term healthcare in the island, Blanchard cautioned that instead of suggesting specific strategies, the Plan should focus more on needs than answers or proposing a particular approach.

Circling back to a previous comment on whether vacation rentals (VRs) should be considered as a residential or commercial activity, Blanchard responded that despite what the state says (residential), the EDE can make recommendations on this issue, e.g., letting the market decide versus compelling the County to come up with some controlling regulation (such as via land use and permitting). “We are being asked by the public to weigh in on this topic,” noted Blanchard. “And again, the county can support or curtail this from a regulatory perspective” while also considering other forms of transient accommodations (e.g., hotels, camping). Victoria Compton said that the current Housing Assessment has some “blockbuster” data on VRs. Bill Appel put an exclamation point on the role of the County: “From a regulatory perspective, who are you trying to help? People trying to finance their summer house or seasonal employees [or anyone] who needs housing?”

2019 Docket of Proposed Text Amendments

Six “Proposed Text Amendments” – formal requests for substantive changes to the Comp Plan – were submitted this year, all but one of them from, or about issues affecting, residents on Orcas Island. Each request was assigned a Priority rating from A (“Required by law for GMA – Growth Management Act – compliance or otherwise”) to F (“Obsolete, previously resolved or not recommended for further consideration”). A summary of each determination is provided below; see the official 186-page “Memo” for a full rendering of this year’s requests and evaluations.

#1—ADU Ownership (submitted by OPAL)

Request: “Allow the separate sale of a primary residence and ADU provided the ownership of the underlying land for both the primary residence and the ADU remains the same.”

Determination: “E” – “A lower-priority items to be considered on a future year work program.”

Reasoning: “Updates to the Housing and Land Use elements of the Comprehensive Plan may include an examination of ADU policy. Changes to Comprehensive Plan policies are implemented through development code amendments. This request may end up being addressed during that process.”

#2—Build-Out Analysis (Joe Symons)

Request: “Add an executive summary and build out analysis to the Comprehensive Plan [and] include additional historical context to the Comprehensive Plan introduction.”

Determination: “F” – “No further action”

Reasoning: “A request for the same amendment was submitted during the 2018 annual docket process. The 2018 docket was resolved with Resolution 31-2018. At that time, no further action was required because the other components of the Comprehensive Plan such as the Land Capacity Analysis address similar information and are currently included in the Comprehensive Plan Update.”

Follow-up discussion noted the persistence of this request over the years and the fact that such an analysis is finally coming online. (Symons’ request for a summary and historical context were ruled out because of limited staff time.) His general concerns (and those of others) regarding the county’s future and quality of life were also recognized. The Planning Department’s Linda Kuller stated that “We’ve reviewed [his comments] carefully and will be addressing some of this, but he’s asking for a lot of details, especially regarding the Vision Statement. We do want to be aware of the community’s concern re: this issue, just not every ‘ask.’” Blanchard added that “We can still make a findings-based recommendation but can’t force the state legislature to make any changes other than at a UDC-level. Would better PD staffing have avoided these delays in getting this analysis done?”

Pete Moe suggested that staff look carefully at Symons’ attachment and try to specifically address his main points. Blanchard concurred: “There are good points being made here that are helpful in linking different parts of the CP and identifying areas where we may not have a clear policy re: growth/development-related issues, findings, and procedures.”

#3—Habitat Buffer (Fred Klein)

Request: “Reduce wetland habitat buffers within UGA similar to the currently allowed water quality buffer reduction in UGA.”

Determination: “E”

Reasoning: “Add an analysis and amendment of SJCC 18.35.100 when the critical area regulations are updated following the Comprehensive Plan Update.”

It was noted that approving such an amendment would open the entire wetlands standards to public comment, appeal, and legal challenges and that it makes more sense as a “future work” program where certain ordinances could be updated.

#4/#6—Airport Hazard Definition (Stephanie O’Day/agent)

Request: “Allow residential uses accessory to nonresidential uses in the Orcas Airport Overlay / Allow residential infill development in Airport Hazard (both in Zone 5)”

Determination: “C” – “Items that can be considered as part of a lager Comprehensive Plan Update or subarea planning process.”

Reasoning: “State laws … require counties to prevent the siting incompatible land uses adjacent to airports. Further analysis of state and federal regulations and coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the WA Department of Transportation (WADOT), and the Port of Orcas Island will be required during the consideration of the proposed amendments.”

#5—Island Center Residential Uses (Lopez Island School District)

Request: “Allow residential development in Island Center . . . LISD would like to be able to construct employee housing on an undeveloped parcel in Island Center.”

Determination: “C”

Reasoning: “The IC designation is one of only a few places on Lopez where commercial and industrial uses are allowed. The LAMIRD was established, in part, to provide a rural area where more intense development is allowed and protect this area from being converted to low density residential development. All of this fits within the GMA mandate to reduce sprawl. Making changes to IC should be considered within the County’s larger land use designation framework to ensure the realization of GMA planning goals and County policy goals.”

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 17 (the third Friday of each month). Minutes from the March meeting are available here; minutes from the April meeting will be posted soon.

**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**