— 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- The overall “tone” of the document, e.g., use of gender-neutral language and outdated terms (“old timers”)
- Some listed resources are linked to outdated information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.
Tim Blanchard you are my HERO! I was literally shocked to travel the Orcas Road on April 19 and see the completely unexpected, wanton devastation — and to what end? The first I heard of this was at the April 4 EPRC where it was mentioned that “a tree” would be removed at that corner because “it had killed somebody” People looked at each other in disbelief. WTF! A tree had killed somebody? What is going on here? Who is profiting? Hope the PC can find some answers.
“Defilement” of Orcas Road?! That is an outrageous labeling of the excellent planning and work being accomplished by our County Council and Public Works! Every cyclist, pedestrian, and big truck driver on this island views this project as a tremendous improvement! As do motor vehicle drivers who have often been on the verge of road rage while stuck behind a row of 50 Boy Scouts on bikes.
Dan – why not just a separate safe bike lane rather than making
a major road project. That would would be excellent planning.
“Excellent planning and work”? The planning did not disclose the butchering of the trees in question. (Or the IMO illegal redirecting and dumping of road water onto private property that is using for agriculture and wells.) The tree removal in question happened almost under cover of darkness. “Close the road. BAM.”
The problem is the hypocrisy of the extensive “public participation” versus what actually occurs. Bad enough that our prior engineer committed us to unnecessary road width and we had to swallow that because it was built into the grant. But then not to disclose (or to change at the last minute) what was done with the northerly trees? Separate routes for pedestrians and bicycles only make sense, and work toward those goals is well underway. Our existing roads are edged by old trees and rocks and cannot be made into I-5.
Matthew–excellent job in covering these issues. Thank you!
It is important to consider what mandates come from state law in discussing these issues. For example, while vacation rentals might more rationally be considered and regulated as commercial, current state law (court interpretation) requires that they be treated as residential uses. Another example–the tension between reducing “urban sprawl” and the growing appreciation of the need for additional housing options, including housing in areas like the Island Center on Lopez. The planners and the Planning Commission are constrained by these rules. And the overall general public discussion is unfocused and growing more and more divisive. For example, “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?” It shouldn’t be a choice. People building summer homes here support the economy (and in particular, the tax base) and often transition to permanent residents. Seasonal employees wouldn’t have jobs without tourists or summer-home owners. I don’t see why we can’t work to reconcile these interests.
But again, thanks to Orcas Issues for bringing more information to the public.
I completely agree with Toby Cooper and had the same punch in my gut feeling when the road was open. Living in Crow Valley, I travel on this road to get to Eastsound and always thougt it was so beautiful to come out on the south end, go through the S curves and look over the valley and Turtleback. Now it’s been ruined and I will have some jerk on my tail speeding to the ferry on the “improved” made to drive faster road. I went back and looked at the plans on the county website and the massacre of these trees was never mentioned. What is the end result of this? And Mr Christopherson, have you never seen the sign at McNally Road the says “bike detour”?
Tim Blanchard was correct when he said there was a major blowup on social media. What he didn’t say was that there were nearly as many supporting the project as there were against it. What he also didn’t say is that the area on the west side of the road was already almost a clear-cut from the logging operation on it a couple of years earlier. And that for the last couple of years it has been U-cut firewood lot. Hardly sacred as he calls it!
The Public Works website has published the plans for this road for the last year or more, including indicating every tree that was scheduled to be cut. The final north-most 600 feet before the wider and up-to-code corner by the dump, was in the early design, but not included in the later plans because of budget restrictions. Public works realized in the end, that it would be best to complete that also, instead of leaving us an unfinished 600 foot section that would just be more of the same piecemeal Orcas Road that we’ve been dealing with for the last 30 years (finished 2.5 miles at each end and a half-mile section in the middle, next to the Grange). Tim Blanchard, Peg Manning, and anyone that was concerned could have gotten that information easily.
The road will now be a big step closer to final completion of the appropriate road for this main arterial from the ferry dock to Eastsound.
I am so dismayed at the wanton cuttingof those big trees. I cannot drive the road anymore and will from now on take the slowe, more scenic route. Why not just cut all trees along the sides of allthe roads. Lets just get it over with. Cars driving faster are more important anyway.
Dan–you seem to be missing the point intentionally. We HAD the information–that there was to be no clear cutting above McNallie Lane. We were involved from the beginning. The plans above McNallie were not included in most of the discussion because there were no funds. They were reinstituted at the last minute but even so we were told that most of the trees would be saved, consistent with the governing Scenic Roads Manual. And so what if the landowner above McNallie had been selling off his timber? He never touched the road-lining trees. I counted more than 20 2-3 ft. diameter trunks, and that was just a quick pass.
As for the social media storm, it was not half and half. It was two bicycle promoters and two truck drivers vs, everyone else.
These detailed plans have been on the Public Works website for over a year. Every tree to be cut is very clearly indicated:
https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/18194/CRP-021402-Orcas-Road-Improvements-Final-Plans
On what pages of that document do you find that information?
Those plans –which do show the devastation–are dated November 2018. Where are the ones from the highly debated public process two years ago?
Another great article, Matthew Gilbert; although I must admit it all makes my head spin. The decisions especially – to shelve things that have been of public concern for decades.
I am against reducing wetland buffers any further in UGAS that are wetland watersheds. I am happy to see that this is considered a “low priority” item.
Of more concern, regarding the Orcas Rd defilement debacle is, did Public Works divert the natural water runoff from where it naturally flowed down Nordstrom Lane to join the creek at the bottom between the hills that comprise Nordstrom Lane – and send it 300′ south along the beginning of Shaffer’s Stretch just south of Nordstrom Lane, so that the excess water pools in a landowner’s sheep field? Is this true? I was told this by two trusted sources.
What will recharge the creek and watershed in the Nordstrom Lane valley? Is that legal? How will it affect landowners and ecosystems that were/are dependent on that water flowing the way it did before the diversion?
I would like some honest answers to these questions; was this water diverted, and was Ecology notified?
Thanks, Peg, for elucidating the issues so clearly and clarifying the seeming bias of some commentators. Some of us not as familiar with the historical record benefit from your posts, I appreciate it.
I went to all the meetings about the road expansion and the project scope clearly stopped at McNallie Lane. This second phase was touched upon with written comments (are they archived?) I remember the lichen covered rocks being valuable and those trees as iconic and “my favorite section of road”. This was our very own Dark Hedges. I am sick every time I drive by.
Yes, I am a long time proponent of safe roads for all travelers. This was never needed for bike or pedestrian safety!! There were special signs made noting the ‘Bike Bipass’ down McNallie to Dolphin Bay; installed to delineate the safe route for those modes around this narrow section.
The DOT grant funds received under this Road Safety Improvements “forced” this solution? No, they could have been creatively adapted. A guard rail in front of the trees and one or two removed to ease the turns? A little more rock chipping to the East of the road to widen it instead. (I was told that a guardrail would have cost an additional $300,000. Did we even get the chance to fund raise that extra cost to save the trees? I bet we would have paid that).
We should lose our Scenic Byway Designation and return the funds we received TO PLAN THIS ROAD and articulate the vision of what our roads reflect about local culture. At least for the three generations it will take to regrow.
I would rather have seen no improvement and a 20MPH speed designation to stay safe through those 2.5 miles than that heartless gash. Sadly, were the smaller, original road project from Nordstrom to Mc Nallie able to be implemented on the schedule presented at that time, a life might have been saved.
The County must remember they are there to work for the citizens and must welcome us as a partner in planning. Please respect the thousands of hours our communities have volunteered to make our values and priorities clear: this is not Whidby.
I worry about our swallowing new FAA funds as well…
I stand by my old bumper sticker “We don’t give a **** how you do it on the mainland”.
Many commenters here and on social media have asked why cyclists can’t just use the “alternative bike route” from the McNallie Road corner to the map corner at the intersection of Dolphin Bay Road. First, it’s much hillier, which is definitely not preferable for cyclists. Second, (and more importantly) for a cyclist traveling from the southwest part of Orcas (Orcas Landing, Westsound, Deer Harbor, etc.) to the Exchange or the Grange area, it adds one more mile to their ride! Easy for a motorist, but disadvantageous for a cyclist (or pedestrian).
I am all for separate bike paths that many locals and tourists may prefer to ride on. But separate bike paths are not for all riders, and come with their own problems and negative consequences:
1) Serious cyclists ride fast. Paths are not built for this type of riding and many areas have proposed a speed limit that is lower than many serious cyclists’ riding speed. The new Washington State electric bike law limits their speed on paths to 20 mph.
2) The presence of separate paths may encourage motorists to want bikes excluded from the roads.
3) Many paths are poorly maintained.
4) Paths don’t go everywhere that cyclists want to go.
Cyclists are entitled by law to use all our county roads, and they will continue to do so. Our busiest roads must be made safe to accommodate cyclists.
I have been using a bicycle for over a decade (full time) as my sole means of island transport without issue, the roads were just fine the way they were! I haven’t met a single resident cyclist that thought these changes were a good idea. The only close calls I personally have had are with tourists fresh off the ferry driving like they are still on the interstate…now they will be going even faster!
This was never about safety for cyclists…