Council Members Advise EPRC on Orcas Planning

At the May 5 Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) meeting, Council Members Richard Fralick and Patty Miller, and Senior Planner Colin Maycock, made recommendations to the Eastsound’s planning group regarding workings with the County on changes to the Eastsound Sub-area Plan, updates to the Critical Areas Ordiance, protection of the Eastsound swale and other matters.

The makeup of the advisory committee came into question as Erroll Speed admonished the group during the public access part of the meeting that the Committee “should include a wider variety of people, not just [those] in the building industry that have a monetary interest in increasing development potential within the UGA [Eastsound Urban Growth Area.]”

He specifically addressed Council members Fralick and Miller to “be careful in determining conflict of interest…and appearance of conflict of interest,“ when appointing new EPRC members.

Miller, who served on the EPRC from 2005 to 2010, said, “It is important for the public and EPRC to look at the role of the EPRC as defined in the Eastsound Sub-area Plan…[the committee’s work ] is less about individual project approval, but about advising the County Council and Planning Commission on issues affecting Eastsound.

“The way to do that is to look at how the [Sub-area] plan is developing; it is outside the committee’s scope to look at individual projects.( One exception is variances asked of EPRC.)”

Orcas West Council Member Fralick responded to Speed’s comments, saying, “The process for all subcommittees is something we take seriously…. We try to have frank discussions, and ask for specific points of view more as they relate to process than to specific projects.

“To think that we put together a list and support one point of view is totally ludicrous, that’s not how it works.

“I would encourage anyone who’s interested — whatever your point of view — to sign up. We would love to have the luxury of interviewing three persons.”

Solid Waste Decisions

Miller, as chair of the County Council’s  Solid Waste Disposal  subcommittee, said that the Council is moving forward on putting a measure on the November election ballot.  Still to be decided is whether the measure should ask for a parcel fee, in which each parcel is assessed a fee depending upon its use (i.e. residential, retail, etc.) or if they should explore a  property tax, in which the assessed value of a property forms the basis of the tax.

She reported that the county’s solid waste volumes are down again this year,  “so our problem is continuing.” The projected amount this year was 8,000 tons, and now it looks as if the amount will be about 1,000 pounds less. Miller also noted that this is a regional, if not national trend, and is not unique to San Juan County.

“Our intent is to structure the ballot as a single, yes or no vote.”

Speed brought up the point that $2,000,000 more could be realized by charging a higher rate, but Miller said that while such an increase “could solve 20 % of problem — which is something — we have to look at both sides of equations, operating costs as well as revenue generated by both models.

“Other counties are not in the red for a lot of reasons, among them more volume and less transfer stations,” Miller said.

Sub-area Development Regulations

County Senior Planner Colin Maycock discussed the movement of development regulations out of the Eastsound Sub-area Plan and into the County Uniform Development Code (UDC) ith the EPRC

Miller said that as “the Council is trying to move up the plan for priorities for 2012, linked to budget planning for 2012, I’d encourage you to have a working session to work on updates” to some of the standards.

A three-hour workshop on Thursday, May 19 was scheduled to review the Sub-area Plan. The purpose of moving the development standards into the UDC is so that “when development regulations are unclear in the Sub-area Plan, you can make them more clear, rather than addressing them once a year. This is the reason why minor development regulation changes haven’t happened over the last 10 years.” said Maycock

Critical Areas Ordinance and Best Available Science

Fralick commented on the ongoing process for updating the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). He announced that the second draft of the “Best Available Science” (BAS) to be used in the update has been posted on the county website for public comments and that the Council will devote meetings on May 16 and 17 to review the draft.

The hope is to adopt the BAS practices and review the first draft of the ordinance, Fralick said. Then on June 13 and 14 there will be a joint session with the County Council and the County Planning Commission to  formulate recommendations to the council on how to move forward.

County Budget Shortfall

The County 2011 budget is “still experiencing financial difficulties,” Fralick said, with some declines in both revenue and sales tax numbers. He reminded the meeting that first quarter revenues are always down, and that the “real fiscal health in the county is what happens in the summer.”

Eastsound Constructed Wetland

EPRC Chair Gulliver Rankin reported that the constructed wetlands for the Eastsound stormwater treatment facility (to the west of the Eastsound Village Green) is still planned for construction this year. The Aesthetic Review Committee has met, and  EPRC member Fred Klein(who also sits on the Aesthetic Review Committee for the project) said that the constructed wetland plan calls  for “different buffers from the critical area [plan] to preserve higher development potential.”

Rankin responded that, prior to an assessment of the swale, “it will be hard to determine the buffer needed.”

Miller advised the group to read the science report, especially “with regards to wetlands  because your recommendations need to include science.

“Richard [Fralick] and I may differ in interpretations of ecology…. But the best bet to deal with the balance of UGA responsibility for handling 50% of growth and Critical Areas rules is: are there opportunities for mitigation in compensation for reduced buffers?

“One thing to look at is, are there areas within the UGA that are good candidates for mitigation?”

Fralick added “The science is to advise the process; it’s not the end-all for the critical areas process.”

Rankin asked if the Council has “the purview of establishing critical areas buffers” and Fralick replied that it did. He added “If wetlands is your prime consideration, then read chapter two of BAS.”

Sadie Bailey said, “I read it, and once you remove function you don’t get it back, so it’s best to do nothing.”

Fralick suggested that the process should then include developing regulations: “Look at the body of knowledge and ask ‘what applies here?’”