County Process (or lack thereof) in Revising Eastsound Boundaries Disputed at EPRC meeting

Proposed Country Corner LAMIRD sparks discussion of GMA/Subarea boundaries

Whittle Eastsound boundaries to the re-drawn 2005 Growth Management Act (GMA) lines? Or keep the boundaries identified in the 1981 Eastsound Subarea Plan? That was the bone of contention between the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) and San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord at the EPRC’s first meeting of 2010 last Thursday.

Setting the committee’s priorities for 2010 was on the agenda as a main focus of the January EPRC Meeting. But as the group discussed the finalization of the ordinance establishing a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) at Country Corner, the rationale behind removing areas from the Eastsound Subarea Plan was argued.

The Country Corner LAMIRD process has gone through the Planning Commission and public hearings and the ordinance has gone to the Prosecutor’s office and is being reviewed, before going to the Council, scheduled for Feb. 8. (There is some question as to whether the ordinance can be reviewed and published before that date. If time doesn’t allow, the LAMIRD hearing will take place at a later date.)

County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord said that the County is “proposing three options as far as a LAMIRD goes”  The options are:

• establishing an  area at Country Corner designated as a commercial LAMIRD consisting of 6 lots, (16.27 acres). “The ordinance suggests the commercial LAMIRD be removed from the Subarea,” said Gaylord.
• zoning a commercial district within the 2005 LAMIRD study area
• establishing zoning for residential parcels within the 2005 LAMIRD study area

Gaylord said that, before the Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted as the law of the land (in 1990), San Juan County had established Eastsound as a place for more intensive development (“with more urban like code in terms of standards”), and established boundaries through the Subarea Plan. He said that the Subarea boundaries, when adopted in late 80s “seemed to be appropriate” (extending shore to shore, west from Terrill Beach Road to west of Lovers Lane.)

Then, in 2005 the Country Corner area (then stretching from the OPALCO property on Mt. Baker Road roughly to Ship Bay Inn) was designated a LAMIRD Study Area.  Gaylord stated that zoning “needs to be in keeping with rural development as per the GMA.”

However, removing Country Corner from the Subarea plan in order to provide that consistency goes against the grain of EPRC members such as Fred Klein, who stated, “The present boundaries of the Subarea plan reflect a sense of community about where Eastsound is, and reflect a desire by Orcas Islanders to have some influence in environs around the village core as well as in the  village core.” Klein described the Terrill Beach road as the eastern boundary of Eastsound as “intuitive.

“The EPRC was formed in order to have a local influence on the whole area; I don’t think the EPRC or Subarea itself has anything to do with UGA [Urban Growth Area] or GMA; of course it preceded GMA.”

Klein said that he’d reviewed the digest of cases before Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and looked at cases dealing with Subareas: “They’re a very valid planning strategy under GMA and isn’t in conflict with it at all. My sense is that the Subarea gives us a basis for dealing with future development and growth, involving local involvement rather than County government; that I’m not convinced that anything would be gained by compressing the Subarea to conform with the UGA.”

Gaylord explained that the GMA established two land forms — urban growth areas and all other lands – forest, agricultural – as rural areas. Gaylord said that removing the Country Corner commercial LAMIRD from the Subarea plan is an attempt to address the “discrepancy now created… because outside of [UGAs] should be rural lands, with exceptions for LAMIRDS, based on pre-existing patterns of development, with the presumption that lands outside urban areas will be rural lands.

“What about the old boundaries created in the late 80s? Should they be honored or are they inconsistent with the GMA? I believe we have an inconsistency that has occurred in steps and we should be reviewing them.”

Gaylord said there “should be comprehensive action taken to bring boundaries of the subarea plan within the boundaries of the UGA,” but noted that the Country Corner is the “first place it’s come up.”

EPRC Member Patty Miller disputed Gaylord’s assertions, saying that the GMA does address Subarea Plans, and that neighborhoods such as Los Arboles and View Haven “have been pulled out [of the Subarea Plan] and we didn’t have this dialog, and even now we’re not talking about pulling residential areas out of the Subarea, only the commercial [areas]. It could be argued those are the most reasonable to leave [within the Subarea plan].”

Gaylord replied that the County had been “focused on being in compliance with GMA,” and hadn’t previously discussed an inconsistency between the Eastsound GMA and Subarea Plan boundaries.”

Orcas Islander Bob Gamble, who is currently Chair of the County Planning Commission, said that the purpose of the Subarea Plan is “to accomplish what can’t be accomplished through UDC zoning …  I believe that is why [Gaylord] was saying there’s no need for the LAMIRD to be in a commercial area.”

However, Orcas Island property owner Martha Farish said, “If you take the LAMIRD out of the EPRC, individual holders have to negotiate one-on-one with the County, rather than hashing it out in public discourse at meetings such as the EPRC.

“I’m concerned that with the CAO buffers ruling out building in Eastsound, the pressure is on to build outside the [Eastsound] UGA at Country Corners.

“I’m worried about the future when we can’t have discussion at  the EPRC level… I don’t want to be cutoff from that avenue.”

Gamble said, “You can make that case at public hearings,” and County Senior Planner Colin Maycock advised the meeting, “You have to show as part of your proposal [to keep the Country Corner in the Subarea Plan] specific purposes and goals of the Subarea Plan that can’t be accomplished through the [County Comprehensive] plan.”

Klain said, “There’s going to be significant development there [at Country Corner]. It would be a big advantage to the community to leave it in the Subarea Plan to allow discussion of that potential development to be engaged at  in the community and use the EPRC as the forum.”

Miller questioned the “legal basis for this change,” asking, “Is this a planning decision, not mandated or suggested by the GMA, but recommended by Prosecuting Attorney’s office?”

Klein added that he’d “like to see the legal decisions that Subareas should be restricted to UGAs.”

Gaylord argued that if the Country Corner LAMIRD was left in the Subarea, there would be three sets of regulations: LAMIRD; Subarea and underlying land use. “People should have more predictability; that is why a specific set of regulations were developed.”

Klein thanked Maycock for his work on the Country Corner LAMIRD but added, “I’m amazed at the unexpected realization that creation of LAMIRD takes means pulling it out of the Subarea. I fail to understand why the LAMIRD isn’t a boundary within the Subarea within which it has certain land use limitations.”