— by Matthew Gilbert Orcas Issues reporter —
A quorum was present for the Planning Commission’s (PC) latest meeting, a marathon session that waded deeper into the Comp Plan (CP) while addressing a Friday Harbor re-designation, the latest transportation plan for the County, and an update on the recently released Land Capacity Analysis (LCA).
Following a short presentation by Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Erika Shook, during which she reiterated that the DCD is still digging up data on vacation rentals (as requested at last month’s meeting), the commission heard from owners and representatives of Cornelius Holdings/Browne’s Home Center (the town’s second biggest employer) on a request to re-designate an adjacent parcel from Rural General Use to Friday Harbor Unincorporated Urban Growth Area. County staff recommended “approval with conditions,” subsequent discussion and public comment flagged a number of other issues, most notably a buffer of trees in a possible impact zone, and the PC suggested adding a provision to consider public comment regarding the fate of said trees. (For details on the request, see the 227-page staff report.)
County’s Economic Plan Nears Conclusion
The latest edition of the CP’s Economic Development Element was up next, and after realizing that a line-by-line review of the 57-page document would take the better part of a day, the commissioners signed off after a cursory review with some suggested changes. Two in particular stood out: A reference to the County as an “experience economy” – one “driven by businesses which orchestrate memorable events for their customers” – was flagged as sounding too artificial and deleted. In the Economic Vision section, it was written that “Economic development must also sustain and strengthen the county’s natural assets. These assets do not vote but do provide, without charge, significant environmental benefits and services that residents, visitors, and businesses depend upon.” It was pointed out that the preservation of natural assets takes potentially developable land off the market, and so in that sense the phrase “without charge” was stricken.
Those two points alone suggest the tumult that could be released upon a closer analysis of the document. That said, it’s thorough and well-thought-out and anyone interested in evaluating and even influencing what helps drive economic policy-making in the County should pay close attention. Waiting for the official public hearing to respond will most certainly be too late to have any kind of substantive impact. The current version is available here; an update is soon to come. [Note: The word “tourism” was mentioned 72 times. As reported previously, a survey of resident and business attitudes about tourism, bookending last year’s study of tourists, will be released in the Fall, followed (hopefully) by a Tourism Plan.]
Public Works Will Be Busy
The highlight of the meeting, given its more immediately tangible impacts, was a presentation by engineer Colin Huntemer of the County’s Six Year (2020 – 2025) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). For the record, state regulations require that, every six years, participating counties “adopt a TIP that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing and before the County Road budget is adopted. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the TIP be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.” This was that moment.
What stood out was both the brevity of the plan – 29 pages – and what is already on the books. There are 25 projects listed, just over half with secured funding and the rest “pending funding.” According to Huntemer, no new projects will be added other than what are called “Complete Streets” projects, defined by Smart Growth America as “designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road.” Two projects have been crossed off the list: Orcas Rd. Improvement and West Beach Rd. Culvert Replacement.
Of interest to Orcas Islanders are the following (each one with a dedicated “Draft” page in the Plan, available here):
- Upper Deer Harbor Rd. (see No. 02 in the Plan) – road extension, more parking spaces
- Prune Alley Road Improvements (No. 04) – meet Eastsound Street Standards (ESS) with design considerations that include parking, lighting, landscaping, pedestrian and accessibility accommodations
- “A” Street Improvements (No. 07) – the same as Prune Alley along with “improvements to the intersection with North Beach Rd and a traffic circle”
- Haven Rd. Pedestrian Improvements (No. 08) – to meet Madrona Point Street Standards
- Obstruction Pass Intersection (No. 13) – safety improvements
- Orcas Landing Marine Facility (No. 15) – pedestrian access and more parking options
- West Sound Marine Facility (No. 17) – improvements to the public dock including the walkway, new floats and piles
- Enchanted Forest Road Trail (No. 20) – improve and complete the existing trail network
- Lover’s Lane Trail (No. 21) – see Enchanted Forest above, although the changes look to be more significant
- Crescent Beach Rd. Trail (No. 22) – from Madrona Street to the Land Bank’s eastern parking lot (a Complete Streets project)
- Orcas Rd. “Multimodal” Improvements (No. 24) – from Myer’s Street to the Main Street intersection, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety (a Complete Streets project)
Most of the projects have been cleared to begin this year and next, the biggest by far being Prune Alley. Huntemer emphasized that final details such as shoulder designs and the style of “dark sky” overhead lighting are still being worked out – curbs and sidewalks will likely be concrete since their maintenance costs are lower.
PC Chair Tim Blanchard cautioned Public Works to include accurate visual representations “in time for public comment and to avoid what happened to Orcas Rd.” Huntemer acknowledged the value of such renditions but noted “we have limited resources. We are trying to balance what we have with what we’ve been asked to do. It’s the PC’s job to bring unaddressed issues to the attention of the County Commissioners.”
The public hearing on the County’s TIP will be held on September 20, but by then it will likely be too late to have any impact. So if you have something to say, now’s the time.
While all of these projects have reasonable arguments behind them (the EPRC has signed off on those in the UGA), when taken as a whole, the conclusion one draws is that Eastsound (and, arguably, Orcas in general) continues on a path toward resort urbanization – thanks in part to the Growth Management Act as well as the “one thing leads to another” syndrome. The preservation of “rural character,” which in theory remains a core tenet of the County’s Vision Statement, becomes ever more challenging. It’s a delicate balance to be sure, but there seems to be a pattern to recent decision-making and it isn’t quite clear what the greater population really wants. When you consider the possible ambitions of Yellow Brick Road WA LLC, Oprah and her business partner’s development company that owns property in the heart of town, a fork in the road of Orcas Island’s future seems unavoidable.
Updates on Land Capacity / Developable Lands
As the clock ticked toward lunch (the meeting started at 8:30), the last item on the agenda was a staff update on the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) methodology and Gross Developable Land Inventory (GDLI). The overall intent was to address approximately two dozen public comments regarding individual parcels and a lengthier analysis by the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC). More specifically (and not withstanding some methodical errors when categorizing certain parcels), staff was looking for guidance on three specific issues:
How to treat single-family residences (SFR) located in commercial and industrial areas.
The treatment of conservation easements.
Whether parking lots should be considered re-developable.
I will refer readers to the actual 119-page document for details since the meeting length exceeded my availability. Also visit the Planning Commission website for agendas, minutes, and recorded video of meetings.
The Planning Commission meets on the third Friday of every month; the next one takes place on September 20.
Thank you Mathew, Margie, and Orcas Issues… this is excellent reporting.
In the County’s Six Year Transportation Improvement Program, eight of the eleven projects on Orcas involve improvements for pedestrians. Of the remaining three, one is the repair of a public dock and another is to improve a dangerous intersection. The Planning Commission Chairman is demanding accurate visual representations for those ten minimal impact projects?
And how can one possibly draw the conclusion that these projects, which mostly benefit our pedestrians, are putting Eastsound and Orcas on a path toward resort urbanization?
How long have you lived on Orcas, Dan?
Matthew, I’ve been living full-time in the San Juan Islands for 42 years; 30 on Lopez and 12 on Orcas. I’ve seen the population triple here. I’m not happy that the world is over-populating rapidly, but I have no illusions that we are immune from that here.
However, any public works projects that enable safe walking and cycling may actually DECREASE the feeling of urbanization because those users won’t be in their cars.
A debatable point, but I appreciate your perspective. My real intent is to point out that, from a broader perspective, what defines Orcas as a “living community” is becoming more at odds with the needs and shaping of a “resort community.” I’m not against tourism, but when you add up all the changes and anticipate those to come, the wondrous “rural character” that draws both residents and tourists to Orcas feels increasingly vulnerable.
Yes, how to strike a balance in an overcrowded world. “And how can one possibly draw the conclusion that these projects, which mostly benefit our pedestrians, are putting Eastsound and Orcas on a path toward resort urbanization?” It’s not a question of “How long have you lived here” Mathew, their message is clear. There are those who are on the bandwagon, they’re on the gravy train, and their refrain continues to echo nothing but “more”. They use the ruse of “safety,” and phrases like “common sense,” and words like “practical” as their everyday jargon to hide their true intent when what they really mean is simply… “more”. More at any cost. It’s possible that there may be some who are truly ignorant of, and as such may be in denial regarding the many known negative effects associated with unlimited tourism, but we can clearly see through those who feign their denial of the negative impacts of too many and the fact that we as citizens do have a voice and can do something about it. To further your reasoning (Mathew), and to put forth the question that you have yourself posited before, the reality is, “What kind of community do we want to live in?” Do we continue to allow our local government, the real-estate industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the Visitor’s bureau, and some local media to continue to obscure the far-reaching implications of their “as much as the market can stand” game-plan? Of forcing us down the destructive path that other communities (i.e., Aspen, Nantucket, Telluride, etc.) have gone before, or do we resist the false notion that bigger, better, and faster is the better way… the only way? When fast-growing tourism-resort communities outgrow their infrastructure and stress their natural environment to the breaking point then comes the moment when the better equation is one that calls for “limits.” One in ten homes in SJC, and one in six homes on Orcas are now permitted vacation rentals… we’ve reached the tipping point. Balance can only be achieved by a change of direction– by supporting progressive political candidates, supporting local progressive citizens groups, and by supporting the progressive voices amongst us. Again, thank you Mathew, Margie, and Orcas Issues… job well done!
Michael, we as citizens do have a voice and can do something about making changes that make our island a better place for us residents. In recent surveys, there has been overwhelming support for bicycle and pedestrian paths, lanes, road shoulders, etc. These types of Public Work projects are supported by Orcas residents. The consensus is that they are not putting Eastsound and Orcas on a path toward resort urbanization, but rather, on a path toward livability.
Nice and comprehensive article, Matthew. Interesting comments– gets my wheels spinning!
Is there a comprehensive biking-pedestrian connectivity map with roads designated for safe biking/walking? Maybe with a prospectus emphasizing an ‘Orcas share-the-road mutual etiquette guide’ from biker/pedestrian and safe driving perspectives–? I hope so! I’ve just not seen such a map or prospectus. It would be great ferry or coffee-table reading/education for visitors and newer residents like me.
I love biking and walking to events, farm stands, but using the convenient main Orcas Road scares me, even with the new improvements provided to better safety, ostensibly for cars and biking. Looks like some may be coming in the inner-Eastsound area. How about beyond that? Haven’t seen any safe walking paths from Eastsound to the Grange, for instance. Or the Ferry Landing to Warm Valley. Am I missing something? Are they coming?
If there isn’t something like this… I’d love to see a thoughtful, long term vision and plan that morphs into ‘maps/guides’ for residents and visitors that would be SJ County supported/ sanctioned.
‘Course, full-community/island conversation, involving all sides would be integral–if it’s to be successful. This probably would take a couple of years or so to develop, depending on how much is already here. There have been a number of community visioning efforts for different issues– has this been covered? I’d love to know where to look and learn.
If it’s not already done, is anyone else interested in seeing roads/paths/map recommended for bicyclists/pedestrians connectivity around Orcas– scenic or commuter paths for biking and pedestrians, safely–?
Can this be accomplished without degradation of our rural character? If so, maybe funding could be attracted (private, public, foundation)..?
I’m only bringing up things I’ve experienced elsewhere around the PNW, other places in the US and overseas. We are unique here, for sure. Being fairly new to both Orcas and Washington State full-time, I’m short on the what’s here/in-process, history, laws, precedents that likely color lots of issues, hot buttons. Sorry if I accidentally push any of those! Just trying to understand things ’round here…
“The Planning Commission Chairman is demanding accurate visual representations for those ten minimal impact projects?” The Chair didn’t “demand”; the discussion about better public information bhas been ongoing and the Commission will recommend to Council. More importamt, the Planning Commission represents all of San Juan County and the TIP under consideration includes several projects elsewhere (especially Lopez Island) that could well benefit from advance notice in the form of renderings about drastic changes such as we experienced in the Orcas Road project, e.g., the dramatic increase in the height of the road and the resulting need for so many guardrails, not to mention the trees.
Peg, I presume the Lopez project you’re referring to is at the very sharp 90 degree turns on Center Road, the 45 mph main road down the center of Lopez Island. 40 years ago I was riding in a car with my father-in-law, who drove into this sharp, non-banked curve and the car skidded into a 360 spin right in the middle of the turn. Frightening, but luckily no one was hurt. And NO, he wasn’t drunk!
Almost every one Lopez would agree that this section of road has needed this safety improvement for many decades. What you call “drastic changes”, most of us call reasonable and needed safety improvements.
Dan- you say, “I’m not happy that the world is over-populating rapidly, but I have no illusions that we are immune from that here.”
You’ve hit upon the crux of the issue Dan. A sane response to this known reality would be a call for less, not continuing the promotion for more in a rapidly over-populating world.
You say, “However, any public works projects that enable safe walking and cycling may actually DECREASE the feeling of urbanization because those users won’t be in their cars.”
You overstate the obvious while leaving out the rest of the equation. Nobody that I know is, in general, against safe biking (bike lanes), or safe walking (sidewalks), but it becomes obvious to many that there becomes a certain point where the gain of amenities equates to a loss of character… “uptown” is the term that comes quickly to mind when I look at the overall “improvements” for Eastsound as described within the report. Creating infrastructure leading to more… is not less.
You say, “Michael, we as citizens do have a voice and can do something about making changes that make our island a better place for us residents.”
Hmmm, tell that to the many who have moved away because they can no longer afford your version of “better.” Most folks I talk to liked the way it was here 20 years ago, some even 40 years ago… they feel that they were better off then than what’s being shoved down their throats now.
You say, “In recent surveys, there has been overwhelming support for bicycle and pedestrian paths, lanes, road shoulders, etc.
You, once again, oversimplify the issue(s) and overstate the obvious (the need for sidewalks & bike lanes). Performing a public survey on Orcas for needed sidewalks and bike lanes would not be much different than a drug store taking a survey to see if people wanted aspirin… it’s a no-brainer. I might suggest that if it requires a public survey in order to get action from our leaders for projects that should have been in the design eons ago– then it’s time for us to consider new leadership.
You say, “These types of Public Work projects are supported by Orcas residents.”
Hmmm, we do hang out in different crowds. Your generalization overlooks the fact that there are also many Orcas residents who do not support the current trend… one ensuring that the tourists will have their Orcasmic experience.
You say, “The consensus is that they are not putting Eastsound and Orcas on a path toward resort urbanization, but rather, on a path toward livability.”
Hmmm, a “consensus” you say. Tell this to the numbers of people who have had to move, and who are soon to move because of the current trend leading to “livability” as you call it. The term “How much do you need,” is now a common phrase amongst the populace. 505 vacation rentals on Orcas Island (now 1 in 6 homes) and growing, and over 150 in the Eastsound urban growth area alone. What’s the end result of a planning with no limits? How much do you need?
Dan–I didn’t say that the Lopez project should be abandoned. I said that the residents of Lopez should get to see exactly what Public Works has planned, including information like how high the road will go and what trees will be lost, how many guard rails will have to be installed, etc. the scale and scope of the Orcas Road project was not reflected on the plans made available to the public and the drastic changes shocked most people despite the public “process.”
Michael – “Gravy train”? From your context, I assume you’re pointing that comment at me. If so, you’re showing your ignorance about the bicycle business. No one is in this business to get rich. We, like most bike shops, barely squeeze by.
I don’t know that we hang out in different crowds, but I doubt it. We may have a different approach, though. My desire for safety, common sense, and practicality come from reasoned consideration for well being of those who use a different form of transportation than the one that is killing the earth. It’s not a “ruse”. Michael!
So, at what point do safe bike and walking lanes/ paths equate to “a loss of character”? We have very few lanes or paths right now. Have you tried walking on Lovers Lane or Crescent Beach?
I will continue on my mission to promote bicycling. Not for financial gain or to “ensure that the tourists will have their Orcasmic experience”, but to encourage people to get out of their cars. Orcas locals can do it if they feel safe, especially now that electric bikes make our hills easy! Give it try!
Dan, I was promoting the term “Gravy Train” as general reference to those who put money ahead of the common good, (but you already knew that). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ
I don’t spend much time trying to figure out what your or anybody else’s financial situation is. Your owning a vacation rental and a bike shop does not IMO put you in the 1%. In contrast to those who’s daily worry is whether to pay the gas bill or buy groceries, or whether they will even have a place to live in the months to come– I learned long ago as a contractor listening to those who have multiple cars, boats, houses, vacations, business’, etc. that even the wealthiest amongst us often portray themselves as only being 1 step away from the poor house. Maybe they are… it’s all relative.
You said, “So, at what point do safe bike and walking lanes/ paths equate to “a loss of character”?
Yes, in relation to “loss of character” the question for many today is, How much? How many? The word “limits” comes quickly to mind. But, first let me clarify (once again) that “nobody” is saying that we don’t need more bike paths, (you know this). To continue along this vein is a false equivalency on your behalf. Be patient Dan, one has only to look at recent purchases by such preservation entities as the Land Bank and the SJPT to see that they’re fully onboard, and they’re doing a great job of ensuring island-wide connections of the island’s walking paths, as well as the island-to-island kayak loop.
Getting back to bicycle paths– I’ll give you all the bike paths you want if you & your backers promise to not promote an annual, week-long bike-a-thon event on Orcas that brings thousands of cyclists to the island each year, (like Lopez does). That’s my “tipping point” as far as “safe-cycling” on Orcas goes. Deal?
Climate Change is seemingly the one area that we agree on Dan… that is, bicycling is definitely more climate friendly, more environmentally friendly than driving a vehicle is. But, in saying this one also needs to recognize the relationship between cycling and tourism (the cause and effect thereof), and understand the threat-multiplier that over-tourism represents to small, sensitive island communities like Orcas. There’s clearly a distinction between the dual realities of more people riding bicycles, as opposed to bringing more people to the island. Promoting cycling safety is one thing… promoting more tourism is another. Though related there’s a huge difference between the two, (and you know this).
Where do you draw the line Dan?