||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
On January 12, County Council members unanimously approved Resolution No. 03-2021: “A Resolution Enacting a Moratorium on Vacation Rentals of Residences or Accessory Dwelling Units.” The moratorium started immediately at 12:01am on January 13 and will be in place for a minimum of six months, as per state regulations; it can be extended at a later date “for good cause.” Also as stated in the resolution, “While this moratorium is in effect, no new applications for a vacation rental permit shall be accepted as complete by any county department, and no currently pending incomplete application shall be accepted as complete by any county department.” A Council workshop on the matter is scheduled for January 25. There will be a public hearing on February 23.
The decision is a victory for a sizeable group of islanders – led by the Vacation Rental Working Group (VRWG) – who have been advocating for such an action since July 2019. Since then, the issues around the impacts and regulation of VRs have been well documented, recently summarized in this November 2020 article. In a press release, Yonatan Aldort, chair of the VRWG, applauded the decision, saying, ““We wish to extend our thanks and appreciation to the County Council for opening its 2021 legislative session with decisive action on one of our community’s most pervasive problems. The real work now begins.” A petition drive initiated by the VRWG gathered nearly 3,000 signatures. It continues to stand by a proposal of regulatory options it sent to the county in December 2019.
Planning Commission Lights a Spark
A formal recommendation for a moratorium was made by the county Planning Commission last November. Cindy Wolf then brought up the issue during a Monday workshop at which representatives from both the Department of Community Development (DCD) and Public Works got the new council up to speed on current actions and priorities. Prior to that, a brief report was delivered by Erika Shook and Adam Zack of the DCD. The highlights:
- While fewer building permits were expected in 2020, that wasn’t the case (“the most since 2010”), although the bulk of them has been for smaller projects and remodels – the number of family residential building permits remained about the same.
- Regarding the GMA update, most of the elements are nearing completion. Expect some virtual public workshops and more opportunities for comments followed by a formal public hearing later in the year.
- In response to a question from Wolf regarding Eastsound’s water capacity, there is little data on how much fresh water is available given the lack of resources to study this.
- The Prune Alley project has been approved to begin – and end – in 2021. More information to come on the schedule as well as the impacts of construction on businesses and parking along with other disruptions.
[A video recording of the workshop presentations made by the both the DCD and Public Works is available here.]
Prior to the opening of the Monday workshop, a handful of public comments were made in support of the moratorium. Those same comments were echoed on Tuesday, along with several statements arguing against the moratorium on the grounds that permit applications have been steadily decreasing (26 were approved in 2020); a moratorium would put additional stress on planning department staff and pull resources from other important issues; and that while some improvements may be needed, a “wholesale stoppage” would be too heavy-handed.
Shook emphasized the negative impacts of a moratorium on staff time, suggesting it would be easier to make smaller changes that could be incorporated into the Comp Plan. “More substantial changes will take time away from the Comp Plan and demand more public participation,” she said. “I’d be pulled away from permit reviews . . . We’d have to be very targeted and keep the scope modest.” Wolf, referring to a discussion she had with Deputy Prosecutor Amy Vira, felt that a slower timeline and a more traditional process of discovery “would create a flood of applications while we are discussing whether or not to enact a moratorium.”
Vira (who wrote the actual resolution) then explained the details of enacting a moratorium immediately, describing it as an “Act now, plan later” strategy. “An immediate moratorium could start tomorrow,” she said, “with a resolution that specified the reasons. You would then set a hearing within 60 days (at which) you would make detailed findings on why a moratorium is needed. Staff would have to present a work plan (steps, schedule, etc.). The law requires that there is forward progress.” She added that the findings would focus on the urgency of the issue, potential harms, and the anticipated outcomes of a moratorium process.
A Surprising Formality
Given the history of tension that has surrounded the issue of a moratorium (the previous Council was consistently opposed), the decision at the Tuesday Council meeting felt like a foregone conclusion – although Christine Minney emphasized that “this is a pause button to broaden public participation and research.” The focus was more on next steps, in particular the objectives of the upcoming January 25 workshop. For example:
- How many new permits have been issued over the last few months and in which neighborhoods?
- What is the current status of compliance efforts and the net change in permits since 2018?
- What is, or isn’t, a “simple fix”?
- How will enforcement efforts be affected?
- What are the legal issues with various regulatory options?
In some ways, the moratorium became a referendum not just on acknowledging the impacts of vacation rentals on tourism, growth, island character, private rights, and the economy but on the “democratic process” as well, at least in so far as how the weight of citizen sentiment is measured. It will also bring into sharp relief the extent to which a moratorium will impact other county planning efforts. The monolith of the GMA update casts a long shadow.
**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.**
Thanks to the Orcasonian for this article, to the council for taking action, and to Cindy ‘Wolf for her wise reply to planner Erica Shook’s desire to go slow on this issue which has been front and center in the county now for at least a couple of years. In the article above, it states “Shook emphasized the negative impacts of a moratorium on staff time.” This statement minimizes the importance of the vacation rental issue. While people with building permits pending of course want them approved ASAP, what could be more important than solving the vacation rental issue? Again, I applaud the council for taking this bold step. It is not the final step, only a beginning to start to really address the issue.
Posting for long-time resident of Waldron Island, Bill Cook
Dear Michael,
Here is my comment which I hope you can submit:
Vacation rentals owned by landlords outside the County rob County dwellers in two ways (1) the landlord makes money off a rural environment he has no interest in protecting, and (2) the renters enjoy a rural environment they will not live in and have little interest in protecting. The unlimited proliferation of vacation rentals is akin to robbery of permanent dwellers of the values which caused them to settle there.
To say that the economy of the San Juan Islands cannot stand for a cap on vacation rentals is akin to saying the economy of England could not stand for a roll-back of colonialism.
We must limit the number of vacation rentals, just as we limit the number of fish one can catch, to keep the County from becoming a money-making wasteland, another Malibu, or Coney Island.
“regarding Eastsound’s water capacity, there is little data on how much fresh water is available” Is that so? Who answered this, I wonder? DCD?
Sincere question, since EWUA knew this “yesterday,” I believe. I could be wrong, but my impression of the ground water supply–related to my having conservation property that contributes to storm water filtering and recharging–is that availability is measured and extrapolated in reliable ways.
I don’t question this is an accurate account of the meeting, just the implication that there is “little data.”
Too bad Paul Kamin has left EWUA and was not present. He was a veritable gusher (pun intended) of data on our water supply.
Hi Paige, You would have to contact Adam Zack of the DCD to elaborate on that — he is the one who answered.
Bill’s comments are well-made and well-taken, no pun intended on
“well.”
Adam Zach talks about water availability during the 1/11/21 county council workshop during the discussion on vacation rentals. He said that even though there are “many aquifers” that are known to run through the San Juans, there has not been any studies done to date to quantify how much water is in them. Sadly, Jami Stephens also remarked that the past-pending state legislator funded study of water capacity in the San Juans recently got shot down.
Though Paul Kamin’s presence will be sorely missed, as we know he did a study confirming that during the “ever-growing” vacation season that short-term vacation rentals in the Eastsound water service area used “many more times” the amount of water than do the typical, similar, single family, year round residences in the same neighborhoods. In all fairness though, Paul stated to me once that, “Eastsound is not going to run out of water.” And though at times we have experienced water shortages that were accompanied by the public call to conserve our usage, it’s comforting to know that Eastsound water has come a long ways… we’re blessed to have several different water sources in the form of wells, and lakes.
But, at the same time it’s also known and confirmed by data existing in the form of personal testimonies (bookmarked by the Vacation Rental Committee), that there are a number of private wells, shared wells, and some community water systems throughout rural areas on Orcas that have started running low, or even dry, every season since the vacation rentals next door began operating. We should also not lose track of the fact that we do have salt-water intrusion at various locations throughout the San Juans at near-shoreline locations… many of which host vacation rentals. Whether it be our mutually shared natural resources, critical resources, or the availability of affordable housing and year-round rentals– vacation rentals have proven to be a major stressor on these, and they exacerbate that which in some cases is already under strain.
Though we’re constantly bombarded with studies showing the positive side of tourism… all related to money– there seems to be a darth of information relative to the known negative affects that are relative to over-tourism. As a result our political leaders are tasked with making policy decisions on growth and tourism without a full toolbox. As the past-chair of the Planning Commission stated during their discussion on vacation rentals, “Perhaps we should just start over,” and, “We need more information”.
A friend recently remarked to me (regarding the moratorium), “See how easy it is when you have the political will?” Yes! Let us hope that the new commission will continue to take over-tourism seriously, and not continue to just take the easiest way out. There comes a time when limits make sense, and on Orcas Island we are past that time.
As MJ says above, we really don’t know how much water we have available, so we really don’t know what our maximum buildout population is before we start degrading our environment and our quality of life. It would seem that the Council needs to order a study of capacity for items like water in order to intelligently plan for the future. If instead our planning is driven by market forces and population growth, then we really have no control over the future. So let’s have the Planning staff find out what the maximum sustainable population is.
Yes, knowing what we know now, it’s not difficult to see where market driven growth and tourism strategies will take us. Using “as much as the market can bear” as a means to form policy has proven a failure on many levels. It is the worst possible criteria from which to form policies.
You said, “So let’s have the Planning staff find out what the maximum sustainable population is.”
I can only agree with this… the more information we have the better. This study should also include the number of visitors that are here during the peak tourist season as well… afterall, during the time they are here, they are a part of our population. And, like us, they are using our shared resources… more than we use I would venture to guess.
To David Turnoy, I would like to point out that there is a study on the water capacity, I was on the committee that did the research. The East Orcas Water Resource Planning Committee produced the report in 2005. The title is “The East Orcas Water Supply Report and Recommendations
October, 2005- As adopted by the East Orcas Water Supply Planning Committee with Recommendations amended by the San Juan County Water Resource Management Committee East Orcas Water Supply Planning Committee” . So we do know how much there is and how much we use.
If I recall correctly, Paul Kamin presented his data on water consumption in VR units at one of the public meetings sponsored by the VRWG and said that these units consumed 89 percent more water than the average EWUA user—not the “many more times” that MJ cites. But this demand came in July and August, when the system capacity is stressed to its limit, not in the other, wetter months of the year. I can recall at least one year when we had to conserve water carefully because we were getting close in those dry months.
Hard to miss the “US” vs “THEM” tone here. I’m guessing not many of the “US” were born and raised here? And would also guess that the vast majority of “US” came and visited the islands before making them home. Not all of “THEM” are evil, most are just “US” but live somewhere else (for now).
Whether you were born here has nothing to do with the conversation.
Whether you came here as a tourist has nothing to do with the conversation.
But, you already knew that.
Only a month for the moratorium?! That is an insult to the concerns of this community and to how much the islands can bear. FACT; our water is a finite resource. We act as if our supply is endless – it’s not.
Thanks Shawn. From your comment I did a Google search came up with this public review draft dated Mar. 2008 titled Eastsound Water Supply Report and Recommendations & Abbreviated Coordinated Water System Plan. One of it’s subcommittees was the East Orcas Water Supply Planning Committee which is what I believe you’re referring to https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/publications/1203270.pdf
and also,
SAN JUAN COUNTY ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT 2008
https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/860/Annual-Groundwater-Monitoring-Report-2008-PDF
“San Juan County’s water resources are provided by local rainfall only and are characterized by the rain shadow created by the Olympic Mountains to the south and Vancouver Island to the west, by predominantly steep terrain and bedrock geology, by small watershed catchment areas, and by extensive shoreline. These conditions result in low rainfall, limited groundwater storage, and extensive runoff and discharge to the sea.”
Key issues for San Juan County include:
• Very low recharge to aquifers,
• Seawater intrusion,
• Water right allocations by the state that exceed
water available,
• Areas where current use of water exceeds
aquifer capacity,
• Water development that is occurring primarily
via exempt wells,
• Failure of many individual and community
wells during summer months,
• Lack of capacity to serve areas designated by
the county’s GMA process for growth,
• A gap in responsibility and authority between
state and county agencies,
• Lack of comprehensive monitoring and assessment
of water resource capacity, and
• Lack of coordinated, cooperative resource
management.
As these are dated studies I’m sure, at least I hope, that our water administrators have since come up with solutions to some of the issues that were addressed in this study.
Brenda, the moratorium is for a minimum of six months.
p.s. According to Erika Shook, “The moratorium applies only to the submittal of applications for vacation rental to the County. It does not impact vacation rental permit applications that were submitted and complete prior to the moratorium.”