— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter —
A briefing memorandum along with the second draft of the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) report were presented to the Planning Commission (PC) on November 15. It was the culmination of a months-long process of methodology fine-tuning, data input and analysis, and public comment. But as PC chairman Tim Blanchard acknowledged, “It’s [only] the end of the beginning.”
As instructed by the state’s Growth Management Act, participating counties with urban growth areas (UGAs) are required to determine if there is sufficient residential capacity (new dwelling units) and commercial capacity (available square feet) to accommodate anticipated future growth, in this case through the year 2036. In San Juan County, that determination has been extended to the entire County. More specifically, the fundamental question the LCA is designed to answer is this:
“Do the existing Comprehensive Plan (CP) policies, land use designations, and development regulations provide enough land to accommodate the projected growth through the year 2036?”
The LCA is a planning tool and is not designed to decide how much development should actually take place. The answer to that question is supposed to be shaped by the broader intent of the Comp Plan’s “goals and policies,” which are also being evaluated and revised as part of the required update process. (For some helpful background, see “What the County might look like in 20 years.”)
As has been the norm with these kinds of presentations, the weeds are deep and simple takeaways are hard to pin down. This isn’t a rub on the DCD (Department of Community Development), which has been working diligently to comply with state directives. It’s more a function of the process itself and the weight of administrative and regulatory directives – the report to the PC was 245 pages. And San Juan County is certainly not alone. An article last summer in the Vancouver (BC) Courier titled “Information overload is bogging down city council” (see p. 10) provides some helpful insight into how the quest for local government transparency is transcending our ability for intelligent absorption.
That all said, hats off to the planners for staying the course and good luck to readers who seek to understand why and how decisions are made that will affect their future.
Where and What
The substance of the DCD’s presentation, led by planner Adam Zack, was to summarize changes made to the first draft as the result of public comment and other revisions. After addressing a number of issues including “fractional capacity,” Critical Area buffers, seasonal home use, and overlay districts (among others), Zack explained that while concerns were raised regarding how some of the numbers were crunched (e.g., underestimating residential capacity might then favor unnecessary development), the County stands by its methodology. Linda Kuller added that, “This methodology has been vetted since 2017. We have outlined all of our assumptions, which won’t take everything into account, so it’s an ongoing process.”
The results and conclusions of these various next-round revisions are presented in a new section titled, “2.0: Capacity Summary” (starting on p. 65 of the stand-alone report), which brings everyone up to date on where all the estimated capacities finally settled. Regarding land use, the report includes the following language from the “2036 Vision”:
Neighborhoods, hamlets, villages, towns, and other activity centers are clearly defined to conserve rural, agricultural, forest, mineral resource lands, and critical areas. These areas define our heritage and sense of place, providing for commerce and community activities without losing their small scale and attractive island ambience. The unique character of our shoreline is protected by encouraging uses that maintain or enhance the health of the shoreline environment. Through innovative land use strategies, our citizens and institutions balance and protect private property rights, public rights, and our natural environment.
As for housing, the 2036 Vision says this:
Adequate, safe, affordable, and stable housing helps our community thrive. There are diverse housing types and we use innovative strategies to meet the various housing needs of our community.
These are tall orders by any measure, and the devil, as always, will be in the details of specific regulations – or a lack thereof.
The report confirms that as of 2016, 16,314 people were living in the county, a number that is estimated to rise to 19,423 by 2036, which translates to 1,524 new households. The report concludes that there will be adequate housing to meet that need under most scenarios but does not take into account such potentially mitigating factors as water availability and infrastructure needs.
Along with these top-level estimates are some eye-opening numbers. In Lopez Village, for example (p. 74), which now has a subarea plan, current regulations would have resulted in a residential capacity shortfall of 39 households (2 people per HH) given a projected increase of 236 new residents. The full development potential of the new plan will be able to accommodate 2,604 residents. “This is an extreme perspective, of course” assured Zack. “We clearly would not be seeing full development during the planning period.” But still.
Orcas Island is expected to add about 1,000 new residents between now and 2036, raising total population to 6,423. This means an additional 500+ people will end up in the Eastsound UGA, which is required to accommodate 50 percent of all new growth. According to the LCA report, both residential and commercial development are trending at the lower end of allowable densities, leaving Eastsound potentially vulnerable to insufficient capacity. (Seasonal home use is accounted for but not trends in vacation rental permitting.) To meet the need, the report recommends allowing more higher-density infill development within the UGA’s boundaries and/or expanding those boundaries, concluding that, “Using either of these two policy tools would include a cadre of issues that will require specific and intentional policy responses.”
On the plus side, Orcas still has plenty of “rural development capacity”: 1,590 units that can house 3,244 people.
The DCD will be making a similar but abbreviated presentation to the County Council on November 26 and bringing maps to the next PC meeting on December 20 that will include location-specific capacities. Public comments on this second draft will be taken through December 2, but other than significant technical corrections, no other changes are expected. Contact compplancomments@sanjuanco.com with “LCA” in the subject line.
**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.**
Thank you Matthew for this report. You state “This means an additional 500+ people will end up in the Eastsound UGA, which is required to accommodate 50 percent of all new growth. ” Actually, San Juan County needs only to show that Eastsound has ensured that there is enough space (i.e., land development potential) for 500 people; there is no requirement that people actually move there. Most people who move to the county are people with money; their residential preference is to be “out in the country, preferably on the water” and not in activity centers. There are zero requirements or restrictions on the issuance of building permits, either in terms of number of permits issued per year, or by island, or by activity center v. rural lands, or by land use or density designation, or by any criteria including whether water is available (water can be trucked in or rainwater can be captured).
The entire LCA work is an exercise, or estimate, in “what might happen” rather than a prescription for “what we will allow to happen.” What actually happens is up to the “free” market, not the plan. The goal of the comp plan update work is to do sufficient work to withstand a possible legal challenge, not to honor the Vision Statement upon which the plan is supposed to be built to fulfill. Washington State’s Department of Commerce runs the Growth Management Act. The Act does not require or allow any state review of a county’s comp plan. Comp plans are “presumed valid” which means regardless of what they say, they are the law unless successfully challenged by someone in the county.
For readers curious about the previous construction of the comp plan (which is now being updated), read the material at “doebay.net/appeal”. For readers looking to the future, see “KeepSanJuansWild.org” County Council just recently set a budget for 2020-2021 in which only the minimum work needed to complete the plan would be done, and it would be outsourced rather than done by our local planners.
Unless readers and voters protest vigorously, the approved Vision Statement will continue to languish ignored and marginalized as it has been for decades. You won’t get the County Council or DCD to admit this. They have already refused—3 times over the past 18 years—to authorize work to reveal the true implications of the existing plan.
Your job is to determine if your ignorance is your bliss.