||| FROM JANET ALDERTON |||
Dear County Councilors Minney, Stephens, and Wolf,
Recognizing that a problem exists is key to addressing the problem. This is what Joe Symons’ Docket Request 21-0003 is all about. Until you, the ultimate deciders of our County’s fate, decide to recognize that a problem exists and decide to quantify the parameters of the problem, no solutions are possible.
If you decide to continue on autopilot, we are headed to be like a Los Angeles suburb suffering from acute water shortages and transportation bottlenecks.
I am fortunate to live in these very special islands because science and logic actually are useful for solving problems. One of our graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley was interested in studying this molecule called mRNA. It is a real delicate creature that falls apart at the drop of a hat.
But Matthew Winkler persisted and found ways to stabilize mRNA so that scientists all over the world could study mRNA and make discoveries.
Matthew founded a company that marketed mRNA kits that scientists bought because they were useful tools that helped them learn more about the miracles of life.
Because my husband and I helped Matthew’s biotech start-up, I am privileged to live here and have the resources to keep nudging you -to keep asking you to “follow the science.”
Scientists who used Matthew’s mRNA toolkits are part of the string of discoveries that have made the mRNA vaccines against covid-19 possible.
As I keep trying to tell you, science is powerful.When you ignore the science, you land in all sorts of sticky places -such as global climate disruptions. Please don’t be like the fossil fuel companies who have said, “Nothing to see here. Just keep moving along burning our products.”
- Please recognize that buildout is a problem.
- Land use planning is not new.
- Tools exist to help make rational decisions.
- Please use the available tools.
But the first step is to adopt Joe Symon’s Docket Request 21-0003. Please do this to save our unique islands for people and for nature.
Thank-you for listening to my pestering. From your persistent scientist.
**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.**
Buildout may be a problem, but so is taking away people’s constitutional rights.
Dan,
There are ways to address this. I am no expert, but I have two thoughts: transfer of development rights and use of the Reasonable Use Exception. My fantasy: a super wealthy angel that helps the San Juan Preservation Trust buy up the tiny parcels. I don’t think anyone’s constitutional rights will be taken away. It would be unconstitutional!
Actually, our ancestors effectively took away the “constitutional rights” of the indigenous tribes that originally inhabited these islands. They were conferred by the Treaty of 1855 between the Federal government and the sovereign tribes (including, most notably, the Lummi), who retained the rights to hunt and fish in their “usual and accustomed” places. But that Treaty and these retained rights have been repeatedly abrogated since then, so our “constitutional rights” are on shaky grounds here.
A reasonable use exception (RUE) is used only when all reasonable uses of a site, as allowed by adopted zoning, are denied as result of critical areas.
Could all of Orcas be classified as a critical area? How about all of the world? While I would probably agree as an ardent environmentalist, it won’t pass the constitutionality test.
Dan, I do not have the expertise to answer your questions. Solving problems requires looking at the options and then deciding on courses of action. This could be done through land-use planning modeling, perhaps. We are just at the point of gathering ideas. I am glad to know you are an ardent environmentalist. I am 100% with you on up-holding our Constitution.
I suggest hiring an expert in the field of land-use planning for geographically constrained and resource constrained (water + ferries) counties.
One obvious thing is to stop redesigninating parcels to create more residential units in rural areas. Granting a redesignation from Forest Resource to Rural Farm Forest changes the potential residential units from 1 to 8. Why??? This just makes the problem worse.
I believe it’s the case that property rights here are governed at the county level only and specifically through our SJC comprehensive land use plan and the development regs that flow from that. At issue is whether our land-use plan and its property development regulations should be changed for the common good, and that is what a build-out study would lend critical information to understanding. Why would one be opposed to gaining info from such a study?
If Joe Symon is projecting build out at over 100,000 population, it could be reduced by purchasing development rights on undeveloped properties. Let’s see, development rights are probably worth an average of $100,000 per property, so we’re talking about $1 billion. Good luck with that!
At least it won’t happen while the planet is still livable for another 100 years maximum.
Fortunately, The Growth Management Act provides guidance to counties that are updating their comprehensive plans.
RCW 36.70A.070: Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. (wa.gov) includes a sub-element for island counties that requires San Juan County to include land use assumptions in estimating growth impacts on the Level of Service provided by the state ferry system. We are bound by the concurrency requirements in Section B. We must take ferry capacity into consideration when planning for the future growth of each island.
The statute requires the county to estimate traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities, like the ferry, and conduct an inventory of air, water and ground transportation facilities and services; including other transit alignments, like air ports, in order to define existing capital facilities and travel service levels as a basis for future planning.
According to the statute: This inventory must include state-owned transportation facilities within the city or county’s jurisdictional boundaries;
(B) Level of service standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated;
(C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of the system. The purposes of reflecting level of service standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of the system, to evaluate improvement strategies, and to facilitate coordination between the county’s or city’s six-year street, road, or transit program and the office of financial management’s ten-year investment program. The concurrency requirements of (b) of this subsection do not apply to transportation facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties consisting of islands whose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, state highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b) of this subsection;
(D) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard;
(E) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth;
(F) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands. Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47.06 RCW;
(iv) Finance, including:
(A) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources;
(B) A multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010
Additional detail can be found at: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070
Do we currently have the necessary infrastructure to support a projected build out of 100,000? Of course not.
Well, it sounds to-out me that the build-out potential is something like 34,000, not 134,000 — including summer visitors. According to a knowledgable individual who serves on the citizens advisory committee, the ferries are not going to improve for at least a decade, if ever.
Why is Joe Symon’s request for a population forecast for our Comprehensive Plan important?
William Simpson of MRSC blog tells us population forecasts for Comprehensive Plan updates are important “because growth projections are fundamental assumptions for long-range planning, jurisdictions should attempt to reach consensus on projections at least two years before their update deadline. This provides time to amend comprehensive plan elements based on new population figures and grants an opportunity to develop alternatives if major issues arise, such as the feasibility of providing urban services.”
In other words, his request is within the scope of current GMA planning policies.
You can read Simpson’s blog post here: https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/January-2016/The-Importance-of-Population-Forecasts-for-your-Co.aspx