— by Margie Doyle —
Nothing is simple or straightforward in today’s world as the joint County Planning Commission/Council meeting proved out last Friday, July 20.
What Makes a Sign Political? Which Logs are OK on the Beach? Shouldn’t “median” be used instead of” average”? Is the data we’re using accurate?
The Planning Commission and the Council did approve the ordinance regarding political signs, amending oft-ignored, unenforced time limits on political signs. The Planning Commission advised, and included in its motion for approval, the recommendation that the county sign ordinance be thoroughly reviewed and revised by June 1, 2019.https://www.sanjuanco.com/1460/Political-Sign-Code-Amendment
But at the public hearing, County Attorney John Cain faced Panning Commission members — Tim Blanchard, Chair, Pete Moe, Brian Ehrmantraut, Steve Rubey, Dale Roundy and Camille Uhlir (three Planning Commissioners were absent) questioned why the 30-yeard old ordinance had not been enforced and why they were modifying it now.
Cain explained that it was a “practicality as to the County moving forward.” Roundy said that on Lopez, political signs were taken down well within the 72-hour deadline after an election and suggested that it is better to “wipe all conditions away, rather than than [simply address] the current lawsuit.” Further he asked if there was “anything on the docket to resolve signage issues.”
Cain advised that the County take a two-pronged approach:
- deal with the “hanging” issue
- conduct a more comprehensive review at the sign ordinance as a whole
County Council Chair Bill Watson questioned if there was a specific distinction between “political” signs and “campaign” signs and Planning Commission Chair Tim Blanchard said “It does kick the door open to [allowing] permanent bigger signs.”
There was no public comment at the joint hearing, and and the Council than adjourned to allow the Planning Commission to deliberate further.
Dale Roundy said that the county sign ordinance had prohibitions as to size, location and duration that all potentially infringe on free speech rights; however total exemption of all conditions “leads to those who are very aggressive in political signs to step on people’s toes.” He advised approaching signage “as we did vacation rentals” and that “simplicity was not the only goal. It doesn’t end with today’s blanket exemption.”
When asked if the modification to code would resolve the lawsuit and order, Cain said that the “text of the current lawsuit and ordinance was focused on temporal [language].” After clarification that political signs were addressed as a subdivision of non-commercial signs in state law, Pete Moe brought forward a motion “to approve the recommendation as submitted in the County staff report of June 26, 2018; with a further recommendation to ask Planning to do an in-depth review of sign rules to the county.”
The motion was then revised to “ask the County Council to direct initiation of the process to adopt a comprehensive amendment to the sign ordinance prior to June 1, 2019.” The motion was unanimously approved and presented before the Council when it reconvened at the meeting.
County Councilman Hughes said that state law address almost all the concerns brought up by the Planning Commission; but Blanchard said the motivation was to avoid disputes in the future, with the “idea to see what other counties have done with the idea of minimizing signage.”
County Councilman Jamie Stephens said that such an ordinance would be “controversial and difficult to craft… we’re always going to have a challenge.”
The Council then accepted the motion of the Planning Commission and approved the ordinance.
The Planning Commission and County Council were also briefed by county staff regarding draft changes to the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), ordered by the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) order on June 13, 2018.
Areas of the SMP judged to be non-compliant were addressed in proposed changes, described by County Development head Erika Shook and County planner Linda Kuller. They included:
- amending provisions for the mitigation of adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions
- amending standards for soft shoreline stabilization measures, requiring conclusive evidence that a structure is “in danger” for shoreline processes instead of such danger being “a significant possibility;”
- amending procedures to include documentation of all review actions and identification and adoption of a process for periodically evaluating the cumulative effect of development on shoreline.
The due date to comply with the order is Oct. 11, 2018.and Kuller said there would be a Public Hearing on the matter on Aug. 17, with Planning Commission deliberations to be forwarded to the County Council on Sept . 11; and that the Council could adopt the ordinance to comply withe Hearings Board Order on Sept. 17. Shook said the County would “send out notices to interested parties; people have the opportunity to be involved.”
To see the Growth Management Hearings Board Order, got to https://www.sanjuanco.com/1505/SMP-Appeals Public comments on the SMP staff report can be sent to Linda Kuller, Planning Manager, at lindak@sanjuanco.com
Housing Forecast Methodology
County Planner Adam Zack and Planning Dept. Head Erika Shook briefed the meeting on two proposed methodologies for forecasting housing units, outlined in the staff report dated July 5, 2018 (under ‘housing’ at https://www.sanjuanco.com/1306/Comprehensive-Plan-Elements
The memo for the meeting said, “Due to the County’s popularity as a vacation destination, more than 40 percent of housing units in 2015 were used for seasonal, recreational and second homes and are not occupied year-round by permanent residents.”
At its presentation to the County Council on the matter in October 2017, staff was requested to refine the housing unit forecast analysis for 2036.
In addition to projecting the future year-round population, staff was asked to project the possible seasonal population for planning purposes. The seasonal population projection will be added to the population forecast for the Comprehensive Plan. The seasonal population forecast is discussed in the staff report dated July 6, 2018 (under ‘population’ at https://www.sanjuanco.com/1306/Comprehensive-Plan-Elements).
Shook said that county staff were “working with limited data” but that it would be used to guide the process.
The two methodologies were
- Total Housing Unit Forecast using Office of Financial Management (OFM) Data;
- Total Housing Unit Forecast Using Annual Building Permit Average from Employment Security Department from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Four data sets were considered in the housing data forecast:
- population forecast for the San Juans Comp Plan update
- State Office of Financial Management housing unit estimates (1990-2016)
- State Employment Security Dept housing permit data obtained form the US Census 1980-2016
- San Juan County permit data (2004-2018)
The staff report of the analysis of the two methods said, “The type of statistical analysis used in Method One cannot be reliably used with historic building permit data because of variations in the permit data that fluctuate during times of growth and stagnation. Using Method Two which considers the average of the building permit data is more likely to reflect future rises and dips in the housing construction.”
Blanchard suggested that median statistics (instead of average) might tell a different story and would make a difference in projections of household size,which, in the data presented July 20, was projected in 2016 to be at 2.04 persons per household.
As the discussion became more statistically complex, such as consideration of whether the number of population counted as households vs. the number of population counted as “non-population households,” Council Chair Bill Watson said, “This is just fantasizing. We’re forecasting the best we can — and I’m a data wonk. We’re looking at potential trends.”
Hughes maintained that at some point it is essential to have “a baseline ….and make sure we have power and medical [infrastructure] for those here,” whether they are permanent or non-permanent residents.
Planning Commission Chair Blanchard said, “At least it’s not an over-projection…. well, maybe it is.”
Adam Zack replied, “It’s more in line with what’s reasonable to expect, given recent history.”
Brian Ehrmantraut rephrased an earlier question, saying ” I would like to understand what 10-year spikes represent” in the data. It had been suggested that the ‘spikes’ related to the US censes of 2000 and 2010.
Blanchard agreed with Ehrmantraut, saying “It would be possible to adjust the curve if those anomalies were understood.”
In its memo to the meeting, the staff advised: “Once the housing unit forecast method is selected and the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) is further underway, the LCA will be compared with the population projection and housing unit forecast to determine whether enough capacity exists to accommodate the projected levels of growth.”
Zack and Shook also summarized the forecast’s relationship to the Land Capacity Analysis to describe “Where we are, what we’ve been doing since last October,” in Shook’s words.
The county presented data from
- the Office of Financial Management Housing Unit
- the Washington State Employment Security Department
- San Juan County Permit Data
but doubt was cast upon those numbers too.
Watson said, the Office of Financial Management data “may be consistently wrong but at least it’s consistent.”
Shook noted “There are a lot of people that don’t get permits.” Hughes said it was important to understand the difference between new construction or remodeling when using permit numbers to determine the land capacity.
Watson questioned if the U.S. Census data was accurate; and Stephens noted however, “San Juan County has the lowest census conformance in the state and one of the lowest nationally.”
While there were only three members of the public in attendance at the joint Planning Commission-Council meeting, the public is encouraged to provide comment on these topics. Public comments on the housing and seasonal population forecasts can be sent to compplancomments@sanjuanco.com . County staff asks that you reference the page number from the staff report you are commenting on.
