Planning Commission discusses traffic lights, water, VR saturation

— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas issues reporter —

The SJC Planning Commission (PC) met on July 19 with all members present either in person or by phone with the exception of Brent Snow and Victoria Compton. As with all previous meetings, the agenda began with a report from Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Erika Shook.

Acknowledging the mounting demands of the Comprehensive Plan (CP) update, she reported that more resources are being allocated to that process and that two recent hires – one focused on long-range planning and the other on short-term planning and permitting – will relieve some of that pressure. “We’re still a bit short on enforcement but we’re getting applicants.” Permit-tracking software will be released next week, she noted, and “we’re adding extended office hours on San Juan and Orcas to help orient people on how to use it.”

Reactions to the recently released Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) were discussed with a focus on an extensive review delivered by the EPRC (Eastsound Planning Review Committee). It found “71 issues” in the Eastsound Subarea alone, such as the Island Market parking lot being categorized as “developable,” and presented 11 questions focusing mainly on the interplay of VRs, housing availability, and residential v. commercial development. The EPRC also pointed out that “a significant number of recent new residential developments have quickly been converted to vacation rentals,” including DeMerritt on Prune Alley (3 out of 4 units), Adele (5 out of 6), and multiple units in Campbell Miller on Haven that “converted to a VR before construction was complete.”

Planner Adam Zack admitted there were “gray areas” in the LCA methodology, noting that EPRC “did a great job with how they organized their evaluation.” Its comments, along with others, will be discussed by staff in concert with the County Council and a report presented at the next PC meeting.

Vacation Rentals, Part I

PC Chair Tim Blanchard then segued to the Vacation Rental (VR) workshop held July 17 on Orcas. “It’s a very organized group,” he said, “that is raising some very good questions. I think we need to be prepared to discuss what can and can’t be regulated.” Dale Roundy added that “more VRs are coming than we have the capacity to handle. There are ferry impacts, more visitor traffic. Santa Monica and other places have responded. Do we need to set some limits on them?”

“The sauration of VRs is now part of the CP discussion,” said Shook. “We’re hoping to present the pros and cons of what other communities are doing.”

Blanchard then noted that, “There’s a sense among folks that the County believes this issue has already been dealt with. It clearly hasn’t.”

“We’ll start talking about specific land use topics in October after the LCA is done,” Shook said. “We still need to choose which ones.”

Further discussion on VRs was tabled until the end of the meeting; that conversation is included at the end of this article.

There were no comments during Public Access Time, which was followed by a “Briefing” on a “site-specific re-designation request” by Brown’s Home Center in Friday Harbor. It’s asking for a change in land use that would amend the CP’s official map and annex an adjacent parcel into the Friday Harbor UGA (Urban Growth Area). For more information, you can read the 227-page staff report.

As Go Intersections, so Goes Eastsound?

At last month’s meeting, Blanchard took issue with an unreported Level of Service (LOS) analysis of Eastsound intersections, concerned that dominos could be tipped in the direction of something like . . . a traffic light. He asked that the DCD come back with a report on that analysis. This is that report.

With Public Works Project Engineer Christine Coray in attendance, Planning Manager Linda Kuller began with a background briefing on state-level requirements regarding the CP’s Transportation Element.

“It must be updated every 10 years,” she said. “The last one was done in 2013 but sub-element updates (e.g., bicycle paths) are on-going. There are 11 planning elements (such as Future Needs, Funding, and Intergovernmental Coordination). The focus on LOS standards and ratings are driven by WA Dept. of Commence regulations.”

Mike Picket pointed out that, “Because our transportation requirements are different than mainland standards, how do we consider our uniquely rural nature when designing Goals and Policies?”

Kuller responded that, “We do have our own standards and data.”

What followed was a long discussion of the LOS rating system that would understandably bore most casual readers, but such levels of arcana raise issues and drive decisions that become tangible and visible down the road when it’s too late to make a difference. Look no further than the loss of that ancient scenic view corridor along Orcas Rd. Notwithstanding an eleventh-hour breakdown in the public comment process, the seeds of its disappearance were sown years earlier as grant money was secured and “traffic improvement” plans formulated. But I digress.

Blanchard’s primary concern was that the current rating system isn’t “rural-character sensitive,” and that a particular rating could lead to changes both uncharacteristic and unnecessary. Kuller assured him that, “We’ll be looking at it from many perspectives. It’s ultimately a local policy choice, but we don’t have an intersection LOS right now and CP policy requires one.” Coray added that, “We’ll look at general traffic volume and propose standards that won’t be driven by high-traffic examples (e.g., from ferries).”

Other issues raised included “average vehicle delay times,” collector road standards, and even ratings for docks, which require an LOS analysis – more details than most people need to know. All that and more is available in the current version of the Transportation Element.

Kuller explained that the department is trying to connect population growth and land capacity with anticipated road and transportation demands. “Development and growth pressures have required this additional LOS analysis.”

Shook said care should be taken not to set LOS standards too high: “You might force yourself into having to add something like a traffic light.” She added that policies can be shaped to accommodate unique characteristics and preferences.

Picking up on this, Blanchard asked, “Can we make a rule that says we never want to, say, have traffic lights? I’m trying to prevent setting a policy now that punishes us later.”

“Yes, you can,” responded Shook.

The traffic impact of April’s Grove came up. “Do we need a policy standard that denies development in order to accommodate a preferred intersection standard?” asked Blanchard. “April’s Grove, for example, will add hundreds of extra car trips. We need to make sure that these issues are widely understood.”

“We determined that April’s Grove alone didn’t exceed a threshold,” said Kuller, “but on top of existing volume,” well, there will be impacts.

Pivoting to a larger issue, Blanchard noted that, “Transportation studies often include recommendations that reflect things people don’t want. So why not first decide what we want our intersections to look like and then plan around that? Don’t start with a density plan; start with a preferred experience and work from there. Otherwise it’s the cart before the horse. We didn’t incorporate the Scenic Roads Manual and look what happened on Orcas Road. I’m trying to prevent that from happening here. It’s about maintaining the character of the Eastsound UGA which is central to the character of the entire island.”

“We first need a baseline of data,” said Shook. “The LOS analysis will then suggest possible scenarios you can respond to. We want to see what things look like if we changed an LOS and how you would create the conditions for a lower LOS. We’ll make sure to emphasize that what is ‘recommended’ is not a fait accompli.”

“It’s about maintaining the character of the Eastsound UGA which is central to the character of the entire island.” –Tim Blanchard

CP Water Element: What We Still Don’t Know

Environmental Health Manager Kyle Dodd noted that updates to the Water Element of the CP has been going on for a couple of years. “We are forging a new path with this second draft while incorporating changes to date.”

Noting that, “Virtually all of our water comes from rain fall,” Mike Picket asked, “Are we tracking trends? There’s a lot of talk on usage in this element but not much on capacity or conserving it. We need ongoing education on where our water comes from and how much.”

“There is acknowledgment in the CP on education,” said Dodd, but that felt too soft to Pickett.

“We need to elevate and expand on that education,” he said. “If I were king, I’d put water meters everywhere! We should be in constant vigilance until we know what our water situation really is. What is a driller’s responsibility?”

“New owners are required to sign a ‘water availability form,’” replied Dodd, “and all new construction has to have a meter. But there’s a potential enforcement issue.”

“If I were king, I’d put water meters everywhere!” — Kyle Dodd

Pickett: “If we don’t know how much water we actually have, we can’t gauge impacts from new wells and usage. Is there any way to put some of this language into the element?”

Dodd didn’t answer the question directly, adding instead that, “We have stringent criteria for new development that also addresses impacts on adjacent resources, water levels, and saltwater intrusion. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best available technology.”

“What about having water availability alerts like we do with fire?” asked Steve Rubey.

Georgette Wong pointed out that, “What is still missing are assumptions of per person usage. Does this data live anywhere? How do we establish a baseline of usage so we can anticipate future use, availability, and recharge rates? What is our carrying capacity? Do we have the right number of people in this county?”

Dodd responded that a general standard is 250-400 gal./day. This gave Wong, who apparently is working on this issue independently, a place to start, but her questions, and those of Pickett, raise important issues that remain unresolved.

Vacation Rentals, Part 2

With time left to finish the conversation about VRs, Wong stated that, if the standing-room-only crowd on Orcas was any indication, “A lot of people want to see some meaningful movement on this issue. At the end of the meeting, someone said (to applause), ‘If the county won’t move on this, we the people need to do something!’” She then went through a number of research needs identified at that meeting and if the County was in a position to help. Shook responded to each.

• Owner-occupied v. non-local ownership [Shook: “We can check where tax bills are sent.”]
• # of nights used per yr. [“We don’t know that; the Certificate of Compliance only asks if a unit is active/inactive. We can consider adding a question on this, but many owners feel that this is proprietary and not a ‘compliance’ issue. It’s a very tough number to get.”]
• The valuation of properties being used as VR [“We can get this.”]
• VR enforcement and identifying unregulated/unpermitted units [“We assessed $100K in fines last year in active pursuit of out-of-compliance units, which is much more robust than in the past. The new tracking system does provide anonymous reporting, but names add credibility. We still need to hire another inspector.”]
• Impacts on hotels [This issue (and the one below) would need an economic development consulting firm to do such an analysis. It’s not in our current scope of work but I will take this up with the ‘chain of command.’”]
• Impacts on local families, such as someone who rents out their own space.
• What kind of properties are being rented? (This one didn’t get answered.)

Shook concluded that, “A year-and-a-half ago, we began to expand enforcement efforts and to gather data from other communities. The main issue we discovered was ‘saturation, one of the topics we are tasked to address in the CP update.”

She also added that the DCD is re-thinking its public participation strategy and ways to improve communication for both ongoing issues and what is getting accomplished. “It’s not something we do well.”