||| BY theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER MATTHEW GILBERT |||
The most recent stop on the journey to establish caps on vacation rental permits was the Planning Commission’s Sept. 17 monthly meeting, where it heard a report from the DCD’s Adam Zack and revisited their recommendation from the August meeting. Prior to that, another lengthy public comment period raised few issues not covered in depth previously; most of those speaking advocated for the more stringent cap set earlier based on current compliant and active permits, as well as a trigger date of July 31 to prevent a last-minute rush on applications.
The PC then rolled up its sleeves.
Zack began by noting the discrepancy between the cap limit recommended by the County Council (approximately 1,130) and where the PC ended up (about 400 – “current and active as of July 31”). He said it was important for the commission to back up whatever number it proposed. He also confirmed that despite a cap, inactives can activate as long as they are compliant, and that the 400 non-compliants could become compliant and thus cleared to be active. There are about 20 pending permits.
Steve Smith asked Zack if the PC can request some clarification on the legalities of setting a cap. “We don’t want to waste a lot of time if this isn’t clear.” Zack responded that the prosecuting attorney’s office will only review issues that reach the Council level – a confusing response given that the PC was directed by the Council to recommend a number. Sheila Gaquin noted that “the jury is out” as far as rulings on similar cases in other locales throughout the rest of the country.
“As of 9/15, noncompliant permit holders will be fined or their permit revoked unless they update,” said Zack. “A major compliance effort is now underway.” He further reported that a few have already been abandoned, some have become compliant, and those issued after 2018 (a small subset of the total) can simply be “expired” if noncompliant.
To confirm, as the proposed ordinance now stands, no new permits would be issued until the total number of actives fell below 413. That could take a while given that there are currently some 650 compliant permits that could activate at any time.
“The focus on 413 has been divisive and created some confusion,” said Matthew Ellingson. “So the actual number is really 650 rather than this arbitrary 413.”
“If we change our original recommendation, would this start an entirely new round of the process?” asked Dale Roundy. To which Zack replied, “We would simply update the ordinance if you want to change it; it won’t affect the date of scheduled public hearing.”
The conversation then circled back to possible legal issues.
“The PC should have access to a legal opinion since there might be legal risks here that haven’t been properly assessed,” said Roundy.
“Can’t (deputy prosecuting attorney) Amy Vera consult with us, even in an executive session?” asked Gaquin. “Would this be a conflict of interest?”
“You can ask,” responded Zack. “But first pick a number and finalize your findings.”
A motion was then made to revise the cap to 650, defended as a “reasonable” compromise that honors the currently compliant while still allowing some room in the future for new permits. That didn’t set well with David Kane. “Why allow for a 50% increase when 400 has already been identified as impactful and enough. This is still kicking the can. What do we want long term?”
Additional discussion then led to a vote, and the motion to reset the cap to 650 (based on the number of compliant permits as of July 31, 2021) passed, 4 – 3, with Gaquin, Kane, and Roundy dissenting. Matt Ellingson had left the meeting earlier. The allocation:
- Orcas: 334 (current “active and compliant” = 211)
- San Juan: 229 ( 140)
- Lopez: 85 (60)
- Outer Islands: 2 (2)
Discussion then pivoted to findings. Normally, such justifications are delivered after the public hearing, but Smith argued that “the public should know at least some of our reasoning behind this.” He then made a motion to present “preliminary” findings, and it was unanimously approved. Those findings, subject to modification based on public comment, are as follows:
- The SJC Comp Plan acknowledges the difficulty in finding local housing that is affordable for a variety of incomes and establishes a policy to promote fair and equal access to housing opportunities for all persons.
- The growth in the number of entire property vacation rentals leads to partial conversion of long-term rentals to short-term rentals and an increase in rental and sales prices for properties.
- SJC recognizes the financial benefits of vacation rentals to individual property owners and wishes to support the owners of all vacation rental owners that are compliant with County regulations.
- SJC recognizes that all existing compliant permits remain valid and are not affected by this limit on permits.
The public hearing is scheduled for October 15. Comments can be sent to vrcomments@sanjuanco.com.
ALSO SEE: theorcasonian.com/planning-board-reverses-course-on-vacation-rental-caps-plans-ahead-for-bike-lanes/
I a very thankful that my compliant but inactive permit will stay secure. My future on Orcas depends on my ability to have income for property taxes and utilities.
Thank you all
Thank you Matthew Gilbert for your insightful reporting. Comparing this report to the PC’s August 20 meeting raises one big significant question. What happened?
Wendy Shinstine’s gratitude is misplaced. The PC’s August 20 vote was for a cap of 413 that unconditionally allowed Wendy to activate – at her will. If she had doubts about that, such doubts were created by someone telling her lies about the August 20 cap statement. Instead, the PC has unexpectedly reversed its August 20 (unanimous) vote setting a long term “forever” county-wide cap of 413 and now wants us to accept a “forever” cap of 650, which is a whopping 57% increase. What happened?
In August, the PC heard the same community voices the County Council has heard, pleading for relief from the unregulated increase in VRs inside our residential neighborhoods. In response, the County Council transmitted “Findings of Fact” to the PC that included a remarkably honest recital, namely that the unregulated increase and proliferation of VRs is disrupting our residential neighborhoods – our very “sense of community.” Why has the PC forgotten this fact? Again, what happened?
VRs are commercial enterprises. They are public-facing, high-turnover, easily-scalable businesses that can and do land literally next door to any and all of our island homes. Asking for limits is eminently reasonable. The same standards would be sought for T-shirt shops or ice cream stores in our neighborhoods. The PC needs to retain this focus and offer us a meaningful pathway to a future we care about, so we don’t have to keep asking, what happened?
A vacation rental cap will not be effective, and may have adverse consequences.
A cap on vacation rentals in the San Juans won’t solve problems of over-tourism, lack of affordable housing, or environmental impact. Tourists have been coming here for over 100 years, and will continue to come in the future. If there are less accommodations provided by vacation rentals, other types of accommodations will be supplied by enterprising people who always meet demand with supply. Instead of vacation rentals, there will be hotels, motels, inns, resorts, bed and breakfasts, campgrounds, etc. Look at the new hotel being built in Eastsound on Main Street by people who have had a large vacation rental business.
Affordable housing will never be supplied by those who wish to host short term rentals. The types of accommodations desired by tourists will never be affordable for low income people. Those houses will remain empty except for short periods of use by the owners.
It has been shown that negative environmental and property impacts such as water usage and sewage are actually much less with short term renters, who are mostly out enjoying the island rather than remaining in their accommodations all the time. And since vacation rentals are occupied less than full-time housing, there is less impact and damage on the environment and the property.
A vacation rental cap will most likely have the adverse consequence of exacerbating the problem of illegal camping that has been affecting all three main islands, most notably on Lopez where there have been many complaints of it by Lopez residents.
Both Toby and Dan touch on the core problem: vacation rentals are “commercial enterprises” or “businesses” usually sited in residential neighborhoods. But the State Board of Appeals has ruled that they are not, just like long-term rentals. Maybe we should do as Santa Rosa County, CA, has done and let these neighborhoods designate themselves as VR “exclusion zones.” After all, we already have two such zones: Shaw and Waldron Islands. Why not more?
This comment from Commissioner Mike Pickett of San Juan Island, quoted in Steve Bernheim’s upcoming roundup of other Planning Commission conversations that day, helps explain some of the thinking behind the revised permit cap:
“I mean basically saying we don’t want any more new permittees, we’re only going to have the existing ones for as long as we can see forward, I mean, just, that’s why I’ve been rethinking this 413 number because it seems so low and it seems so exclusive to, even people who are inactive and noncompliant have a chance to become so. New people coming to the island wanting to live here and ultimately move here would be out of luck. So anyway, that’s just a comment, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what we were saying here.”
Michael, I didn’t mean to imply that the new hotel owners have a business of owning vacation rentals. Theirs is a rental management business. They are no more a vacation rental business tha a cleaning company which cleans multiple vacation rentals.
“Zack responded that the prosecuting attorney’s office will only review issues that reach the Council level .” I worked in the federal government for years and our mission as general counsel was mot only to defend lawsuits but also to provide legal advice on proposals as a prophylactic measure. The PA’s long-standing refusal to respond to requests for guidance is shocking.
What happened? Someone realized that pulling a number out of a hat is insufficient. The number 400 has “already been identified as impactful and enough” as Mr. Cooper claims, but by the opponents of vacation rentals. The Council and the Planning Commission also heard from a large number of islanders expressing support for more vacation rental flexibility.