Inventory report and visioning exercise prompt passionate debate
On Wednesday, Sept. 21, a group of about 65 Orcas Islanders, mostly property owners, attended the San Juan County-sponsored Shoreline Visioning Workshop. They commented and voted (in a straw poll) loud and clear for the rights of individual property owners and an end to government regulation of development.
Chris Hoffman and Dan Nickel were the presenting consultants. They have been hired by the County (and funded with a state grant from the Department of Ecology) to guide the process in updating the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP), mandated by state law to protect the public interest, by 2013. The consultants from the Watershed Company, and county staff involved in the process are paid from the grant to work with the Planning Commission and the County Council. They are also charged to provide outreach to the public, such as this week’s workshops on Orcas, Lopez and San Juan Islands.
A simple process was laid out, to present the draft analysis — an inventory and characterization report — followed by breakout visualizing sessions. The results from those sessions were then prioritized, presented to the whole group in attendance, and voted upon.
It was explained that the intent of the SMP update is to balance:
- Environmental protection
- Public access
- Water oriented uses
- Private vs. public interest. “Waters are state-owned entities”
Nickel listed the key issues:
- Nonconforming uses, structures
- Overwater structures (piers and docks)
- Shoreline armoring
- Buffers and setbacks
- Vegetation requirements
The purpose of the Visioning Workshop was described as:
- Convening residents to work together
- Developing a set of statement of what the County’s shoreline should be in the future
- Guiding the development of new or revised policies and regulations
Draft Inventory and Characterization Report
Dr.Jeff Parsons, scientist and co-author (with Amanda Azous of Herrera Environmental Consultants) of the draft Inventory and Characterization report, presented their findings to the workshop. The jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Plan update encompasses the following areas:
- Marine shoreline
- Lakes over 20 acres
- Upland areas 200 feet form ordinary high water mark
- Associated wetlands
- Aquatic areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark
Updated regulations will apply to new uses; existing uses may continue. Several in the audience questioned whether uses that have been designated “non-conforming” will be allowed to continue. They also questioned the rule that states that rebuilding destroyed homes on property must maintain the original footprint of development.
The general results of the studies county-wide indicated:
- Diversity — the physical conditions are highly variable throught the county
- Use is concentrated in just a few areas
- Public access per miles of shoreline is low
- Natural hazards exist everywhere, but there is large variability in the level of threat to people
- Endangered species (“juvenile salmonids”) have the potential to use every mile of marine shoreline in the county
Statistics formed in summary of the county-wide draft study are:
- 655 marine structures, mostly piers and docks
- 86% of shoreline is zoned as a resource
- 84 stormwater outfalls, but only four “tide gates” (generally used in agricultural areas to keep salt from getting into fields, a flap gate that lets freshwater out, doesn’t let saltwater come in)
- 2.2 % of shoreline is “man-placed impervious surface. “but most of the shoreline is bedrock, not totally impervious
- 3.9% of total shoreline is armored (hard structures to prevent erosion, i.e. bulkhead) but some areas have percentages is excess of 25% which is near the Puget Sound average.
Workshop attendees, many of whom have owned and paid taxes on land for decades, vociferously questioned the characterizations of geologically hazardous areas and high intensity development in particular.
In Parsons’ introduction to the analysis, he advised that the report did not include “field truthing” of the data (on the ground verification of the findings). He said, “The data was checked for general accuracy, but is not site-specific.”
That characterization also troubled many in the audience, who expressed frustration that “one size fits all” seemed to be applied to island land holdings. for example, the North Beach area being identified as prone to tsunami impacts.
Ed LeCocq complained that the study’s “Language was stilted — where does the data come from, and who are the people that gathered it?”
Before the consultants could respond, another man in the audience shouted out, “Your verbiage is highly prejudicial! You’re using language to shore up your data!”
Barbara Bentley said that as a member of the “scientific advisory group for this study, and a Ph.D. ecologist, I have reviewed the literature and the data is valid. The San Juan County data is scattered, but mostly good.”
She agreed that there are “parts that need ground truthing, and parts that apply to individuals,” and advised that the report be studied “as grounds for legitimate debate.”
The consultants were reluctant to engage in the arguments, stating that they were presenting the findings, not validating them. They suggested that the comments be incorporated in the development of the report. Hoffman said, “The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to dig deeper into the report itself so we can get on with the agenda; so we can hear your vision. It’s easier to do in written format than nitpick tonight.”
A summary of findings specific to Orcas Island was then presented:
- Intense development and high rates of armoring in places, otherwise least developed of ferry-served islands
- Natural hazards most pronounced on northern shoreline
- Juvenile salmon can be found on every mile of Orcas Island marine shorelines, according to a 2011 study by Eric Beamer, conducted by 011) samplings with beach seines
- Geologically hazardous – subject to tsunami
Visioning
The visioning portion of the meeting was organized to create:
- A consensus image of what a community seeks to become
- A blueprint for future direction and a yardstick against which to measure current decisions and actions
- Description of how the county shorelines should look and function
- Ideas for balancing private vs. public interests
- The foundation for new policies or regulations
The meeting organizers suggest that sample vision statements from each of the eight tables gathering might include:
- More public access to shorelines
- Incentives to property owners for restoration
- Preserve forage fish breeding grounds
Before the breakout groups were formed at tables with charts to take down and prioritize the desired elements, several in the audience questioned the charge of the exercise:
- Was the visioning exercise to specify land use categories or day-to-day activities on the land?
- What is the difference between buffers and setbacks?
- Would non-conforming usage be considered temporary?
- Could current non-conforming uses be expanded?
One attendee said, “Non-conformity is an issue that needs to be removed. It terribly distorts this process.”
Bentley responded, “These guys aren’t making the regulations. We’re trying to see if we can envision what we want to have on our shorelines 25 years from now.”
During the next hour the table groups compiled and prioritized their lists and of vision statements and then individuals circulated among the other tables. A number of people expressed their dismay with the “anger” and “bullying” tone of the group at large. Some said that the county had erred in using “outside” consultants who “lectured them with generic data.”
The lists were then summarized and presented to the audience which had been equipped with about 55 handheld remote voters. As the group began polling their numbers, questions as to the word usage of the prioritized vision statements arose, and Hoffman urged the group forward, saying, “Word-smithing could take all night.”
Nickel also spoke up, saying, “Let’s try to keep things a little calm; we’re trying to do this in a calm process. We can revise the wording.”
A woman interrupted him to call out, “Then do it!”
(The results of the straw poll will be listed in a following article.)
Thank you for posting this informative and easy to understand article.
Some thoughts regarding the meetings and town halls I have attended on the CAO:
I am concerned about the balance of attendees in the public access piece, and that it only represents a small, organized, well-monied, very loud and vocal group of people, and not the rest of us.
If the meetings are heavily attended only by property rights groups, due to the fact that most of the rest of us must work, raise families, and attend to issues specific to the UGA (where 50% of us must live according to the GMA and for economic reasons.), how is the clearly one-sided preponderance of attendees representative of all the people? It’s not~ not even close. Is this taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and County Council?
Many working class people that I have spoken with feel intimidated by some of the tactics used to divide and frighten. They are scared of the rage directed at environmentalists and attempts to discredit them. They feel hopeless and demoralized. They either can’t afford the luxury to attend meetings, or are cynical that it’s just going to be more of the landed few controlling the fates for the rest of us who are voiceless and feel unheard, especially in the Urban Growth Areas.
I think our time is much better spent in honestly and openly listening to the concerns of our fellow islanders, than in characterizing our neighbors as “well-monied”, loud, intimidating, full of “rage”, members of the non-working class, anti-environmentalist, non-family, and so on.
Labelling other people in that fashion dehumanizes them, stifles their voices, further divides us all instead of moving us towards consensus, strengthens discord in our community, and weakens our civil society.
Let’s talk about facts, and values, and specific proposals, and impacts, and costs, and results, and all that good stuff. And let’s try to respect one another.
to Brian Ehrmentraut; I’d like to respond.
Thank you for calling attention to my poor choice of words. I can easily see how you and others would interpret them as labeling.
My intention was to call out bullying behavior, which I have witnessed at plenty Public Meetings and Town Halls in the last year.
It IS a fact that certain people have organized and are very effective at getting their viewpoints heard, while many people remain voiceless and faceless, afraid or unsure or cynical ,and don’t have the means to organize or represent themselves.
It is a fact that certain people are repeatedly threatening litigation if the County passes the Critical Areas Ordinance. That causes hopelessness in the rest of us who just want the rights to have clean waters and lands within a UGA, while at the same time feeling empathy with property owners, and just wanting a win-win-win situation for the community’s health and wellbeing, cleanliness of our precious waters and Critical Areas, and habitat for the wildlife which benefits us all.
To Mr. Ehrmantraut;
“intimidating, full of “rage”, members of the non-working class, anti-environmentalist, non-family, and so on.”
I never said any of this. These are your own conclusions which your read into my post. You said them, not me.
I did say “very loud”, however.