— by Margie Doyle —
San Juan County Council: from left Jamie Stephens, Rick Hughes, Bill Watson
After years of re-jiggering options in public discussion at Eastsound Planning Review Board (EPRC) meetings and in conversations and renderings by county public works and planning staff, the County Council voted on Tuesday, May 8, to adopt an ordinance that would establish a sidewalk, otherwise known as a “pedestrian facility” on Haven Road from Main Street to Harrison Point Road, across from the Odd Fellows Hall.
It was a decision where the past and organizational brotherhood met the present and future development of private residences. At the Council’s public meeting and hearing, the Haven Road sidewalk took up most of the morning session, from 10:30 to 12:30 in public consideration.
Most of the Odd Fellows spoke of the desire for the road to stay exactly as it is, without a sidewalk, and with two-way traffic, and parking along the roadside.
Colin Huntermer, County Engineer spoke first at the hearing, saying it was primarily to receive public testimony and consider implications of the proposed ordinance. The impetus for a decision was “so the county can respond to developments on county roads and assess impacts for transport (motorized and non motorized) and safety.
“The ordinance “will not alter existing regulations for developers to improve county roads.” Huntermer expressed his response to develop “street-specific standards, rather than have one standard that is applied everywhere.” Those “universal standards” for sidewalk, curb and gutter developments were approved as part of the Eastsound Subarea update in 2015. “This will be the first of what could be many ordinances addressing streets in Eastsound,” Huntermer explained.
Considerations for the Haven Road – Madrona Point location were:
• Traffic circulation
• Pedestrian combinations as a public agency, talking about ADA accessibility
• Roadside parking
Other streets affected are Urner Street, Harrison Point Lane and Westervelt Avenue. Public outreach has been through various EPRC meetings, consultations with county staff and “culminates in public testimony.” Huntermer said.
“Development is happening today.”
Huntemer concluded his presentation by saying, “We’ve considered a number of proposals, including one-way streets. This is an acceptable compromise; it provides both designated on-street parking and casual unmarked parking on Haven Road itself.”
Upon questioning by the Council, Huntermer confirmed that under current street standards, “Developers should be responsible for additional density” when development occurs and there’s a traffic impact. It’s state law.
He spoke to the fact that the county has no plans to address the “casual parking” along Haven Road because its current use “addresses itself in a slow, continually yielding use of the road. People find ways to get around each other in vehicles. There is no agenda for county or public works to change that because the community tolerates and, in a certain sense, likes that people are expected to figure out how to navigate the parking.”
Further, he stated, “There’s no parking ordinance in Eastsound. Enforcement is through the Sheriff’s office when safety is of critical concern. Not one parking area will be eliminated if we require standards for this road.”
He added that concurrent with the building of homes on Haven Road, the county is “actively working on a program to connect [by sidewalks] the library’s recent development to Rose’s and on Prune Alley to the liquor store.
Councilman Jamie Stephens said that the county will have to retrofit stormwater and sidewalks in Eastsound because development standards weren’t required with earlier development.
Public Comments
Hilary Canty urged safety considerations in accessing Odd Fellows and Madrona Point and spoke of illegal drug deals happening at Madrona Point. She urged a continuous sidewalk plan and collecting fees for development with a one-time plan.
Hughes responded that the point of the current standards adopted in 2015 was to do just that.
Fred Klein said that he supported the ordinance’s standards, “with the exception of Haven Road.” He urged the county to delete references to a sidewalk and refer those plans back to county engineers.
Toby Cooper addressed the community’s “Vision about walkability, tranquility, nature and open space and all those good things that were on those t-shirts that were sold at the market for months.
“We need to look to mitigate the density projected for Madrona Point and broaden the discussion to the totality of the vision statement that was crafted with so much work in the last 15-18 months.”
Don Marcy, of the law firm of Cairncross and Hempelmann in Seattle, representing Maggie Stanley, said that Haven Road “works well today; [it] functions similar to a parking lot.” He objected to the sidewalk proposed as “an invitation for more people to trespass on Lummi territory… and a trigger for the need for impervious surfaces and stormwater drainage.”
He acknowledged that “Considering pedestrian safety is certainly important,” but added that the people who live on their street should have “some right of determination.” He asked that the county revise the street standards to eliminate the sidewalk.
Che Blaine said the county should consider the Lummi nation for establishing trust when considering changes to the county dock [at the foot of Haven Road], as a proposed parking lot there trespasses on “a graveyard for natives and for white people.”
He concluded, “All of this is true: I can see the need for a sidewalk for a wheelchair; we just don’t want to lose access to people who come to Odd Fellows.”
George Post said his purpose at the hearing “is to point out that when we try to plan, we’re looking at the future, so if we want the complete development of every parcel out there, we will build towards that. Right now we have a very viable neighborhood there.
If we want to keep the things we’re trying to protect, we can’t plan for a future that [threatens] them.”
Jay Kimball, Manager of Odd Fellow Hall, repeated his claims that “Access to community parking is essential to the hall. What is good for the hall is great for the local economy. [The weddings held there] brought in $32M for lodging, dining, entertaining, catering, florists, hairstyling etc., which all depends on good, convenient parking.” He urged the county to preserve the character of Haven Road and the parking that exists there.
Councilman Bill Watson questioned if the Odd Fellows have considered a parking lot which elicited cries from the audience that the county should buy land for the Odd Fellows’ use. Kimball replied that parking on Haven Road provides “elastic street parking for whole community.”
Eric Morris also urged the county to withdraw recommendations for a sidewalk on Haven Road, and “support the most active community center in the county.”
John Erly claimed a sidewalk wouldn’t eliminate people walking down the center of the road.
Cole Sisson urged the Council not to “rock the boat when it comes to [the Odd Fellows’] desires.”
Grace Grantham, spoke haltingly from her motorized wheelchair and her written comments provided to the county state: “As you can see I am a person who identifies with the disabled community. Though, I realize being a member of this group is not a one-fits-all situation. I am here to address the Haven Road modifications. As a person who uses a mobility device, I have found using the street is much more accessible than restricting me to a sidewalk, especially in low traffic areas.
“I would like to see pathways such as rubberized asphalt or long split wood chips along Haven. In its current state, the road is not safe for pedestrians. There is a high risk of slips or falls on the current loose gravel. As the plan calls for preservation of the present outline, restricting access and presents problems. …As we progress into a larger community we have to think about access for all members, residents and tourists. Really think.” —
Leith Templin said that she has recently learned that the proposed sidewalk on Haven Road “could also co-habitate there and keep the trees.” She observed that the EPRC and the county have been involved since 2013 in the development of street standards for Prune Alley, Main Street and North Beach Road. “For the last 5 years it’s not working because we didn’t complete the plan and have it in place. A lot of people are very disappointed in the lack of continuity in the development that’s taken place.”
She supported the EPRC’s recommendation that the community “get together [so] we could come up with a better solution.”
Paul Kamin, co-chair of the EPRC, explained the EPRC’s request for a 30-day delay in adopting ordinance in order to “continue community outreach to discuss misunderstandings and concerns people have about the proposed development.”
When Councilman Stephens said, “The discussion’s been going on for two months; where is one month going to get us with the extreme variety of comments we’ve heard today?” Kamin hesitated, and after expressing appreciation for Hughes’ and Huntermer’s efforts, said “We haven’t found common ground to support what’s been done; we’d like to see more effort put into it.”
Mike Hurwicz said, “There must be another way people can walk out of there that will be appreciated by the broad majority,” and expressed the desire for the people involved to come to consensus on a plan.
Councilman Hughes spoke of the numerous times he’s heard and discussed the matter with people on the phone, in person and in groups such as the Odd Fellows and the EPRC: “Maybe the council as a whole hasn’t met in this manner, but I tried to represent the county.”
Michael Riordan said that if there is a 30-day delay, it was important to include the Lummi nation in the process.
Margaret Payne, co-chair of the EPRC, said that the advisory group was “not able to send their recommendation [for the ordinance] because we wanted to honor the citizens who’d spoken against development of a sidewalk, while still respecting co engineer‘s efforts to create a safe way to walk Haven Road and give clarity to developers.”
She urged that another meeting, focused on the design of a sidewalk and saving the trees would still give clarity to developers in meeting their responsibilities and preserve the character of the Madrona Point neighborhood.
Bill Gincig, speaking for himself as an Odd Fellow, said that if it was “agreed we don’t lose parking, we’re very happy,” but he added, “One thing that concerns us is a concrete sidewalk. There is gravel on most paths in Eastsound …make it something pretty.”
John Campbell concluded the public testimony portion of the hearing, identifying himself as “One of the protagonists in the whole discussion. I thought I’d better give you a chance to grill me.
“What you’re facing is 30 years of lack of planning.
“Colin [Huntemer’s] efforts are heroic, it’s the kind of effort that has been missing for a long time. There’s been no shortage of plans, but a shortage of decisions. We’re very close to a good decision, [though] it’s not my first choice.”
Council Discussion
The importance of a concrete curb to prohibit parking on a pedestrian sidewalk was brought out as the council discussed the need for an accessible and durable sidewalk. The safety of access of emergency vehicles was prominent in the Council’s debate.
Huntemer said “It’s appropriate for the county to allow casual use of road, but we need to make sure medical emergency or fire trucks could get down there. That ‘quasi-regulation’ of the road is not addressed by this ordinance.”
Huntermer explained, “This [ordinance] is not an affront to the Odd Fellows institution; the ordinance is specifically talking about safety for pedestrians. It has nothing to do about parking, fire access, or the current use of Haven Road.”
While Hughes at first said he was not ready to take a vote on the matter, he was followed by Stephens who said to Hughes, “To me what you just said [about safety concerns] is that you are ready to vote on this. What I heard today is not people who are against this project, they said they didn’t want it to impact them. I haven’t heard an over-arching ‘against’ [the ordinance]; as designed we’d have space for emergency vehicles.”
County Manager Mike Thomas said, “We’re trying to do the right thing for the community and balance Eastsound’s growth. It may be a little late, and this may be a situation where some people are going to be happy and some aren’t. That’s part and parcel of development, but the ordinance allows the engineer to entertain latitude to sidewalks and road profile in response to some comments made today.”
Hughes then agreed that the Council needed to vote on the matter at its Orcas meeting.
Huntermer offered the guidance from state law that “explicityly mentions concerns for pedestrian safety.”He added that while there is “not a whole lot of creative room for frontage in front of current [Campbell’s] development, there is time further north to work with the community and vary the standards.”
Watson said, “Clearly as representative of the community, the Council is responsible to guarantee safety of all our citizens, so children and access-challenged individuals can have safety on our roadways. People don’t have to walk on sidewalk but the ordinance keeps the cars from parking on the pedestrian access.
“This is a challenge, it’s a compromise in meeting multiple viewpoints. We need to give developers a clear message; otherwise we’ll get a hodge-podge.”
Stephens added, “We should make this decision here because we’re in front of you instead of later in Friday Harbor. We have to look forward. The subarea plan is established, and development is going forward. We have to deal with it now, rather than after the development in done.
“There is no reduction in parking on Haven Road which seems to be most important to people talking today.”
Following the motion and unanimous vote to adopt the ordinance and ask the county engineer to look at alternative options for filling the sidewalk, Hughes thanked all he’s met with and apologized for his change of mind. “We’ve gone pretty far in trying to accommodate folks and it’s hard to work so hard and still face opposition.”
The Council made a courageous decision in the face of a vociferous opposition. When Colin Huntermer and Rick Hughes say that street parking on Haven Road will not be reduced, they are right. Cars that park on the east side of the street park three feet away from the embankment. How else would their passengers get out of the car? So an additional two feet for a sidewalk is going to wipe out any parking possibilities on the west side of the street? Give me a break!
Many thanks to Margie for this thorough and fair report. One element I don’t see addressed, however, is the question of permeable pavement – either for the road or the sidewalk. Gutters, curbs — Is this plan as designed also creating a sluiceway for rain across impermeable pavements?
As our County Engineer eloquently described, current two-way traffic on Haven Road with cars parked on both sides of the street is a slow-speed, delicate dance by courteous drivers & pedestrians. Onc of the reasons it works is because of subtle variations in the available width of the public right of way.
Orcas Councilman, Rick Hughes, has been a staunch advocate of two-way traffic on Haven…a position which has strong community support. Throughout the Hearing, Council and Engineer repeatedly claimed that the existing patterns of on-street parking SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED.
The new Ordinance mandates that along the 200+ feet frontage of the Miller project, a 6 inch high curb will restrict the available r.o.w. for TWO-WAY traffic with the existing pattern of on-street parking to 13 to 14 feet…how is that possible?
We’ve missed an opportunity to increase that width to 15 to 16 feet…it remains to be seen whether or not two-way traffic remains viable…two feet of width makes a big difference.
As for the sidewalk, if it’s SJC policy to “SHARE THE ROAD” where there is high volume traffic and a 40 mph speed limit, surely it’s a reasonable solution for a two-block lond, dead-end, narrow road w/ extremely low vehicular…and pedestrian… traffic.
Margaret, I agree. Maybe the community would be more accepting of sidewalks generally if pervious concrete was used.
I agree with Margaret and Ann that pervious sidewalks will help reduce runoff.
Pervious sidewalks are so much more in keeping with the neighborhood and reduce stormwater runoff.
Fred may be right; two feet may make the difference in the “delicate dance” of two-way traffic with cars parked on both sides, for the 90+ feet in front of Odd Fellows Hall. How about the Odd Fellows moving the parking on their side two feet closer to the Hall? That looks doable and may be the solution that solves this problem.
Dan…My post relates to the Miller project’s over 200 feet of frontage on Haven Rd. and my concerns for workable width for 2-way traffic.
In front of the Hall, as you point out, there is additional width beyond the public r.o.w….five feet in fact…which is currently used for on-street, “casual” parking.