–by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter —

While the SJC Planning Commission continues to fine-tune the County’s Vision Statement, another process with significant potential impacts on our collective future took place on May 1 when approximately two dozen people met in the County Council Hearing Room in Friday Harbor to discuss how the state’s Growth Management Act – and other regulatory tools – have been affecting the community’s quality of life and its vision going forward. It was part of a statewide series of workshops called Road Map to Washington’s Future, a two-year project of the William D. Ruckleshaus Center.

The mission of the Center is to “help parties involved in complex public policy challenges . . . develop collaborative, durable, and effective solutions.” It works primarily with policy experts from WSU and UW. The explicit purpose of the Road Map initiative, authorized by the Washington State Legislature, is to “articulate a vision of Washington’s desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the state’s growth management framework of laws, institutions, and policies needed to reach that future.”

Invitations were sent to a wide range of local groups and individuals “with a role, interest, or knowledge of” this regulatory framework. The county’s many interests were well-represented as the group was composed of a broad mix of participants including planners, environmentalists, business interests, and others from San Juan, Orcas, and Lopez.  Because the workshop was not a public event, none of the quotes or issues raised below will be attributed to specific individuals. The statewide final report will include the names of all participants, although anyone can request that their names not be put on the list.

The state’s Growth Management Act was passed in 1990 (the Shoreline Management Act was added in 1996) primarily in response to a sudden surge of new residents. It focused on redirecting this growth into already dense urban and suburban areas with a mix of carrots (incentives) and sticks (rezoning). How well this worked has been open to debate. San Juan County didn’t adopt the Act until 1998, but it didn’t become officially “GMA-compliant” until 2007 after years of litigation from local residents challenging certain parts of it.

And so the intent of the Road Map workshops is to explore the statewide aftermath in more detail while tying the discussion to future planning. To do so, fourteen questions were developed to help channel and interpret public input.

The first set of questions addressed key events that have historically defined the County archipelago and are shaping its present. The answers spanned decades, even centuries, from indigenous habitation and the 1859 Pig War to the introduction of scheduled ferry service in the 1950s. Several people pointed out that in pre-European times, there were as many people here as there are now but with much less impact. The rise of tourism was central to much of the discussion, along with the advent of the internet and fiber technology and the growing popularity of Seattle.

The next set of questions dealt with quality-of-life issues and what the islands need to “thrive.” It was quickly pointed out that how one defines “quality of life” influences such discussions. “Some people want modern culture and interpretive signs on trails. Others want to live alone in the forest.” Much of the conversation again focused on tourism (now numbering 1M visitors a year) and its seasonal nature while housing issues were also foremost for many. “Does a rural or urban perspective most help affordable housing?” asked a member of the group. “R-40 zoning takes land out of development and maintains island character but can drive prices up elsewhere and limit options.” A few pointed out the negative impacts of part-time residents on available housing and community spirit. “Seven out of ten houses in my neighborhood are part-time rentals,” said a female participant. “I feel like a stranger.” Added another: “People often move here for the beauty, but they stay for the community.”

The tension between urban and rural planning needs was characterized by the fact that it’s easier to get GMA funding for “mainland-type solutions” such as road widening but not for more rural-specific needs.

Given the knowledge base of the group and the amount of “futures planning” that has already taken place in the County, the discussion pivoted to the positive and negative impacts of the current state planning framework, again most notably the GMA. On the plus side, the GMA has provided a “relatively level playing field” rule-wise; identified and protected more resource lands; created more transparent and locally controlled planning processes; and brought a more diverse group of people to the table. The list of negatives – or at least limitations – for San Juan County was quite a bit longer:

  • “It relies on a one-size-fits-all approach that favors urban- and suburban-based solutions, not those more appropriate for a rural island community.”
  • “It’s not very effective managing pubic and private interests.” (The example given was inconsistent shoreline protection.)
  • “The adoption of rules is rewarded but not implementation or enforcement.”
  • “Economic and educational issues are not well-addressed.”
  • “There needs to be more options and flexibility in the use of subsidies.”
  • “It needs to be more scale relevant, for example, small homes (1200 sq. ft.) are treated as having similar impacts as larger homes (3000+ sq. ft.) and required to meet the same onerous regulations.”
  • “The Act makes it difficult for County citizens to challenge it. It’s an adversarial process.”

There was also a general sense in the room that the Act itself (its 14 Principles and, by implication, other state laws in the planning framework) was based on the wrong assumptions:

  • It assumes growth (sustainable or not).
  • It doesn’t address resource consumption issues.
  • There is no acknowledgment of the market forces that often trump planning goals and implementation.

Other notable comments included the following:

  • “We don’t know our carrying capacity, what the environment can support.”
  • “We need a build-out and impact analysis.”
  • “It’s not fair to pull up the drawbridge just because we got here first.”
  • “We’re becoming a destination for climate refugees (especially wealthy ones) from throughout the country.”
  • “We can choose the market path, where you end up paying for what you don’t want, or the planning path, where you end up paying for what you do”

Workshop organizers emphasized that the process was iterative and emergent and that the primary intent was to listen. Students, the tribes, Hispanic populations, and specific workshops for “electeds” will also be part of the process. A final report will be delivered June 2019 and specific community summaries are also being considered.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email