— by Margie Doyle —

After years of hashing out what the intention and goals of the Eastsound Subarea Plan (ESAP) was, and how well Orcas Island’s only Urban Growth Area (UGA) has adhered to that vision, the County Planning Commission has now weighed in with its verdict.

After two full-day meetings on Orcas Island, in which the Planning Commission heard all public testimony and deliberated at public sessions (on Aug. 21 and Aug. 25), they concluded their meetings with draft Findings and Recommendations. (These will be available on the County website after Sept. 2).

The skeleton of the approved plan update, as presented by County Senior Planner Colin Maycock to the Planning Commission, is two documents:

  • Eastsound Subarea Plan, Draft #3, July 11, 2014 (click here)
  • Eastsound Subarea Land Use Regulations, Draft #3, July 11 2014 (click here)

These documents are basically the same as the ones Maycock, with the long-time assistance of the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC), presented to the Planning Commission last summer. Controversy over adequate public notice delayed the Planning Commission’s deliberations for a year; notices were sent to all county mailboxes this July.

On Friday, Aug. 21, the PC heard public testimony. The Commission continued the deliberations portion of the public hearing to Tuesday, Aug. 25 at the Eastsound Fire Hall on Orcas Island.

At the morning session on Aug. 25, the PC adopted the Plan, with the recommendations of the County Department of Community Development (formerly  County Development and Planning Department)  contained in the Aug. 11, 2015 Staff Report.

Throughout the discussion it was acknowledged that in 2016, the County will undertake an update of the County Comprehensive Plan. Incorporation of the Eastsound Subarea Plan’s (ESAP) Regulations and Standards into the County Comprehensive Plan has long been a driver of the Eastsound Planning Review Committee’s (EPRC) efforts to officially update the ESAP.

This fall, the County Council will hold three public hearings before voting on the update.

The Planning Commission members are:

  • Chair Barbara Thomas
  • Karin Acosta
  • Tim Blanchard
  • Brian Ehrmantraut
  • Bob Gamble
  • Tom Starr
  • Vice-Chair Mike Pickett

In attendance at the Tuesday, Aug. 25 hearing were Steve Pearson, who videotaped the proceedings, and Kathi Ciskowski, Leith Templin, Fred Klein, and John Campbell.

After approving the plan itself in the morning session, the Planning Commission then reviewed the use tables for each of the 11 Land Use districts:

  • Village Commercial
  • Country Corner Commercial
  • Village Residential/Institutional
  • Service and Light Industrial
  • Service Park
  • Eastsound Residential
  • Natural
  • Marina
  • Airport Use
  • Eastound Rural
  • Conservancy Overlay

Commission member Tim Blanchard cited “past issues with interpretation,” and said they wanted to make the regulations clear.

They voted to add the following footnote to each table as a whole and to add it to page one of the Land Use lists (the following represents a re-ordering of the sentences in the July 2014 draft):

Uses that are prohibited in the land use table may be allowed as a cottage industry or home occupation provided that the use meets the requirements set forth in SJCC 18.40.190 and SJCC 18.60.180. “Cottage enterprise” and “home occupation” describe the intensity of a use instead of a specific type of use.

The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed changes to such matters as:

  • “grandfather” allowances (if in place, or permit approved before change in code, then the continued use as established is allowed;
  • Family and group housing (group housing “exceeds single family housing” according to Maycock;
  • parks and playing fields (allowable in Village Residential districts);
  • solar panels allowed in “Natural” districts;
  • mobile home parks (defined as two or more improved pads; broader issues such as density and  mobility are dealt with in county regulation of RVs);
  • small scale slaughterhouses (regulations don’t apply to mobile slaughter units);
  • nurseries (allowing use in “Natural” districts;distinctions between commercial and retail);
  • landscaping in Service Light Industrial districts.

In discussion of the Development Standards section of the Regulations, (Table 2.1, pages 14 – 35), the Planning Commission clarified that the definition “Village Residential/Institutional” is a name change from the former “Village Residential” This district is adjacent to the Village Commercial district and is not changed for the current standards.

The Planning Commission dealt with the knotty issue of defining substantial storage and the current formula of storage/retail area being twice the storage area allowed as the retail area in a minimum area of 10,000 square feet. Colin Maycock said that much of the discussion of this particular issue at EPRC meetings with minimum lot size was “deemed to be unduly descriptive.”

“The definition of substantial storage and incidental and allowable use” drove this discussion, Maycock said, where “incidental generally means subordinate; whereas the proposal defines [“incidental”] as related….not lesser to the other [use].”

Barbara Thomas, Planning Commission Chair said “The current status is the substantial use is proportion to the retail stance, but there is no minimum size to the building.”

Tim Blanchard said, “My main concern, [is this] creates an issue because there’s no definition of retail area in this document: and substantial storage is defined in relation to retail.”

Brian Ehrmantraut proposed that the Planning Commission “accept the definition that Staff and the EPRC has set forth, and if we have questions when the county addresses this, that will be time for the question.”

Findings and Recommendations
Following further discussion, the group worked to articulate their findings and recommendations. They will be formalized by Sept. 2, and were articulated in draft form as follows.

  • Update of ESAP was of limited scope of review as directed by county council, has approved and accomplished the separation of the ESAP goals and policies from the regulations and transfer of regulations to the UDC; approval does not indicate a complete ESAP review.
  • Planning Commission has considered recommendations of DCD and EPRC and testimony of citizens at public hearings.
  •  The recommended map amendments in the Staff Report of Aug. 11 2015 are approved;
  •  The goals and policies of the ESAP need to be thoroughly and systematically reviewed and revised. The testimony of Gulliver Rankin on Aug. 21 noting that the review should be structured in a specified manner and in a definite time frame should guide such a review. In particular, housing transportation, and rural elements should be called out.
  • Further explanation is needed in areas where the Planning Commission departed from the EPRC recommendations regarding:
    • helipads
    • solar panels
    • nurseries in natural areas
    • split zoning
  • Further explanation is needed in matters that were not addressed by the Planning Commission:
    • housing, including group housing,
    • mobile homes and
    • “tiny houses”
  • transportation — in particular, the transportation, trails and parking aspects need to be update. It should be stated that the Planning Commission doesn’t support seeking grants until those relevant aspects of the ESAP have been reviewed and updated
    • truck vending
    • kiosks
    • port expansion
  • Systematic review and update of the ESAP should be undertaken in conjunction with systematic update of the County Comprehensive Plan.

As the Planning Commission wrapped up their work, they emphasized that their approval of this version and regulations is an interim step in updating the plan.

They made note of their appreciation of the hours of work of the EPRC and of Colin Maycock; they also thanked all the people in Eastsound who gave input and testimony.

The draft findings and recommendations will be finalized and submitted to the county Department of Community Development by Sept. 2.

The statement, “The final recommendation that the council approve the revised Eastsound Subarea Plan and regulations as amended Aug. 25, 2015” was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission just before it adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

(At the time of this posting, the San Juan County site was down. Documents referred to in this article may be found at the county site,  https://www.sanjuanco.com//ESAP_Documents when it is back online).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email