Saturday, February 8, 1:30 – 3:30 p.m., Grace Hall on Lopez
— from Toby Cooper for Vacation Rental Working Group —
On Saturday, February 8 the Vacation Rental Working Group (VRWG) will hold a public meeting, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., at Grace Hall on Sunset Lane, Lopez. The meeting is a continuation of the highly participatory public events hosted by the VRWG on Orcas in July, September, and October of 2019, at which hundreds of islanders expressed their demands for more effective regulation of vacation rental properties.
“Every day people come to us with new stories of how the unchecked proliferation of vacation rentals is impacting our lives,” said Yonatan Aldort who heads the VRWG. “Sometimes they are about ubiquitous and annoying hot tub parties. Sometimes it’s drones looking into our windows. Our neighborhoods are being disrupted and our homes suffer trespass. Sadly, we are witness to attrition of affordable rentals and housing stock, county-wide. Every new permit compounds the set of problems. The time is now to change the trajectory of VR proliferation in San Juan County.”
The tourism that supports our economy is morphing into detrimental over-tourism, prompting us to ask the county to impose a moratorium now in order to give ourselves the time and space needed to seek solutions. This and more will be discussed at Grace Hall on February 8.
- What: A Lopez community conversation on vacation rentals, .
- Where: Grace Hall, Sunset Lane, Lopez.
- When: February 8, 2020, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.
- Who: The VRWG is an all-volunteer organization which formed in June 2019, shortly after the Eastsound and Deer Harbor Planning and Review Committees forwarded moratorium recommendations to the County Council. The VRWG has sponsored three widely-attended participatory community conversations on the vacation rental topic, including discussions of data on housing, tourism, and trends in permitting; summaries of regulatory responses in other communities; stress on water and septic infrastructure; and loss of open space and environmental quality.
- Why: The County Council has yet to act on previous proposals for a moratorium or regulatory relief.
Website: www.vacationrentalsorcas.org/
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
“The County Council has yet to act on previous proposals for a moratorium or regulatory relief.”
The last part of this statement is false and misleading. The County Council passed extensive new regulations on vacation rentals less than a year ago. And that is why they didn’t put on a moratorium in when the vacation rental group requested it a couple months ago. The vacation rental group refuses to allow time for the new regulations to work.
“The County Council has yet to act on previous proposals for a moratorium or regulatory relief.”
The new proposals made by the vacation rental working group, increased oversight, and a moratorium are much-needed additions to the less-than-adequate regulations that are currently in place. There are over 1,000 vacation rentals in existence in SJC today (with almost half of them on Orcs), and an increasing trend, and there are no limits.
Orcas is not for sale. What kind of community do you want to live in?
Michael Johnson–can you provide a cite for your statement that there are over 50 VRs in Orcas right now? I thought those were the accrued numbers of all permitted VRs BEFORE the new regulations went into effect last year?
Where was the “Vacation Rental Group” during the extensive rulemaking process conducted by County Council?
Peg–
https://www.vacationrentalsorcas.org/
Peg–
“Where was the “Vacation Rental Group” during the extensive rulemaking process conducted by County Council?”
That’s an odd question. The most direct answer is that the vacation rental working group (VRWG) simply hadn’t been formed yet. But you already knew that. It’s kind of a cause & effect thing you know… it creeps up on you. People see something going on that doesn’t quite pass their sniff test, so they start paying more attention, and they believe that what they’re observing over time is having negative impacts upon their community’s, so they get excited, and they express their reservations to their local elected officials which mostly fall on deaf ears, so they educate themselves on the issues, begin engaging in dialogue with others around them, (their friends, their neighbors), they organize, and finally something gets done about it. It’s always been that way… sometimes it’s the only way things get done. It’s a citizen’s process that is as American as apple pie.
I can’t speak for everybody in the VRWG, but I know some members of the group work for a living, some have families, and that 1 of the group mentors a young child, (you know, like yourself, they’re busy). To further this I think at that time that most of them were, and continue to this day to be active in the Orcas community–several of the members we’re sitting on the Eastsound Planning and Review Committee at that time, 1 member was on the board of the Friends, one was the head of OPAL, 1 was on the Deer Harbor Planning and Review Committee, 1 was with the San Juan Democrats, several were involved in the OICF, the League of Women Voters as well as being involved in other local citizen’s groups and local social issues. You know what they say, “Think global… act local!”
I believe that most of the people in the VRWG, (though, as you infer, this wasn’t a “group” at that time), were engaged in the public process throughout the time period you mention. Their comments are available on the public file. I understand and appreciate your inference that the VRWG should have been actively engaged as a “group” back during that time, and I cannot disagree with you… that may have made a significant difference at that time, and we might not be where we’re at today.
The vacation rental working group gets a lot of comments from people through our website. Some give their testimony, others their experiences with VRs, (both good & bad), some offer support, some give money, some have suggestions, and some, like you, have questions.
BTW– where were you?
Michael— where was I? Involved. Monitoring and relaying my thoughts on the issues and the proposed regulations. And now I’m interested to see what those regulations produce, as I believe we all should be.
“Michael Johnson–can you provide a cite for your statement that there are over 500 VRs in Orcas right now? I thought those were the accrued numbers of all permitted VRs BEFORE the new regulations went into effect last year?”
You provided a link to your website. Are the current data there somewhere?
Peg-
Percentage of Parcels on Orcas that are Vacation Rentals (469), or 16% 
The VR number does not include resorts, hotels, bed and breakfasts, campgrounds or illegal accommodations Source: SJC VRP and Parcel databases
As noted, the current total number of approved VRPs in SJC is 1038 based on publicly available VRP data.
469 of 2811 SFR parcels on Orcas have an approved SJC VR Permit; this is ~16% or 1 in 6 (1).
For the county as a whole, there are 1038 approved VR permits. About half of these are on Orcas.
1) 469 approved VRP’s for Orcas: From SJC VRP dataset, select “Permit Status” field, query “approved”; from SJC Parcels dataset, linked by TPN to VRP dataset, select “island” field, query “orcas”; 2811 total Single Family Residences (SFR): use SJC Parcels dataset, select “island” field, query “orcas”, select “ABS Code”, query “SFR”; select “Bldg_Value” field, query “>42000” (Note: $42k was determined to be the minimum value for a habitable SFR)
2. SFRs per island are determined as follows: use SJC Parcels dataset, select “island” field, query “”, select “ABS Code”, query “SFR”; select “Bldg_Value” field, query “>42000” (Note: $42k was determined to be the minimum value for a habitable SFR). Results: Lopez, 1479; San Juan, 3538; Orcas, 2811; total=7828.
3. Determination of owner location is based on the address of the parcel owner as determined by the Assessor (i.e., where the tax statements are mailed). An owner is considered to be a county resident if the owner’s zip code is one of the following: 98279, 98245, 98243, 98280, 98261, 98286, 98250
4. The following SJC datasets, available via GIS Open Data, are related and necessary to obtain relevant information about Vacation Rental Permits: Appraisal Info from Assessor’s Office (determines number of bedrooms); Septic Information from DOH (determines septic tank inspections and system capacity); Address information from Address dataset (over half of VRP data shows no VR address); ABS Codes from Comp Plan dataset; DOH bedrooms from DOH; Parcel information from Parcels dataset; Use Code from Assessor’s_Land_Use_Codes
Peg-
There are 1115 Vacation Rental Permits in San Juan County; of these 1038 are approved.
Go to the Vacation Rental Working Group website at https://www.vacationrentalsorcas.org/
In the upper left hover your mouse over “Sources”, and click on “Data” from the drop-down menu;
Scroll down under San Juan County Information Resources, and click on San Juan County GIS Open Data Resources;
That takes you to: the Open Data cover page, under “Explore Data Categories” click on “Land Use”;
Scroll down and click on “Data Vacation Rental Permits” Last Updated: January 14, 2020 Rows: 1,115;
This takes you to: Vacation Rental Permits Last updated 17 days ago | 1,115 Records
Click on DATA