Vision Survey Directs EPRC in Priorities

— by Margie Doyle —

At the December meeting of the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) the county-appointed members heard a summary of results of the Eastsound Vision Survey and formulated their 2018 priorities. They also elected new officers.

Members of the EPRC are Yonaton Aldort, Paul Kamin, Bob Maynard, Jonnie Welch  Jeff Otis, Margaret Payne and Dan Vekved. Kamin and Payne were selected as co-chairs beginning in 2018.

Steve Smith, Jennifer Smith and Patty Miller reported on the Eastsound Vision Survey Results. ( To see the survey results, go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-V2FLGWT28/ It takes awhile to download the full survey).

Miller said that drafting the survey and reporting on the survey were equally difficult. “There was a huge challenge in scoring because of different measures [used in different questions].” She praised Steve Smith for “doing the heavy lifting.”

Jennifer Smith was acknowledged for her “huge commitment” to recording the individual comments in each survey question and to categorizing the comments, as well as adding her own notes. “Many of the [over 2,000] comments were well thought out, and I felt they should be noted,” she remarked.

Miller distributed and explained a five-page summary of the report. “Our intent was to focus dialog on these lists,” she told the EPRC group. More information is on the survey website eastsoundvision.com

The five-part report reported on the ranking of survey responses:

1) Proposals ranked by both percentage of voters and by the scale of their support for each item; the responses were categorized and a determination about which agency(ies) should be responsible. A short description of the proposal was included;
2) Other ideas that didn’t reach the top ranking were then ranked;
3) Eastsound village commercial land use items with more than 50% support were listed in order of support;
4)  Housing proposals (those with greater than 50% support are bolded);
5)  Economy proposals, including all items with an economic impact.

(Miller’s five-page analysis document may be found at eastsoundvision.com/sort-by/  )

Steve Smith described the process and logic of this particular  survey analysis. He reported that of the total 658 respondents, 388 completed the full survey of 65 questions; 40% of those who started did not finish and 25% of those who stopped, only completed the first three questions.

The demographic information is from the 2010 U.S. Census, updated with data from the  American Community Survey that interprets the statistics using algorithms.

In discussion of home ownership, Smith said that the survey “probably over-represents those who own homes over renters.” He also said that there were two ways of looking at renters — year-round renters and those who rent as vacation stays.

Jonnie Welch suggested that given the higher percentage of home ownership; and the large number who indicated their income is very high (over $100,000 annually); or who didn’t want to report income; one would “have to conclude responders are older and wealthier.”

Matthew Gilbert, local consultant to the survey team explained that in the analysis, one would take different segments, such as income groups and “try to determine if there’s a different character to the responses.

“If you start to see significant differences then you have to examine more closely,” he said.

Margaret Payne commented that the “older age group is more interested in taking the survey and has the time to do so because they’re not working two or three jobs and raising children.”

Toby Cooper spoke to the percentages of those who took the survey and the number of questions answered. He found that the number of respondents steadily declined as people went through the survey. “Only three questions — the first three — got at or near 10% of community response. Most of these questions represent only 6-7% of the community, less than we thought did the whole survey

Paul Kamin described the survey as “One in a very large quiver of pieces of information that [inform] our decisions. There were 300 more voices that looked at specific opportunities the vision group came up with and gave their opinion on it.

Fred Klein echoed Kamin, saying “It’s an extraordinary opportunity that people reviewed and serves as a resource.”

Smith replied that the survey gives a lot of information and “It is the job of the EPRC to use it as a data point; it’s not going to be the answer by itself.”

Kamin urged that people “put in time to understand the comments because they’re equally as important as the values.”

Jonnie Welch said, ” A lot of detailed information has been granulated into accessibility” and the EPRC discussed ways to bring it to the public’s attention.

Payne noted that a year ago the EPRC convened the initial visioning group, followed by months of honing vision, with about 40 people divided into work groups, out of which survey grew. Meanwhile the EPRC began to formulate their priorities based on feedback from those groups. She said, “I’m pleased because I see a general consensus from the group meetings to the work group to the survey.”

Yonaton Aldort offered a draft of EPRC priorities given the recommendations agreed upon at earlier meetings this fall (https://sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/13605). Included in the draft are ideas that were included in EPRC recommendations; those that were supported by work groups;  and those that got overwhelming support and minor opposition in the surveys.

Eastsound Subarea, with Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries in dark blue. The “Vision for Eastsound” process focuses on the urban core, with a quarter-mile radius from the Village Green

Actionable recommendations reviewed on Dec. 7:

1)         Resolve “A Street” Terminus
2)         Develop cluster parking in VC (village commercial)
3)         Require single family residences  (SFR) to meet design standards in VC
4)         Prohibit SFR on Main VC streets
5)         Change streetscape standards in different parts of Eastsound
6)         Require “Dark Sky” standards
7)         Develop Fern Street Plaza Proposal
8)         Provide Additional Incentives for Affordable Housing

EPRC 2018 Priorities

The EPRC volunteer county advisors stated their priorities in its 2018 Workplan EPRC 2018 Work Plan – https://sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/13606 and assigned lead roles within the EPRC to “make sure EPRC stays on track and sets timelines” for dealing with the priorities:

1.  Agree to final plan/proposal on A-street dead-end solution, to be led by EPRC members Paul Kamin and Margaret Payne, with Bob Maynard on the team.
2. Complete EPRC recommendations for updates to the Eastsound subarea plan goals and policies, led by Otis with Dan Vekved, Jonnie Welch and Jonatan Aldort on the team.
3. Make recommendations for Service/Light Industrial designations, including the North Beach/Mt. Baker roads intersection; led by Vekved and Otis, with Kamin and Aldort on the team
4. Designate public areas for open space, playgrounds, bathrooms, led by Aldort with Vekved, Payne and Welch on the team.
5. Prepare a parking plan, led by Kamin and Welch with Payne and Maynard on the team

The secondary priorities were: prepare a lighting plan; prepare a streetscape plan for improvements by neighborhood; discuss Crescent Beach roads; review and comment on Housing Plan; and analyze Eastsound Land Use.

After some discussion, the EPRC decided to “plug in” the work plan as drafted by Aldort on the top results. Aldort said, “Councilman] Rick [Hughes]  wants recommendations –we have them right here, here’s a small list of things that we know received support from all quarters.”

EPRC member Paul Kamin suggested that the EPRC’s January meeting “include a report from each of the captains of the portion of the workplans that we’re supported.”

Following consensus to both move forward on separate priorities and to present this preliminary report to the county on EPRC priorities,  EPRC member Dan Vekved moved to put the actionable items that Yonaton Aldort has developed before the County.

The advisory board voted to send the list to the county for review. Outgoing EPRC Chair Jeff Otis voted against the motion, saying  “I think the county will not know what we want to do with it, and will want [our document] fleshed out.”

Kamin said, “This is the spearhead, it’s going to take several pushes to move this boat.”

The committee agreed that, in addition to the draft document, Aldort will send a list of short descriptions for each actionable item.

Upon the election of Margaret Payne and Paul Kamin as co-chairs, EPRC members thanked Jeff Otis for the “great job he has done this year; it was a hard year” to great applause. It was noted that the meeting adjourned early for maybe the first time ever.