— by Orcas Issues reporter Matthew Gilbert —
We begin this article with the last item on the Planning Commission’s Friday morning agenda: The latest draft of the Land Capacity Analysis Report (LCA) which focuses on the first iteration of the Net Developable Land Inventory (NDLI). Planner Adam Zack from the Department of Community Development (DCD) noted, “The NDL represents the bedrock of future planning.” The report is an essentially square-foot-driven parcel analysis full of maps and methodologies that seeks to answer some basic questions:
- How much development (residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use) is possible in San Juan County?
- Where might that development take place?
- Are there enough developable lands to accommodate expected growth through 2036 (the planning arc of the Comp Plan)?
- What is happening now vs. what is allowed?
The impetus to carry out such an analysis is driven by the Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires counties with Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) to prove they can adequately plan for and accommodate future growth. For evaluation purposes, the definition of UGAs has been expanded in this case to include all of San Juan County, although the goal of the County’s Comp Plan is to channel 50% of future growth into the three “official” UGAs: Friday Harbor, Eastsound, and Lopez Village.
The report doesn’t directly answer the question of how many people could ultimately live in the County, nor does it address the County’s “carrying capacity,” but it’s a helpful start to an important conversation which Zack says will pivot on yet another question: “Do we want more intense development – more sq. ft. per parcel – or more parcels with lower density?” There are still some wild cards, such as the impacts of existing wetlands buffers, conservation easements, and other Critical Areas ordinances on build-out potential which are only resolved during a permitting process, as well as the outcome of numerous mixed-use options. And as far as something like the Orcas Port overlay, “We can’t account for what happens there,” explained Zack. “There are no real limits on how much development can take place, only what kind of development.”
“Do we want more intense development – more sq. ft. per parcel – or more parcels with lower density?”
Adam Zack
County population is estimated to grow 19% between now and 2036, from 16,314 to 19,423. And while the report is a head-banger for anyone who isn’t well-versed in the lexicon of planning and policy analysis (or doesn’t have a flair for acronyms), it’s quite an accomplishment and there are a series of tables showing how that growth (by type) will likely be distributed across both rural areas and UGAs. Unfortunately, even those tables are a bit opaque for the casual viewer to interpret. A more simplified format for public consumption would be helpful. It would also be good to know the specific kinds of feedback the DCD would like.
The 102-page report is available here. There are, as yet, no policy implications or conclusions; those will depend in part on public input. The public comment period is open now with a deadline of October 25. Contact compplancomments@sanjuanco.com. A second draft will be released in November.
# # # # #
The rest of the meeting was taken up with an update on vacation rentals and comments to the 6-Year TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan). DCD’s Erika Shook announced the launch of a new permit tracking system that anyone can use and doesn’t require an account. All you need is a name, map, and/or parcel number to track down building, land use, and VR permits. (By the way, you can now report illegal VR rentals anonymously.) There may still be a few bugs, she noted, so feel free to contact the department with questions. Shook plans to attend this coming Wednesday’s VR workshop on Orcas to report on how the County is regulating VRs and what (potentially) makes Eastsound different.
An update on the 6-Year TIP was dominated by a discussion sparked by public testimony from a San Juan homeowner who felt less safe and more exposed by what turned out to be an unfinished “road improvement” project on Pear Pt. Road. The ensuing conversation revealed the tension between what property owners expect when projects are implemented and the constraints of the County juggling multiple projects with limited resources.
“We’re still actively working on this,” explained Public Works’ Colin Huntemer. “The process just takes time. We did what we could immediately – improve visibility – and brush clearing was part of that, but there is little we can do to control speeding. We just don’t have a lot of tools to slow drivers down other than electric radar signs that don’t seem to work very well and we’re wary of sign pollution. It’s ultimately an enforcement issue.”
When asked if the County had a time frame to complete the project, Huntemer noted that, “Approved projects are staged according to the TIP schedule, but every currently approved project is ‘stressed’ (behind schedule) and some elements of this particular project, such as getting right-of-way permissions, can’t be speeded up.”
Does the report address the need for ferry expansion and improvements? A 19% increase in population would require an additional ferry per day, perhaps two more in the summer, given all the vacation rental permits being issued. Ferry service this past summer was just plain awful, with delays commonly an hour or more — especially in the afternoons and on weekends.
And is the state legislature willing to build an additional ferry and pay for its operations? I doubt it. A knowledgeable source tells me they are talking mainly of cutbacks.
The idea of asking whether they will be “enough” developable land in 20 years for the projected population growth seems odd. The land that’s here is the land we have. Much of it is, thankfully, protected and unavailable for development. Some of it is also undeveloped, but all of that is already owned. If people who wish to move here can’t buy an existing house, or land to develop with a house, or find an existing rental that suits their needs, they probably shouldn’t be moving here.
We certainly aren’t going to propose breaching the protections given our existing public land and protected easements, are we?
Thanks for another well-reported article, Matthew. The article quotes: “For evaluation purposes, the definition of UGAs has been expanded in this case to include all of San Juan County, although the goal of the County’s Comp Plan is to channel 50% of future growth into the three “official” UGAs: Friday Harbor, Eastsound, and Lopez Village.”
I didn’t know that. So, my questions are:
1) What if at least 75% of growth in our UGA is, and has been, the building of vacation rentals? How does this serve the stated goal of having over 50% of the year-round population living in our UGA? This kind of planning doesn’t even address where we’re going to put the people, let alone how we’d protect the herring-spawn habitats in Fishing Bay, President’s channel, and the wetland that connects them (Eastsound deforested wetland)
2) What’s to stop county or other officials from using the model of “all of SJC is a UGA?” and in the same vein, why should this responsibility NOT be shared outside of UGAs?
3) How will “developable lands” be compared to what “carrying capacity” figures mean -much lower numbers of population that the lands and waters can actually support?
As for the 6 year road plan, I hope we clearly understand that the same thing that happened with Horseshoe Highway is set to happen on many of our other county roads – widening, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and bike lanes to meet state or federal – not county – requirements.