Debra "DJ" Sessner,
			Sr. Planner
		Lynda Guernsey,
			Departmental Assistant

The Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code (San Juan County Code Title 18) provide for the continued authority of existing subarea plans, subject to a review of the consistency of the subarea plans with the new Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC). The Comp Plan and Resolution 60–1998 include an action item to complete the consistency reviews of six subarea plans.

The consistency review of the Eastsound Subarea Plan is in progress.

The consistency review of the Waldron Island Subarea Plan has been completed. Staff reviews of the subarea plan were completed in 1999 and 2001, and responsive amendments were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 1, 2000 and January 23, 2001. The subarea plan is now consistent with the Comp Plan and the GMA.

The consistency review of the Shaw Island, Personal Wireless Facilities, Washington State Trust Lands, and Open Space and Conservation Subarea plans have also been completed. Staff reviews of the subarea plans were completed in 2001, and responsive amendments were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July 3, 2001. These subarea plans are also now consistent with the Comp Plan and the GMA.

What is Consistency? and Limits of Consistency Review

While the GMA requires internal consistency, and consistency with the requirements of the GMA, it does not actually define the terms. For its purposes the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) has defined and interpreted "consistency" in the following ways:

WAC 365-195-210 Definitions of terms as used in this chapter.
The following are definitions of terms which are not defined in RCW 36.70A.030 but which are defined here for purposes of these procedural criteria. The department [CTED] recommends that counties and cities planning under the act adopt these definitions in their plans:

"Consistency" means that no feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any other feature of a plan or regulation. Consistency is indicative of a capacity for orderly integration or operation with other elements in a system.

WAC 365-195-070 Interpretations.
The following represent the department's [CTED's] interpretation of several critical concepts about which the express terms of the act are not clear. While not necessarily the only appropriate way to view the concepts involved, these interpretations appear to be supported by the overall statutory context.

(7) Consistency. The act calls for "consistency" in a number of contexts. In general, the phrase "not incompatible with" conveys the meaning of "consistency" most suited to preserving flexibility for local variations. An important example of the use of the term is the requirement that comprehensive plans be internally consistent. This requirement appears to mean that the parts of the plan must fit together so that no one feature precludes the achievement of any other. (E.g., the densities selected and the wetlands to be protected can both be achieved on the available land base.) ….

The Consistency Review evaluates the policies and regulations of the subarea plans for their consistency and compatibility with the policies of the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan and the directives of the GMA, and with the regulations in the Unified Development Code. It considers whether the purposes and directives of the Comp Plan are still achieved with the subarea plans' additional elements in place.

However, this Consistency Review is not the same as an amendment process. If a policy or regulation of a subarea plan is found to be consistent, the Consistency Review does not consider whether the policy or regulation is the best approach, or the most appropriate, or most equitable way to achieve the purpose. Such questions are properly considered as part of the regular review and amendment process for the subarea plan. The procedures for amendment of the subarea plan are one topic of analysis in the Consistency Review.

Differences and Inconsistencies; Alternatives Available to Respond to Inconsistencies

It stands to reason that a subarea plan will have some different approaches than, and will be different from the overall Comprehensive Plan. It may address issues that are not discussed in the Comp Plan; it may provide greater specificity for local situations and problems. It may provide for different approaches or different standards than does the Comp Plan in order to meet locally specific issues and concerns.

The fact that the subarea plan has differences from the Comp Plan does not necessarily mean that it is inconsistent with overall Comp Plan policy guidance. Such differences are recognized in the goal of §B.2.6.A (relating to the creation of new subarea plans) of the Comp Plan:

Goal: To provide for the creation of detailed plans for village activity centers, specific geographic areas, or for resources, in order to better address the unique needs and interests of those areas, environments, or functions.

However, some inconsistencies will be found in each of the subarea plans. Where a policy or regulation of an existing subarea plan is found to be inconsistent with overall Comp Plan policy guidance, three approaches are available to the County:

1)	Change the subarea plan policy or regulation to make it consistent with the Comp Plan, or delete the inconsistent portion entirely; or
2)	Conversely to (1), change the policy direction of the Plan to eliminate the inconsistency; or
3)	Recognize in the findings for this consistency review that the difference is an appropriate subarea-specific measure, and therefore consistent with the overall policy of the Comp Plan.

The Consistency Review reports include recommendations by the Planning Department to address inconsistencies that utilize each of the responsive approaches, as appropriate, to address the inconsistencies and to make the subarea plans consistent with GMA and Comp Plan direction.