News Release 2001-8
May 10, 2001
GROWTH BOARD APPROVES THE LAND USE PLAN FOR SAN JUAN COUNTY
On May 7, 2001, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board issued its Order regarding the land-use plans and regulations adopted in October 2000. The result was "good news," said Commissioner John Evans. By and large, the Growth Board found that the approach taken by the commissioners reflected the "unique circumstances" of San Juan County.
"The citizens of this County should be proud of the work done by the planners, the commissioners and the attorneys," said Prosecutor Randall K. Gaylord. "It required a team effort to get this far." But Gaylord also recognized there is more to be done. "Planning is an ongoing process. This decision allows us to move forward."
The Growth Board noted that "San Juan County has rarely, if ever, suffered from too little public participation." Gaylord said, "We trust that the community will recognize the value of their involvement and that the challengers and others will continue to participate in the next stage of planning."
Of the thirty-three issues raised by the challengers, only three issues were decided in their favor. The most significant issue was the lack of capital facilities planning for the Eastsound and Lopez Village growth areas. "We had to move forward, even without the capital facilities plan, to meet the time lines imposed by the Growth Board," said Gaylord. "Conducting the capital facilities plan was always on the work plan of the planners. This decision will simply accelerate the time we have to complete the work to 180 days – which is November 7, 2001."
Eastsound and Lopez Village Growth Areas
While the Growth Board was complimentary of the planning staff’s "thoughtful analysis" of the Eastsound and Lopez Village growth areas, it criticized the County for making the boundary line decisions before the analysis was completed. But the Growth Board recognized that "The concept of establishing the two unincorporated UGAs not only complies with the GMA but it appears from this record to be the only viable alternative available to the County."
The County will need to re-evaluate the sizes and boundaries of the Eastsound and Lopez Village and "must use GMA criteria, not simply the expectations of current residents." According to Gaylord, this means that all the boundary issues, including whether the Klein property or any other property should be included or excluded from the Eastsound or Lopez Village UGAs, will be re-evaluated.
The County must analyze how water, sewage treatment, and other urban services will be provided in Eastsound and Lopez Village. The Growth Board cautioned that the "sticker shock", which may accompany this analysis, could cause the County to adjust the boundaries of Eastsound and Lopez Village. "If we encounter ‘sticker shock’, the solution will be to make the boundaries smaller or encourage development in areas that are less expensive to serve," said Gaylord.
The Growth Board did not invalidate any of the UGA boundaries. "This means planning and development can continue, so long as we continue to fill in the gaps in the planning," said Gaylord.
Roche Harbor Activity Center
Adjoining the Roche Harbor Master Planned Resort is property owned by Roche Harbor that was designated as a residential activity center or Limited Area of Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD). This designation allowed infill density of one house per two acres, if the property was developed for affordable or moderate income housing. The Growth Board concluded that the existing development in the area is not "intensive" rural development that allows infill, and that the plan to serve the area with water was too tentative to justify the increased density.
The Growth Board concluded that the Activity Center designation is invalid. The commissioners indicated that they would comply with the Growth Board Order and change the maps accordingly.
Vacation Rentals
The Growth Board concluded that a vacation rental was an allowable use in rural lands. In rural areas, the Board concluded that the "on the ground" impacts of a vacation rental are established with the construction of the dwelling. The Board also dismissed challenges which suggested that the profit making or "commercial" aspect of a vacation rental makes it inappropriate for rural areas.
But, in the agricultural and forest resource lands, the County has an obligation to "discourage incompatible uses." A decision from the State Supreme Court last year, known as the "soccer fields case", held that soccer fields were incompatible with future agricultural lands, even if there were no plans to harvest crops. Using similar reasoning, the Growth Board concluded that the County "has simply not appropriately analyzed the impacts of vacation rentals in resource lands with the requirements of assuring no incompatible uses adjacent to and within such [resource lands]." "The Growth Board left the door open for whether the County might be able to justify vacation rentals in resource lands. But for now they are prohibited," added Gaylord.
Few vacation rental applications have come from resource lands. Existing rentals, such as the Buckhorn Farm on Orcas Island, will be allowed to continue as non-conforming uses. They are "grandfathered," said Gaylord. Future applicants for vacation rental permits in forest or agricultural resource lands will be informed of the Growth Board Order, and the commissioners will amend the San Juan County Code accordingly.
"There is some ambiguity in the Order as to whether the term "transient rental" as used by the Growth Board, meant all "hospitality establishments" (including Bed and Breakfast establishments) or whether it simply meant "vacation rentals" which is the rental of a home or guest house without providing meals. The Prosecutor’s office is examining this question and will inform the commissioners of how it might be answered.
Variety of Rural Densities
The County’s and challengers’ disagreement over rural densities was both philosophical and statistical. The underpinning of the challengers’ case was based on the statistical calculation of average lots sizes, taking into account the existing small lots along the water. The challengers contend that using those averages the County is "sprawl," and the situation will only become worse under the plan.
But the Growth Board said that "statistical averaging of . . . lot sizes has primary value as a starting point." "This confirms our position that averages are useful, but they do not become the objective of planning," said Gaylord.
The County contended that the GMA was prospective only, and the Growth Board agreed, saying that the County’s obligation to prevent sprawls extended to only "undeveloped" land. This means the variety of rural densities must be located on undeveloped lands.
The Growth Board accepted the County’s mix of 5, 10 and 15 acre lots in the rural areas and found that the reduction in total buildout from the 2000 amendments was significant. The Growth Board said:
When the dust settled on all of these statistical analyses and maps the salient fact is that the 2000 amendments reduced future developable acreage from 85,000 in the 1998 noncompliant CP to only 38,000. San Juan County has unique circumstances involving many islands each unique to itself in development potential and non-potential. It has the smallest total land mass in the State. Under this record San Juan County has provided a variety of rural densities in the 2000 amendments.
In addition, the Growth Board concluded that the exceptions to density were properly explained by the County or the challengers had improperly raised the issues. These issues included the open space density bonus provisions of the San Juan Valley Heritage Plan, rural residential clusters, subdivisions by gift, tenants-in-common provisions, concurrency, and density in the conservancy designations (outside of shorelines).
Rural Character
The challengers failed to show that the densities in the County do not protect rural character. Here, the Growth Board acknowledged that the issue of rural character was properly considered by the commissioners as having many elements, just like the vision statement. The Growth Board said:
...The County is facing a dilemma of making sure that it does not become a "rural museum piece." The County has made provisions to allow both housing and employment for all economic classes and continues to take whatever action is necessary to meet the future challenges involved in this part of its vision statement. As the County noted, the rural character requirements of RCW 37.70A.070(5)(b) and (c), as well as the definition contained in RCW 36.70A.030(14), involves more than just preservation of the "natural" part of the rural area. Rather while a county must assure that the "natural landscape" predominates, it also has a duty to "foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas". Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that Petitioners have not sustained their burden of showing the County has failed to comply with its rural character responsibility.
SEPA
Several challengers asked that the Growth Board require more studies and analysis of the environmental impacts.
The County contended down zoning of 75,000 acres of rural and resource lands and the studies done by staff and the environmental impact statements for the Eastsound, Lopez Village and other hamlets were sufficient.
The Growth Board agreed, noting that:
While it is true that some 75,000 acres of rural and [resource lands] in San Juan County were down-zoned by the 2000 Amendments, there were also some changes that have potential environmental impacts. Taken as a whole, there are no probable adverse environmental impacts from the 2000 amendments...
With a wealth of information contained in this record concerning environmental impacts, for purposes of this hearing the County has complied with the SEPA requirements of the GMA.
Affordable Housing and Rural Residential Clusters
The Growth Board Order upheld the County’s use of rural residential clusters to provide affordable housing, but indicated that the clusters alone are not a solution to the County’s affordable housing problem in its rural areas. After reviewing the County’s new policies to encourage affordable housing, including rural residential clusters, the Growth Board said:
The record is clear that, absent some subsidized funding mechanism, development of significant affordable housing in the rural areas in San Juan County is not now likely to occur nor is there much chance of it in the future given the price of property in San Juan County. Sparsely created clusters in the rural areas may not include urban-type public facilities and services are, as pointed out by OPAL, a mere drop in the bucket and insufficient in and of themselves to satisfy the Act’s affordable housing goals and policies.
Rather the only realistic affordable housing compliance action is likely to happen in the Friday Harbor UGA or the proposed UGAs for Eastsound and Lopez Village. As noted in the UGA section of this FDO, significant funding challenges need to be analyzed and provided for before the UGA’s boundaries are fixed. Those funding challenges will be exacerbated by the need to include affordable housing requirements.
... The County is working diligently to have the Legislature give it specific authorization to do more for affordable housing then there has been done here. We are hopeful that such authority will be granted. We do find, however that as to the GMA, the County has complied. The County has indicated it intends to carry on and if possible to do more. We applaud San Juan County for its efforts heretofore and in the future.
For the complete text of the Growth Board decision, please check their website at www.gmaboards.wa.gov/western/western_decisions/western_decisions.html. Look for case numbers 00-2-0062c and 99-2-0010c.
If you would like additional information about this news release, or would like a copy of the Growth Board Order, contact Randall K. Gaylord or Alan A. Marriner at the number below.
Randall K. Gaylord
San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney
350 Court Street, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 760
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
360/378-4101