12/19/2005: "1st PC Workshop On ADUs Finds Problems"

The PC (Planning Commission) held a workshop Friday (12-11-05) on a draft Ordnance Proposal that Commissioners Ranker and Lichter (Bob Myhr had not yet been elected as a Commissioner) had forwarded to the PC for their review and recommendations, if any.

The Proposal was -depending on who you talk to- first drafted by Ranker, or, it was drafted by the Friends (Friends of the San Juans), and then re-worked by Ranker, and then sent by email to Lichter for his comments. After Ranker and Lichter had agreed on the content, it was announced by Ranker to the public ( Previous story) at a September (9-6-05) BOCC meeting that he and Lichter wanted to settle the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit; commonly referred to as a "Guest House") issue, outside of the Courts, and to that end proposed the BOCC instruct the Prosecuting Attorney to ask the Appeals Court to not rule on the pending appeal the BOCC had previously submitted to the Court.

Lichter stated he was in agreement with Ranker that the BOCC should settle with the Friends by moving forward on a settlement agreement that had been put forward by the Friends. After prolonged discussion, and not a little argument, and against the advice of the County Prosecutor, Lichter moved that the Proposal (the draft Ordinance) that he and Ranker had drafted be sent to the PC for their review, and that the BOCC "file a joint motion with the Friends of the San Juans to stay the decision of the SJC pending case with the Court of Appeals".

That was in September, and on Friday the PC held the first of two workshops on the Proposal. The meeting got off to a confused start with the public and the Planning Commissioners having different versions of the Proposal: some had one version, some had two, and some had three versions. Once the final version was selected by the Planning department as the correct one, the meeting began with an overview of the Proposal by staff.

The first indication of potential problems with the Proposal surfaced when Commissioner Teri Williams listed a laundry list of questions to the staff on the intent, the meaning, and the reasons for a number of the regulations, definitions, and statements in the Proposal. Williams asked where the new definitions came from; why were they necessary; that they were inconsistent with existing definitions in the County code, and even inconsistent with other parts of the Proposal. She also said that as written, the new regulations would suddenly make buildings that are now conforming to existing regulations, to suddenly become non-conforming; and while the county uses the word "designation", why does this Proposal use "District"?

To a number of the questions, staff did not have a response, except to say that what was before the Commission was not prepared by the Planning Department, so they simply did not know the intent or the reasons for the inclusion of all of the material in the document, since they did not "author" it.

Chair Agosta then opened the workshop up to public testimony, and Lynn Bahrych, former Board member of the Friends, and one of those involved in the GMA appeal against the County on the ADU issue, said she was speaking as an individual, and was pleased to see the public involved in the workshop; and then requested that Commissioner Ri Warren recluse herself because she was named in a legal action that was related to the ADU issue at hand, at this was an "appearance of fairness issue". Two other members of the public also asked that Warren recluse herself, and at that point the Chair stated the matter had been reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney's office, and for a number of reasons there was no basis by which Commissioner Warren was required to step down, and that she would not step down.

Warren responded to the demands by stating she had no conflict of interest, and noted that one third of the members of the Planning Commission, and all of the members of the BOCC, were current members of the Friends of the San Juans (Ranker is also a past employee who served as the Executive Director of the Friends), and if everyone in San Juan County who had some connection with the ADU issue recluse themselves, there would be no one left. She stated her personal reason for not stepping down was "My intent is to bring balance to the process".

The Commissioners took additional testimony from staff and members of the public. There was testimony that the Proposal contained inconsistencies, was too complex, and appeared to be attempting to insert new regulations into the land use codes that were unique and contrary to existing regulations. Attorney, and former Freeholder, Stephanie O'day told the Commissioners that "your need to concentrate on the density issue", and one question to ask is "how will the ADU by used; will it just be a guest house?. She suggested that instead of simply not allowing ADUs, that additional controls can be put on them to answer the concerns of density; that the renting of them as transient rentals could be prohibited, that they could only be rented long term; or they could be restricted to guest use only.

Commission Chair Agosta asked County Prosecutor Gaylord to comment on what the Commission was required by the GHB (Growth Hearings Board) to do to bring the County into compliance with the GMA (Growth Management Act). Gaylord told the Commissioner that the only issue the Planning Commission must decide is the issue of Structural Density; the GHB has ruled that there must be adequate land to support the anticipated density for the county. He also told the Commission that "you should not be constrained by this draft Ordinance (i.e. the Proposal)"

The Commission closed public input (at this point there were two members of the press, and three members of the Friends in attendance, and began discussing the proposed Ordinance. Chair Agosta told the Commission that "the Ordinance before us is very complicated and it is hard to work with this document due to the inconsistencies". During the deliberations the Commissioners questioned the need for 12 pages of regulations that either duplicated, or were both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with some of the existing county codes and regulations.

Commissioner Barbara Thomas, a working architect and a past member of the Technical Committee that wrote the regulations for the County Code (the UDC) stated that a basic question is "What are we in the county willing to give to make some additional density available, and then what is the simplest way to achieve that goal. Trying to do this with this Ordinance is starting anew…it is very convoluted. Commissioner Williams suggested that "perhaps we should put together a committee of the planners Architects and others to see how we can deal with the structural density issue" . Thomas stated "I would concur, but stay away from specifying design criteria, but only general guidelines"

Williams then asked if the Planning Department would be presenting the Commission with a statement of Facts and Finding for them to work with. Ron Henrickson, the new Director of CD&PD (Community Development & Planning) responded that "We are not originating the information you have before you, so cannot expand on it". Gaylord reminded the Commission that "detached ADUs for any purpose is the only task GMB is asking us to address; not how big the building is, or how many people it will hold".

The meeting ended with agreement that the Planning Department will review the existing code to determine what need not be repeated in any new ADU regulations; and with Commissioner Thomas asking the basic question "Why is detaching 1000 square feet of an ADU impacting density"?

The next, and final, workshop by the Planning Commission will be held on the 20st of January, 2006. The public is invited to give input. Should be interesting.