[Previous entry: "Pro Tem Is On The Job"] [Next entry: "The Whale Museum Gets New Lighting"]

01/25/2006: "PC Still Unimpressed With Proposed ADU Ord"

No Decisions Reached, Work On Ord To Continue

(Planning Commissioners Williams, Warren, Pratt, Chair Agosta & Kaill -Thomas & Adams not shown- ready for workshop)

The second workshop on the proposed draft ordinance by the former BOCC that was sent to the PC (Planning Commission) for their review and comment, was held on Friday the 20th of January. The first hearing (Previous Story) did not bode well for the ordinance the former BOCC and the Friends of the San Juans had drafted in lieu of awaiting the Court of Appeals decision on the basic question of can, or cannot, the County allow freestanding accessory dwelling units on property that does not have the underlying density requirement for two freestanding homes.

After a short laundry list from staff as to some of the questions that were raised by the public and the Planning Commissioners at the last hearing, the workshop was opened up for public comment, followed by the PC discussion:


Public Comment

The first speaker was former County Commissioner John Evans, who reminded the Commissioners that "73% of the SJC voters supported the County's ADU rules which allow ADU's on all parcels subject to sight and design criteria". He also echoed comments similar to SJC Prosecuting Attorney Gaylord's arguments to the County Commissioners as to why they should not settle out of court with the Friends by passing the ordinance that was now before the Planning Commission (see link above). Evan's brought up the fact that "the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in the Viking case that Growth Management Hearings Boards are required to give deference to decisions by local elected officials", and that this would work in the favor of SJC receiving a favorable decision by the Court of Appeals. He also testified that "The Growth Management Hearings Board's cannot favor preserving rural lands and preventing urban sprawl to the exclusion of such criteria as housing affordability and preserving the local economy. Based on the Viking decision I suggest that the county's court case go forward and that if we are not successful with the court of appeals, we are likely to be successful at the Supreme Court level". Evans concluded his remarks by citing "real life examples" of how guest houses serve a valuable function in SJC by providing housing for family members in need, such as a caregiver, and as temporary housing for family members in need of a place to stay in times of poor fortune.

Several of the speakers stated they agreed with Evans, and argued against the contention that allowing guest houses will increase population density. And Gordy Peterson, former Chair of the Planning Commission, and one of the members of three of the committees that wrote the draft Comp. Plan and the Uniform Development Code for SJC, urged the Commission to reject the proposed ordinance, and retain the existing regulations that are "the people's goals and the people's policies and the people's regulations".

Several speakers testified in favor of the BOCC's proposed ordinance, and against allowing freestanding guesthouses. Among them were former County Commissioner candidate Steve Ludwig of Lopez; and also Lynn Bahrych of Shaw, who told the PC that "housing is not a primary goal of GMA", that the primary goals are "resource areas and controlling sprawl, and that the "County has been out of compliance for 6 yrs".

With respect to the 73% voter approval of the question on guest houses, more than one opinion was expressed that the voters may not have understood what they were voting on. Charles Carver of Orcas said "most people don't understand what they voted on", which later brought a strong rebuff by Commission Ri Warren who rejected the argument that the citizens of SJC, "who have the highest education level per capita in the state, might not be intelligent enough to understand what they were voting on".

And then there was the written and verbal testimony by Professor Barbara Bentley, formally of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York. Professor Bentley presented a concept that was quickly recognized by the Planning Commission as a potential tool that might help to mitigate potential negative impacts that the Growth Management Board has identified as the only issue standing in the way of the County being in compliance with the Growth Management Board; namely "Structural Density" (which simply means building density, and not population density).

Professor Bentley identify the definition of density as both the problem and the solution. Unlike some terms in the County regulations, there is a lack of a definition in the code for the density, and suggested "density be defined as a measure of the effects of land use by residents… given in a single measurable unit --- I suggest square feet of land surface. It should also clarify how density affects the environment. I suggest added "impervious surface."

After some additional input from the audience, public comment was closed and the PC began their discussion period

Planning Commissioners

Chair Agosta summarized the general views of the public as falling into two areas: 1) The County should work toward compliance with the GMA, and 2) The proposed Ordinance is too restrictive and complex.

Barbara Thomas (an architect) began by stating that the proposed ordinance is both unenforceable and too complex, and "The impact of detached ADUs is the problem, and if we can define attached ADUs we can satisfy GMA."

Ri Warren suggested that the PC simply adopt the definition of an ADU contained in the Lewis County Comp. Plan, a plan that was accepted by the Growth Management Board. The Lewis County plan states: "An accessory dwelling unit must be attached to or created within a new or existing primary single-family structure or associated accessory building, and may not be a separate, stand-alone unit". Since the whole issue with non-compliance has to do with free-standing guest houses in land designations that do not allow two houses, the Lewis County approach simply prohibits them.

With this suggestion, and a suggestion by Terri Williams that the PC go back to the definition of "density" -and an addition of a table to the regulations listing allowable impervious surfaces as suggested by Bentley, the PC questioned if a greater limiting of "Impervious surface" could solve their problem. Because addition of a table would be a substantive change, as opposed to simply adding definitions on "attached" vs. "freestanding" ADUs (words that are already in the regulations), it was felt that a new table would not solve the problem.

In the end a sub-committee was formed to work on defining the sizes and types of accessory buildings that would qualify to have an attached ADU as a part of the building, thus following the Lewis County solution to ADUs that has been accepted by the Growth Management Board. The sub-committee will report back at the next PC meeting.