Island Guardian

Wednesday, May 31st

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Back Again

By Jay Kimball

When the County Council holds a public hearing, it's a good day when four or five people show up. People work hard to get by and hope that our elected representatives will watch out for the public interest. Imagine the Council's surprise when the guesthouse hearing last month drew so many people that they had to set up chairs out in the hall for the overflow crowd. One Council staffer said they had never seen so many people at a public hearing.

Over 90 percent of the people testified in favor of guesthouses. Some folks were so upset by the Council's lack of accountability and integrity that they suggested it was time to discuss recall or impeachment of the County Council. Though the Council limited testimony to two minutes each, so many people testified that the hearing ran out of time and was extended to the following week. At that hearing, the council said that they heard the will of the people loud and clear, and by the end of the meeting the council practically fell over themselves to convince the public that they were all for detached guesthouses.

Edward R. Murrow said of politicians, "Our major obligation is not to mistake slogans for solutions." Let's take a look at their latest solution. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details." The council took the first four pages of the greasy September kludge Lichter and Ranker had cobbled together with the "Friends" and stir-fried it with the Draconian planning-commission version of the guesthouse ordinance. Not a pretty sight. The ordinance now contains 63 paragraphs of county code changes. If all the council really wanted to do was allow detached guesthouses, they could do it in three paragraphs. So the question is, "What are the other 60 paragraphs about?"

The answer: restrictions and prohibitions. No guesthouses on rural lots of less than one acre, waterfront lots of less than five acres, ag resource parcels less than 10 acres, and forest resource parcels less than 20 acres. In addition, guesthouses are prohibited more than 100 feet from the main house. Additional accessory buildings such as a barn, shop, studio, etc. would be prohibited on parcels of 1-5 acres that have an ADU permit for an ADU and a garage. If there is already a legally permitted guesthouse over 1,000 square feet, then construction of the main house is prohibited unless there is sufficient density for an allowable second residence. Guesthouses are prohibited in any existing structure that does not meet all of the new requirements.

The list goes on. Short-term rentals of guesthouses are prohibited. No guesthouse can be larger than 1000 square feet. The guesthouse must use the same driveway as the main house, and must have a full water membership regardless of whether it is required by the Health Department or the water purveyor. No construction of permitted guesthouses in existing orchards, meadows or pastures or areas of native plants, wildflowers or forest, on ridgelines or rolling or steep slopes. Isn't that pretty much the whole island? And that's just a sample. We will need a gaggle of lawyers with Cap'n Crunch decoder rings to file a simple permit.

And when you apply for a permit for a detached guesthouse, no more than 12 percent of prior-year single-family residential building permits will be granted a detached guesthouse permit. This means that less than 24 per year would be available for the whole county. The Council's smooth talking aside, the ADU ordinance is a control freak's nightmare.

When one of the councilmen was asked about the basis for the 12-percent cap, the 100-foot limit, no rentals, and all the other micromanagerial gobbledygook, he replied, with a confident smile, that they were "arbitrary." Though arrogant, his candor was refreshing.

Why would the council saddle the public with 60 paragraphs of "arbitrary" law? This sort of malfeasance will just ensure extended lawsuits, court battles and wasted taxes. In a conversation with one of the three "Friends" who are suing the county to prevent guesthouses, I asked about the 100-foot limit. The answer again was candid — it was to discourage people from renting their guesthouses out. The logic being that a homeowner would not want a "stranger" near his or her home.

So the hidden agenda starts to reveal itself. I asked a councilman, "Why take away people's guesthouses to address a concern about rentals? Why not be up-front and propose a rental ordinance?" and he said "Oh, that would be a big mess!" and I said, "You've got an overflow crowd calling for your impeachment. As messes go, it doesn't get much bigger than that!" He just smiled.

Guesthouse rentals are the dirty little secret that the council and "Friends" never speak to, but it keeps showing up in every version of the ordinance they try to pass off on the public. I ask again, why are concerns about rentals being addressed in an ordinance about guesthouses/building permits and not in an ordinance about rentals?

The council is running us through the wringer because they lack the courage to take the Friends' elitist agenda to the public in an honest way. We are a service economy that depends on affordable housing for the working class. With the lowest working wages in the state and the highest cost of living, the middle class needs every means at its disposal to make a living — including, on occasion, renting out their guesthouses. The council knows that a direct assault on the working people's ability to earn a living would be political suicide, so they try to sneak it through the back door.

There is no need for this special interest riddled ordinance. I posted the latest version of the Council's guesthouse ordinance at www.OrcasStyle.com. Take a look at it and see what you think. Ask the council to stop wasting our time and let the courts decide. The final public hearing is June 6 at 1:30 p.m.

George Washington said of our democracy, "Only the citizen can make government responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." Now is the time.

[more..]

Monday, May 22nd

ADU Ord: Little Has Changed

By Jim Nelson

After more meetings and overwhelming public testimony opposing restrictions on guest houses (ADUs) the current ordinance proposed by the County Council still bears a very strong resemblance to the one previously agreed to by The Friends of the San Juans and Councilmen Lichter and Ranker in their August, 2005 settlement negotiations.

The proposed ordinance will make it impossible for many rural property owners to construct a guest house (ADU) which is separate from the main house or attached to an allowable garage or outbuilding. In addition the ordinance proposes to allow some freestanding ADUs subject to an annual limitation on the number of permits despite the fact that the Council has been advised by the County Attorney that previous Growth Board decisions specifically prohibit freestanding ADUs on rural lands.

The citizens of San Juan County voted to allow guest houses by a 73% margin. The Growth Board has allowed citizens in other counties to construct ADUs provided they are attached to accessory buildings. But our County Council still proposes to deny that right to many rural property owners. Some who have already made substantial investments and site planning decisions will be unable to follow through with their plans and dreams if the proposed ordinance is adopted.

Under the ordinance guest houses are prohibited on all rural lots of less than one acre, on all waterfront lots of less than five acres, on Ag Resource Parcels less than 10 acres and on all Forest Resource parcels less than 20 acres. Additional accessory buildings such as a barn, shop, studio, etc. would be prohibited on parcels of 1-5 acres if there is an ADU permit with a two car garage. Guest houses are also prohibited more than 100 feet from the main house and short term rentals are prohibited when an ADU permit is required.

If there is already a legally permitted guest house over 1000 square feet then construction of the main house is prohibited unless there is sufficient density for an allowable second residence. Of course, most rural land owners no longer have any additional allowable density available because of previous down zoning decisions by the county. ADUs are also prohibited in many existing accessory structures so many people who have a suitable existing building will be forced to build a new structure rather than utilize one they already have.

But wait, there's still more!
No more than 12% of prior year single family residential building permits (about 20/year for the whole county) will be granted a detached ADU permit. ADUs are prohibited in existing orchards, meadows or pasture, in areas of native plants, wildflowers or forest, on ridgelines or on rolling or steep slopes. No ADU can be larger than 1000 square feet and all must use the same driveway as the main house. All ADUs must have an additional full water membership (ERU) regardless of whether the water supply is already deemed adequate by the Health Dept. and the water purveyor.

The County Council should be aggressive in promoting and defending the will of the majority instead of making backroom deals with the "Friends". Despite a clear voter mandate to the contrary, this very restrictive ordinance micromanages guest house construction and denies the right to build a separate guest house to many rural property owners. It is not likely to be approved by the Growth Board in its present form. Under the proposed "vesting ordinance" which is also currently being considered by the Council, a very limited number of property owners who have previously constructed a detached guest house will only be allowed to construct their main house if they build within five years and agree to allow a permanent deed restriction prohibiting short term rentals to be placed as a notice on their property title.

This highly restrictive approach virtually guarantees further legal and administrative problems for the County and many more taxpayer dollars being wasted dealing with appeals to the Growth Board and the courts.

If you think the Council is headed in the wrong direction on this issue, please attend the June 6, 2006 County Council hearing in Friday Harbor or write the County Council to express your support for the right of all rural property owners to construct a guest house on their property in a way that best suits the property and the owner's plans and dreams.

(Jim Nelson has served as a member of the San Juan County Planning Commission for ten years)

[more..]

Tuesday, May 16th

Cowboy Council

No matter what your political persuasion, it is clear that we have a county council problem. From the wage issues to the hiring practices, to the rejection of the advice of counsel, to the unformed, waffling and half-baked positions on ADU's and the rejection of the advisory vote. These are not the actions of an accountable representative government, these are three men attempting to implement their own personal agendas.

So where is the outrage? Where are the feminist women? Where are the accusations that this local government is a "boy's club"?

Just because you voted for these county council cowboys does not mean that you can't have a change of heart. A change of conscience. Make an effort to rope them in. Become a voice for adult, rational, responsible behavior. Show that you are not as naïve and uninformed as they think you are.

It is time for everyone to stand up and be a little "d" democrat, even if you are a big "D" and these are "your cowboys". They are off the ranch, they are punch drunk with power and they are acting like they are pretty sure you can't stop them.

Alex Gavora

( Alex Gavora is an attorney, and a longtime resident on San Juan Island)

[more..]

Monday, May 1st

Voters Not Fooled By Council

By Scott Bell

The public perception about the Council has become one of apprehension and distrust. And lately, ridicule. The close rapport the Council enjoys with the Friends, and vice versa, has created in the public mind serious misgivings over who exactly does the Council represent: the People or the Friends? And now, with this very barefaced and vocal (compliments of Alan Lichter) disrespect towards the public process, past commissioners, and the voters regarding the Guesthouse Advisory Vote the Council, and the Friends by association, have been caught with their pants down…and we don't like what we see.

People are becoming educated on this issue. Bit by bit people are shoveling through the rhetoric of the Friends and discovering an argument that is strong with emotion and feeble with facts. And while the Friends mulishly argue for compliance to the law they frustrate the very process that would bring it to a legal conclusion. And our Council is tamely tagging along.

Are there any leaders on the Council? Does any one of them have the brass to break away from the Friend's prudish and transparent attempt to implement their design of a politically correct picture perfect postcard San Juan County?

Sadly, as it stands right now our Council seems to be a well paid one that is long on posturing and short on principle. They conveniently forget that they work for all the people who voted for them…and against them.

If our Council can so easily and shamelessly ignore the Guesthouse Advisory Vote, a very clear mandate from the people, perhaps they would also ignore the other recent mandate from the people that they now enjoy…you know, the one that got them elected.

Show up at 2:30 May 2 in the Council chambers and witness our Friendly Council inaction.

Curarem Quapropter? (What, me worry?)

(Scott Bell -not to be confused with the other Scott Bell- has lived on San Juan Island on and off since 1958)

[more..]