GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT

List of stories about Growth Management Act in San Juan County

Growth Management Hearings Board Oct 2002 ruling

Densities OK but work still to be done on UGA
posted 05-08-01

Details of Lopez Village planning available

posted 07/01/03
Noted planner Randall Arendt, worked with Lopezians last week to develop design concepts for Lopez Village. A six page summary of the activities is available in PDF format.

The key design concepts are:

1. Use two-story development with offices or residences above shops to help better define streets and provide additional development space without taking up more land.
   
   
2. Place buildings at the corners of blocks to help define blocks visually and conceal parking.
   
   
3. Place buildings at the street with parking areas behind to emphasize pedestrian use of streets and sidewalks and provide a well-defined street edge.
   
   
4. Place buildings at the edge of open spaces to provide a sense of enclosure for open spaces.
   
   
5. Place residential uses above shops and parking to provide additional activity in the village, provide economical housing, and provide additional income for village owners.
   
   
6. Establish a network of open spaces and pedestrian pathways now to ensure that they are in place and preserved at the time of future development. Preserve key view cor-ridors in open space by acquisition or shifting development to another part of the site.
   
   
7. Plant trees to define streets and open spaces. Plant trees now so they are large enough to soften larger structures at the time of development.
   
   
8. Establish needed road linkages in advance of future development.
   
   
9. Use open spaces sparingly and effectively, keeping in mind that large open spaces within the village spread buildings apart and make pedestrian connections more diffi-cult.
   
   
10. Encourage residential development in the village.
    
    
11. In village residential development, avoid garages at the front, particularly with nar-row lots typical of village density and two-story development, in order to maintain a residential appearance at the street.
    
    

Design Lopez Village with Randall Arendt June 23-26

posted 06/18/03
Randall Arendt is a nationally recognized planner and designer who has helped small communities develop plans and designs for villages and hamlets that are sensitive to both the environment and people’s needs. He is the author of a number of publications on planning and design for small communities and rural areas, including Rural by Design and Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town.

He will be in Lopez Village June 23 through June 26, 2003 working with local residents exploring ideas for design and development for Lopez Village. During that time, he will also make presentations of more general interest on conservation design and infill development.

The following events are planned during his visit. The Monday evening and Tuesday afternoon sessions are presentations describing planning and design concepts applicable to many areas, and will not be as focused on planning for Lopez Village as workshop sessions.

Lopez Village designing begins

posted 04/23/03
What do Lopezians want Lopez Village to look like? Randall Arendt, author of Rural By Design and Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town will conduct a design charette June 24-27, 2003 to help the citizens answer that question.

Through the creation of design standards, the character of Lopez Village can be maintained. Arendt will lead an intensive effort including research, working with the community and design workshops. The end product will be public education, concept drawings and ideas for regulations.

Planning Director Laura Arnold said, "This will be a benefit for Lopez Village no matter what we end up calling the village." The county is working through a process of determining whether the Village is an Urban Growth Area (UGA) or a Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The charette will be paid for by a $9,000 grant from the Office of Community Development.

Lopezians weigh in on UGA/LAMIRD

posted 12/05/02
Lopez Village's land use designation was the topic of a two and a half hour discussion attended by more than 150 Lopezians Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2002. The debate on the controversial decision of choosing between a Urban Growth Area or Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development was civil and colorful. It ended with Commissioner Rhea Miller receiving a standing ovation from the majority of the audience after she concluded her remarks. (The text is posted at the end of this article).

Reports were heard from the Rural Village Committee, The Affordable Housing Committee, the Village Planning Coalition and a spinoff UGA Committee. Several speakers referred to the presentations given last week by Bill Nielsen, former chair of the Western Washington Hearings Board. Fred Ellis quoted Nielsen as saying there are no non-municipal UGAs in Western Washington. Rip Van Camp noted Nielsen had pointed out non-municipal UGAs existed in Eastern Washington.

The need for assisted housing and nursing home facilities for the growing senior population was mentioned by several of the speakers. Van Camp said, "There are now almost 500 citizens 65 or older. This group will approach 1000 in 20 years. There is no capability to provide assisted housing or senior housing with easy access to the village."

Diane Robertson noted the need for a capital facilities plan with a UGA. She said, "We haven’t a clue what we can afford. As far as senior housing, Island Center would accommodate senior housing and it is already in the comp plan. A LAMIRD is flexible also."

Madrona spoke on behalf of the younger population of Lopez Island. "Living here is difficult. I don’t know any young people, who are not living with parents, that don’t live in substandard housing," she said. "This community won’t survive if we lose the young people."

Affordable housing which many believe can only be provided in areas with higher density was mentioned by several speakers as a reason to choose the UGA designation. "Growth will not stop," said Oscar Smaalders, the speaker for the affordable housing committee. "To avoid Aspenization, we need to maintain diversity, to provide affordable housing. The only way to do that is through a UGA."

Ron Meng explained the frustrating 30-year process he and his wife have endured trying to develop affordable housing on property they own south of the Village. He cited problems his employees have finding adequate housing. Several commute from the mainland.

Sandy Wood, director of the Lopez Community Land Trust said, "This is a challenging and scary task. The UGA is the only designation that truly allows planning for and some degree of control over use. The fact that it is becoming derailed is quite stunning. In the eyes of GMA and growth board, Lopez Village is not rural, it is urban. Let's get on with shaping the future of our village." She noted without a UGA designation the planning for infrastructure would be done in a piecemeal fashion. "The UGA is a flexible tool. It is available. Let's use it and not be afraid of it, she said."

Participants in a four-day long petition drive in front of the grocery store were accused of offering inaccurate information. Several speakers said they wanted their signatures removed from the petition.

LIz Scranton said, "I want to say this is a difficult issue. It is an emotional issue when you talk about growth, it pits community members against each other. I support some type of UGA, it seems to be the only tool that’ll address issues of growth. I was asked to sign petition. It was misleading."

One of the signature collectors said, "I was in front of the market. I don’t feel we were misleading. We’ve been putting video tapes of the commissioners meetings and planning commission in the library, and two sessions of Bill Nielsen’s comments. Listen to the tapes...Show us the data, show us the plan that meets the mandatory requirements. Do it above board on the table, with the agendas out."

Steve Ludwig, a member of the Rural Village Group, spoke on his own. He said, "Urbanization drives up prices of land, people (who own land that is rezoned) are getting something for nothing...Lopez Island has already surpassed its carrying capacity. We can’t accommodate any more until current residents change their ways. We are only getting away with it, because many residents are part-time residents...The purpose of the GMA was to protect rural land. As long as the prosecutor and planning department continue to hide these weapons of mass construction in the comp plan, we will continue to get our wrists slapped." He compared development to a religion. "The religion has own its own priests (planners) and they guard against any heresy."

One thread which was common to most of the speakers was the need for more information about the water resources. Some thought the ongoing water study would show there was not enough water to support growth in the village. Ron Mayo disagreed. "I think we will find there is enough water to supply village," he said. "If we find ourselves running short, there are strategies, including reading meters." He said meters are a good way to find leaks and save water.

Nancy Green of the Village Planning Coalition Group said, "Studies must be completed before the designation can be made." She noted the group included members of a least six subgroups and had compiled a list of needs. "We feel these needs should guide future decisions."

Time ran out before Commissioners Darcie Nielsen and John Evans could share their thoughts on the topic. Both have stated previously that they doubted a UGA designation was right for Lopez Village.

The next discussion of GMA related issues takes place at 1 p.m. Monday, December 9, 2002 in the Commissioners Hearing Room in the County Courthouse. It is a worksession with the commissioners, planning staff, Prosecutor Randy Gaylord and attorneys from Buck and Gordon law firm of Seattle.

Nielsen arranged for them to come and offer free advice to the county.

San Juan County Commissioner Rhea Miller's Remarks
December 3, 2002

I love Lopez Island. I love it! I never dreamed I would settle in one place, and I've now been here over 17 years. I was raised in rural America-Iowa, to be exact. My Grandpa was a poultry farmer. My Grandmother taught in a sod schoolhouse on the prairie. My Dad was a farmer before he became a minister. I am rural to my core. We used to go out and help with chores on the small dairy farms of my classmates. I lived in small towns-200 people, 1200 people (Pleasantville, no less) and 6500 people-the county seat. I know rural America. My roots are rural America for generations. I love rural America, and I choose to live my life in rural America.

And I love Lopez Village. Lopez Village is a classic rural town. It is a rural town, but it is a town, nevertheless. I love small town America. We're still talking rural. Now, Lopez Village has been zoned urban, and suburban, since 1979. We are not reinventing the Village here. Without the urban designation, we wouldn't have Holly B's, Vita's, Coho and Morgantown, etc. Lopez Village will never be anything other than the heart of Lopez Island. For years people have been coming to the Village to get mail, buy their groceries, see who has died, ask the name of the new baby, ask why the power is off, ask who the helicopter was for,--you name it. If you want to learn something or if you want to spread information, your first and most important stop is the Village. Lopez Village is the center, the heart of this community. This is very different from Orcas Island, for instance, where their community gatherings seem to correspond to the many Post Offices.

The single best tool to protect rural Washington is the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) was passed because the people of this state said that they no longer wanted farmland and forests to disappear and sprawl to continue. They didn't want suburbia in the rural lands. So, counties were forced to downzone rural areas, and to create higher density areas. Recently NPR stated that the only environmental hope for our rural lands due to population growth is to concentrate density. The Friends of the San Juans study pointed out once again that it is better not to develop rural lands, but to concentrate density. The goal of the GMA is to encourage denser development in smaller areas, and to discourage 1, 2, and 5 acre development in rural lands. The GMA, although far from perfect, is the single strongest tool in this State to protect rural lands.

State law uses two categories to describe denser population areas, and only two by statute: LAMIRDS (limited areas of more intensive rural development) and UGAS (urban growth areas.) Neither term fits Lopez Village. Both words are only tools. Lopez Village will always be what we make it, regardless of the term that describes it in statutory language. A LAMIRD allows only infill of density based on existing buildings in 1990 and/or parcel size patterns existing in 1990. No other infrastructure improvements are allowed. All other lands other than the infill lands must be at least 5 acres per dwelling unit. The GMA specifies that each county shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth [four dwelling units per acre--for comparison, COHO and Morgantown are 7 dwelling units per acre] shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can only occur if it is not urban [5 acres or more per dwelling unit] in nature. The GMA expects rural lands to average one dwelling unit per 10 acres. On Lopez, we already average one dwelling unit per 4 acres. If buildout continues predominantly in the rural areas, we will average one dwelling unit on even less than 5 acres, much less than the 10 acres that is considered rural.

Over a year ago, the GMHB stated that "Petitioners Mudd and Smith[Jim and Joanne]/Ellis [Fred Ellis, Jr.] have failed in their burden of proof to demonstrate that no UGA could be established at either Eastsound or Lopez Village because the areas were not "characterized by urban growth." 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 record shows that by adopting appropriate UGAs at these locations the County …would also have a fighting chance of solving its severe affordable housing problems and achieving compliance with the rural element goals of requirements of the Act." (May 7, 2001 Compliance Order of the Growth Management hearing Board)

We would all like to pull up the ladder and not let anyone else come to the islands, except for our friends, our retiring parents or grown kids and grandkids, or maybe our favorite friends from where we lived before. It all adds up. The fact is, I can't pull up the ladder even if I wanted. We aren't shooting people as they come off the ferry, and we haven't stopped selling land. Growth is happening and will happen, and the GMA requires that we plan for it. I think it is a good idea to manage this growth, rather than stick our heads in the sand and wish it away.

I understand the need to grieve change. Imagine the people living here 35 years ago, and what they see today. Notice how many Lopezians have come since 1990! Change is hard. The advantage that we have today over 35 years ago is that we now have planning tools in place. Thirty-five years ago they had no planning tools.

In the last ten years Lopez grew 40%. No matter where people live, unless people stop having babies and no one else is allowed off the ferries or allowed to sell one more parcel of land, our island population will continue to grow. Under GMA we are required to account for 20 years of growth on Lopez. Our current population is @ 2400. The 20 year population projection for Lopez is 3363. In the last ten years we have doubled the size of the library, doubled the size of the clinic, doubled the number of church buildings, doubled the size of the Bay Café, built a community center, built a children's center, built a community garden/park/farmers' market, and have even paid for it ourselves. If the projected population of Lopez Island is 55% larger by 2020, an appreciable growth in commercial facilities will be required to serve the entire island. Even if all the growth goes into rural Lopez, these people will still need to be serviced by Lopez Village.

The GMA also requires that we make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. (RCW 36.70A.070) Another way of looking at the affordable-housing portion of projected growth is to consider income distributions. The group whose income is very low, up to $26,950 for a family of four can afford a home costing up to $80,850. The $26,950 is the income of two minimum wage workers in one household. The next category has a family income of $26,951 to $43,100. They can afford a home costing up to $129,300. This wage includes many county employees and school teachers with one full income and a part-time income from the other partner. A moderate income family earns $43,101 to $51, 200. They can afford a home costing up to $153,000. The median price for homes sold in SJC in 2002 was approximately $290,000. Even middle-income households can qualify for homes costing only up to $194,021.

Based on the new census figures and assuming a 2.2 per cent annual growth rate, and using SJ County's present income distributions, of the new growth expected for Lopez Island by 2020, 260 residents will be very low income, 190 will be low income, and 109 will be moderate income. Lopez might need as many as 257 affordable housing units by 2020, or with an occupancy rate of four persons per dwelling, 140 affordable housing units will be required. The higher figure is more realistic, however.

In any case, according to the census, households of very low up to moderate income presently make up 47 percent of the population of SJC. Practically all of the working people of the county fall in this range. Most of these wage earners arrived here when housing costs were reasonable. When they retire, who will replace them? The paramedic, the gravel-truck driver, the electrician, the teacher, the nurse-the list goes on. Consider that most of those who currently serve the community now could not afford to move here at today's prices for housing.

If the working people no longer live on the island and commute from Anacortes, the commitment of these people to caring for the island community will be severely eroded. These people would no longer be a part of the evening gatherings. Children would mostly disappear from the island. Crime would likely escalate, since people have no relationship to the community, and thus no commitment to or care for the community. These people would not be available for emergencies, or be able to volunteer in community efforts, including a volunteer fire department and EMT's. The health of the community overall would decline. Lopez would become essentially a "gated community" of primarily retired people and very wealthy part-time residents.

In 1989 we tried to cluster 8 houses on 40 acres (leaving 38 acres in open space) of rural land for affordable housing on Lopez. One person literally had her life threatened, and the racist comment was made, "Why don't you go to Seattle where the real Negroes live?" Moreover, people commented that 8 homes on 40 acres was like providing poor people with estates. These attitudes and other NIMBY reactions still prevail. The attempt by the GMA to protect rural lands has been construed by some to mean establishing "ghetto housing." There are very strong emotions in the community around this issue.

The facts show that since local citizens have finally received secure and stable housing in the village, 5 new businesses have been spawned in the Village-a fitness center, a take-out restaurant, a gallery, a massage business, and a coffee shop. A county employee, a bakery employee, janitor, carpenter, an elder caregiver, a preschool employee, the museum curator, can stay on Lopez. In order to preserve a healthy community, we need to allow for affordable commercial and residential development.

A heretofore largely neglected consideration with regard to housing is the need for assisted living and other forms of elder-care housing/facilities. This fall a woman in her 80's gave money for a feasibility study to help establish an elder village for seniors downsizing their homes in their later years, wishing to be closer to the clinic, grocery store, etc. This woman moved here in 1945 and cleared land with a chainsaw weighing 75 pounds. Based on the 2000 census figures, the population of Lopez Island that is 65 or older is around 650. Many of these persons do not want to move away to get the kinds of facilities they will need in their later years.

Moreover, they will continue to increase in numbers as more retired people settle on the island and as longevity increases. If 33 % of the population is 65 or older in 2020, their numbers ill swell to over 1,100. Some portion of these will need assisted-living or small, affordable private housing near medical facilities and shopping.

If we do not provide incentives for living in the Village, the pressure will mount on the commercial area at the school and at Islandale, neither option protecting rural Lopez Island. Moreover, the pressure to build-out in the rural areas will continue to mount.

The remaining issue before us regarding Lopez Village and the GMA is infrastructure, specifically, water and sewer infrastructure. There is not enough groundwater on any of the islands for any of the buildout, and yet we are not shutting down Eastsound, and we are still issuing building permits. The wealthy will always get water, whether by desalination, hauling, or whatever, but those of limited income will be left literally high and dry unless we look to alternatives. There will always be enough water if we are willing to capture it, if we are willing to conserve, and if we are willing to coordinate through water associations that share infrastructure costs. For the sake of the environment, we don't want competing wells or competing water systems within the same aquifer, or within Lopez Village. Currently, the Fisherman Bay Water Association and the existing Group B systems in a proposed smaller UGA for Lopez Village meet 84% of the projected density without further approvals or water right negotiations. The County just gave Fisherman Bay Sewer a quarter of a million pass through dollars to improve the BOD levels in their system. Cooperation on the level of water and sewer is not only essential to the environment, but essential for growth management.

Twenty years from now, I still want to love Lopez Village. I still want to be living in it. I want it to have children playing in the park and at the Children's Center. I want to see kids at the Skateboard Park. I want to see farmers at the Farmer's Market. I want to meet seniors on the pathways through the village, shopping at the grocery store, or going to the Post Office from their own cottages. At night, I want to know that there are people in apartments above their businesses sharing a meal with their guests, or getting ready to walk to the library. I want to still meet other young families at contra dances at the community center, and I want to know that there are still going to be volunteer EMT's responding to emergencies, and that schoolteachers will still be living in the community. I want to live in a healthy, sustainable community. And I just don't want it for me. I want it for all of us.

I want a 20 year plan for affordable and moderate income housing. I want a 20 year plan that includes senior housing in the village. I want a 20 year plan that protects our water resources. I have two tools from which to choose. I need comprehensive data from our planners, from engineers, and feedback from the spectrum of our community. I won't settle for less, and neither should you. This is your community, and I would hope that together we would pass this great community intact on to those here 20 years from now.

SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008

news @sanjuanislander.com

ABOUT US | ADVERTISING INFO | CONTACT INFORMATION |