Why, after the six years of meetings, study, discussion and compromise that led to our new San Juan County Comprehensive Plan, are a few individuals still challenging this Plan?

In the beginning, the State Legislature found that "uncoordinated growth and a lack of common goals expressing the public’s interest pose a threat to the environment and the high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of this state" and that "communities shall cooperate and coordinate in comprehensive land use planning". To that end, the legislature adopted some 13 mandatory goals to guide those plans including:

1. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided.
2. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development.
3. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all segments of the population.

There are more but these are the goals at issue today. These goals sound reasonable enough but actually implementing them is a very serious undertaking.

Historically, local planning could adopt or reject any goals it chose. That has changed. The GMA Hearings Board has held that "The Act describes a legislatively preferred future for our state, just as the subsequent sections of the Act mandate that communities manage growth in a new way"…….."The Act prohibits local prerogatives, whether expressed in policy documents or regulations, from thwarting the legitimate regional and state interests"…."Therefore, when compared to the past, the change that the GMA will sometimes require in local plans and development regulations is nothing less than transformational".

The substance of the petitions is that the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan does not meet the fundamental requirements of the Act. Can anyone imagine that the requirements of this Act can be achieved without even considering the previous allowable residential densities?

The Act requires communities to encourage development in urban areas or activity centers but nothing of the sort has been done in San Juan County.

The Act requires communities to estimate future growth and indicate where that growth will occur, allocating between rural and urban areas. That has not been done. The Plan does project an additional 3,600 permanent dwelling units and an additional 4,300 summer visitor dwelling units will be required by 2015. There is no evidence of any encouragement to locate any part of this growth in activity centers yet that is the point of the Act.

Perhaps San Juan County is special. Perhaps San Juan County is all rural and all our growth should be rural. Perhaps we have plenty of room to grow into and there really is no problem. Perhaps, but that is not what the law requires or the Plan states. It has been noted before that the basic structure of our economy is one of exploiting the attraction of a non-renewable resource, that is, the beauty and isolation of the natural environment. The key issue remains how to exploit that resource without destroying it.

With respect to affordable housing, we have a needs assessment that confirms what everyone knows, that affordable housing is scarce and getting scarcer. The GMA requires local government to "…make adequate provision for all present and projected economic segments of the population".

The Housing Element of the Plan, far from making "adequate provision for all economic segments of the population" is simply fluff. Affordable housing is a real and difficult problem that, notwithstanding the requirements of the Act, the planning process simply did not seriously consider. The point of one petition is to get serious about affordable housing now, not maybe, sometime in the next four years.

A chief difficulty with our recent planning process was that while a great deal of time was spent negotiating the details, it failed to confront the fundamental issues. Faced with the facts and a vision on one hand and numbers and realities inconsistent with that vision, we have chosen to think about that tomorrow. The Act, however, "determines that planning and plan implementation actions should address difficult issues that have resisted resolution in the past."

The petition process deserves comment. Communities are required to prepare GMA plans in accordance with legislative requirements. Before adoption, Plans are reviewed and commented upon by the State Dept of Community, Trade and Economic Development. The State does not have any approval or disapproval over local Plans. Once adopted, these plans are briefly subject to appeal by petition by individuals. If there is no petition, the Plan is deemed in compliance with the law. Among the issues presently before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board are:

1. Does the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan fail to comply with the growth Management Act, specifically the requirements to encourage development in urban areas and designate urban growth areas?
2. Does the San Juan County comprehensive Plan reduce the conversion of rural land into sprawling, low density development?
3. Does the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Development Regulations fail to comply with the affordable housing provisions of the GMA?

These and others are the questions that were argued June 15 before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

John M. Campbell,……………6-17-99