GIPAC Written Survey Comments

Download the GIPAC Survey Results [PDF format]

General Comments

7: Looking back over my more than forty years of association with Guemes Island I have fit into each of the survey’s resident categories at one time or another (Q25). Here is what is important to me: minimize the rate of taxation on the property I own, and maximize my right to do what I want to/with/and on my property with the least amount of bureaucratic interference. :

To those individuals who would like to halt all development on the island I would say: raise your money on your own, stay out of my wallet (tax-payer funded) and purchase all the land that is available and set it aside undeveloped “forever”. You pay for our island property now, and all the future costs associated with owning the property, then do with it exactly as you desire. After all that is precisely what I have been doing for decades. (Signed, Thomas Deutsch)

17: I don’t care to pay higher property taxes to be wasted for higher consultation fees for the ridiculous ferry ticket and the blue and red tickets that you need another employee to collect. Do you need a consultant to figure this out? Anybody can do better even you. Now I know why I ‘m voting for Tim Eymans 25% tax cut.

19 Would love to see all beaches public.

20: GIPAC is doing a good job. I thank you. I know it is a lot of work.

23: Would like to see recycle bins on the island.

25: Some of the questions on this survey are a prime example why there are way too many committees on Guemes Island. We would like full time law enforcement on the island. It would detour our wide-range vandalism problem as well as, ticketing and towing. Vehicles would then not be permitted to be left in the ferry line the night before, but would instead have to abide by the same common courtesy rules as the rest of us. If Guemes Island committees would like to gather information through these surveys then they should be responsible for the cost (i.e. envelopes, postage) instead of the county-wide tax payers. We would like to have a later weekday ferry, so that the children can participate in after school activities. Certain groups on this island are denying children their right to participate in the after-school activities.

: Why are the same questions printed on both sides of this survey? Is this so you can simply fill in the answers how you want us to? How ethical is this?

34: Would hate to see the ambiance change but recognize the need for increased services, i.e. water and sewer, and inevitability of some development.

40: Last page of survey wasn’t included in packet. Free enterprise and “best and highest use of land should rule ­ don’t need more government interfering with private property ownership.

41 : I am extremely concerned about water on the island ­ especially with regard to a new well on North Beach with the potential of destroying existing wells.

43: We have completed this survey even tho we thought that many of the questions + choices were heading. Thank you.

45: We highly approve of the Anderson store, not too happy with large home with mult. baths when we wish to conserve water.

46.: I’d like to see 5-acre minimum in order to build a house and NO tourist encouragement.

54: Thanks, S.H.C.

59: I would like to see more attention paid to the water situation ­ both in quality + quantity ­ this is a huge + growing problem on Guemes (signed G.D. Shannon)

64, 65: Too many trucks and construction equipment plying the roads of Guemes Island and at excessive speeds

74: 1. Leave the ferry schedule alone. 2. Stop deer hunting. 3. Start coyote hunting.

86: How does one improve on paradise???

94: Please help to keep to country lifestyle alive and well on the island. It would be sad to see one of the last Western Washington rural lands go the way of the rich people’s development.

134: The only persons who should vote on anything on Guemes Is. Should own property

161: Dear GIPAC Thanks for your hard work. It is much appreciated.

167: In general, a very well designed survey! Please note my comments for future surveys. We need a bigger ferry boat but keep the SAME SCHEDULE!! We need to triple run the 6:30 thru 8:30 AM boats M->Friday to better accommodate people commuting to work (i.e. continuous run rather than waiting for the hour) Hope that makes sense.

171: I would like to see much greater opportunities on Guemes for exploring/developing co-housing community(s) (eco-villages, community garden, vehicle-sharing, tool-sharing) etc…ideas that take the residential cluster element to a new, more supportive sustainable level. Resources Co-housing Network ( HYPERLINK “http://www.cohousing.org” www.cohousing.org) and Ecovillage Network of the Americas (ena.ecovillage.org) I would be interested in helping explore this ­ Lea 299-8551

176: As societies’ needs change, rules should change. We can’t predict the future too well.. Sunset clause on development rules needed.

183: Growth/development on this small island causes diverse and difficult impacts (adverse) on many levels. I feel that environmental impact statements must be part of every application for new buildings of any kind. How many cement, lumber, asphalt, gravel, etc. trucks will travel on the ferry? How much water will be consumed? How many extra vehicles, etc.? Any issues warranting/inviting public Comment need to be advertised in large print on sandwich boards by the ferry (such as for the recent name change of Paradise Lane to South Beach Lane) not posted in small type up high where the notice cannot be seen or read in depth.

199: In general, a very slanted survey. There will be much flack over this ­ for those of us that lean toward environment-sensitive issues ­ it’s fine. The rest of Guemes that don’t have our views will protest. Sorry I did not respond to original rough draft.

210: Owner’s son, trustor, says “greed and insensitive growth has reduced the quality of life to the extreme in a place once tranquil and beautiful Orange Cnty, CA”. Watch for developer’s “shills” and their supported candidates/reps.

217: I would like to see a small marina for Guemes Island (only for property owners). This will produce good income & give property owners more flex to main land

228: Having a postage-paid return envelope would have been a welcomed courtesy

234: We need white lines in the middle of our roads in the Holiday area. I’ve never understood why they stop at the big intersection of So. Shore Rd and Holiday, upper and lower.

259: We need fewer “junk yards” on this island. I would define a junk yard as more than two unregistered inoperable vehicles per lot or more than three boats that are nor seaworthy. All homes (places inhabited by humans) should have minimal sanitation facilities (no outhouse, no gray water run-off etc.). Grazing cattle fine now, but shouldn’t be increased.

263: Nightly ferries PLEASE!


270: The manner in which many of the above questions have been “loaded” to create a “desired” expression of opinion is quite obvious. If this questionnaire was prepared and approved by all of the current GIPAC members, it serves to expose a collective attitude that is neither realistic nor in the best long-range interest of most owners of Guemes Island property. If the expressed attitudes and recommendations of GIPAC serve to sacrifice individual property owners’ rights and, instead, support social-engineering development “fads”, both ownership satisfaction and individual property value appreciation will suffer greatly.


A good starting point for constructive GIPAC deliberation would be consideration of the following:

1. True “Rural Character” has already given way to a suburban atmosphere. Further efforts to reverse this change, though admirable, are destined to fail.

2. Guemes Island will eventually be annexed to Anacortes. Little interest has been expressed in establishing a separate political entity. Community “clubs” and citizen advisory committees often fail to adequately and impartially communicate the needs and opinions of the citizens they claim to represent. Frequently, these groups are manipulated by elected officials and their staff members and serve to insulate the responsible elected officials from their constituents.

3. The present quality of Guemes Island infrastructure ranges from poor to non-existant. We pay for much better than we receive. Planning will have to recognize the fact that “rural character” may be synonymous with a failed water supply, slow emergency response times or poorly constructed streets and roads, for example.

4. Guemes Island is a very nice place to live. Many others will become aware of this fact and they will come to join us. Or, if you prefer, YOU CAN’T STOP DEVELOPMENT!!! You can guide it carefully and do so without interfering with individual development rights. Set your sights n MERCER ISLAND, not on ALCATRAZ.


276: Would like both (1) earlier and later ferry service 7 days a week or (2) public docks on Guemes and Anacortes to facilitate personal/individual transportation. I’d prefer # 2.

279: Thank you!

291: Committees can become a “hammer looking for a nail that needs pounding”. The GIPAC needs to be careful not to interfere with property owners rights or to start mandating too much of island way of life. Diversity is important, along with freedom to enjoy Guemes according to style. That may include reclusive lifestyles or community involvement. We use the island as a retreat so privacy and quiet are important to us.

296: This questionnaire is the camel’s nose under the tent; and you poor dupes on the advisory committee are the camel herders, you go into the process thinking you are going to manage growth and in the end you will try and cram it down our throats. Signed……..

299: Ferry + ferry schedule: when people move onto Guemes, they know the ferry has a schedule + that schedule provides Guemes property owners ample flexibility ­ it’s a conscious decision we all made + it (current schedule) fits us well ­ we don’t need new folks telling us it needs to change!

315: Keep up the good work!

320: Thank you to all who put this together! It is a very smart idea and I hope it makes a huge difference in our island community. We believe this whole island is sacred space and should be treated in that love and respect. Thank you again, Jessica Snelson and Aaron Peterson.

322: A change in ferry schedule to add scheduled run after 6 pm Mon to Thurs. should not be considered until the sub-area planning for Guemes is approved. The county should support GIPAC funding need in accordance with the GMA.

327: Thanks for doing this survey!

332: GIPAC would be well advised to read and study the WA Growth Management Act + Skagit County Planning Elements. Then perhaps your survey might include questions of real imports, v.s. roadside shrubbery (2©).

333: Where are the questions on Sewer? The water questions are inadequate. This survey is clearly aimed at “Social Engineering” not “Land Use Planning.” Many of the questions have nothing to do with the WA GMA. Many are illegal for the government to ask. This survey is also not scientific or a valid reflection of issues of land use planning.

337: Questions related to taxes/development need some further info in order to make good call on answers. General comment: property owners and not renters should decide any and all issues on planning on Guemes!!

341: I find your survey extremely biased and your motivation dubious at best. Suggestion: If something is working, don’t fix it! Let an island be an island. Leave the city mentality in the city! Guemes Island only has two “glaring” problems: (1) water and (2) transportation. Think about it!

365: The single most important element for the future is preserving a good water supply from limited aquifers. No commercial or large-scale development should be allowed to exhaust the limited resource. We may already be near the limit for water wells, and county should carefully consider water limits in issuing new permits. See question 3, 6 (d) and 16.

387: Thanks, GIPAC, for all your hard work and this excellently designed survey, J.H.

392: As a general comment: Guemes is a great place + should be maintained in its present state to the greatest extent possible.

393: Non-(summer)-resident owners pay the same rate of real estate property taxes, supporting Skagit County and the ferry, as full-time residents. The car tickets should be valid for 6 months, or 1 year. The store is a good asset of the Island + it saves a lot of ferry crossings.

399: Please improve the posting of public shoreline access that folks can use + include all accesses on island ­ many are not known + not used ­ some are blocked.

400: Present ferry system would be inadequate to support any great population increase.

401: We came to Guemes Island because of its bedroom type of living and fear that a population- increase or more commercial development would detract from this living style.

405: What are the “real” questions? Who chose this approach? Your questions are irrelevant, insulting and totally worded towards non-answers. This was a poor questionnaire and a waste of money and time. It does reflect the “new” mental attitude towards Guemes Society, however.

406: Great idea ­good survey ­ would like to see a more diverse group in the GIPAC committee ­ more youth, more laughter and joy of feeling things are moving to the right directions.

419: I believe one of the most important issues related to further development and density is the availability of water. The first question is how much water is available and of what quality. Given that there is already salt water intrusion on several locations further demands on water significantly impacts both long-term and new residents.

441: Please preserve the uniqueness of Guemes. Developments, like the one by Anderson’s store, are really out of character on the island. Those people, who have chosen to live on Guemes year-round should have the biggest say; they have adapted their lifestyle to the island, not the other way around. We love beautiful Guemes Island just the way it is!

442: It seems to me that Skagit County cares little about what happens on Guemes Isl. Egregious examples of dubious permitting are continually noticed by me and others. When one makes an effort to follow “the rules”, it is very frustrating to see others get by with very selfish activities. Oh well, it won’t be too many years before some of these properties will be washed into the sea!

453: 1. Commercial development of any type should be environmentally friendly and benefit Guemes.

: 2. A position of island “Mayor” or official to coordinate island activities with county + other outside entities might be helpful. This would be a person one could bring ideas to, to be disseminated.

: 3. An island-wide site for exchange of articles for trade or sale or free.

471,472: We (my wife and I) believe “sustainable development” is not an oxymoron and are in favor of a sub-area plan that promotes this concept. We would encourage Skagit County to adopt policies that support the rural character and diverse population of Guemes Island. We would also encourage County officials to directly inform island property owners of new policies affecting them. Members of GIPAC have developed a thoughtful survey ­ everybody’s ox gets gored a little ­ and we expect those individuals writing the sub-area plan to study the comments generated by this survey.

465: I would like the development plan to prevent residential rental property from turning into commercial rental property such as “Agate Cove” at 5944 W. Shore Rd (see attached). During the summer months there will be as many as a dozen vehicles, boats, trailers, jet skies etc. and 20-30 people at this property. The noise, litter, beach fires (during burn bans) and illegal fireworks is unacceptable and sanitation provided is very inadequate.

I believe growth and development should be very slow and limited. I especially do not want to see bicycle trails, foot-paths, more commerce, etc., that will attract tourists and day-trippers. I do not want the quiet rural environment altered or the traffic increased. Guemes functions best as a serene community, geared to those families that have chosen this quiet place to raise their children or retire to. I would like to see Guemes Island remain as it is for as long as possible.

-: As a non-resident land owner, I do not know how to vote, signed ……..



Specific comments


Island Attributes

1 ©: 463,464 current level of safety is fine

1 (e): 191: rural/individual

1(f) : 42: What law enforcement

1 (f): 333: Poor question ­ we need “better” law enforcement [see 5 (d)]

1 (f): 360: On island on-call law enforcement/authority desirable.

1 (f): 507, 508 (0) Confusing, can’t answer.

1 (f): 403: (very) Current level of law enforcement is NOT adequate

1 (f): 459: Do not desire a greater law enforcement level than currently exists.

1 (f): 360: (not at all) On island on-call law enforcement/authority desirable.

1 (f): 464: Law enforcement fine as it is.

1 (g): 464: Appears to have hidden agenda in this question.

1 (h): 404: not clear on what you mean by “investment opportunity”.

1 (h): 462: I’m not sure what you mean about “investment opportunity” ­ investing in community or ….?

1,2,3 : 35, 36: List ALL the reasons we retired here.

1 135: I appreciate the store added in recent years

1 135 The Community Church is an important part of Island life


2 © : 126: high bushes, weeds, trees hide deer inclined to leap out on roadway when cars pass.

2 (d) 173: Encourage the construction/expansion of more water retention ponds on island

2 (e) : 191: State property

2 (g): 175: Too many deer + coyotes

2 (g): 415: (Somewhat) Need to implement better control for coyotes, deer and raccoons

2 (i) : 112 : Shorelines only open to property owners.

2 (i) : 236: All public beach access should be marked and cleared. At least 2 N. Beach access sites are so overgrown that access is impossible.

2,3: 424: #s 2 and 3: I feel that “junk” collectors should be more strictly dealt with to retain the rural beauty of Guemes


3 (a): 191: County code?

3 (b) : 56: Many questions written very poorly ­ for example 3(b); if you want more, the same, or fewer commercial enterprises, how are you supposed to answer?

3 (b): 257: No more commercial enterprises! They should stay in Anacortes.

3 (b): 299: No more commercial/business zoning for development

3 (b): 387: I mean I don’t want more “Commercial Development”

3 (b): 459: (very) No further commercial enterprises except cottage industries (i.e., art studios)

3 (b): 464: scale of commercial enterprises is perfect the way it is. Cottage industry or art studios would be fine. But no additional commercial buildings (the store + the resort are okay)

3 (b): 493: (very important) This question is confusing. It is very important that Guemes Island maintains its rural character; i.e., commercial ventures should be appropriate; i.e., no commercial retail development but a small restaurant, agricultural-based industry + cottage industry.

3 (g): 154: We watch the refinery belch out pollution at night and worry what we are all ingesting.

3 (g): 191: Refineries?

3 (g): 378: It is important, but refinery pollutes

3 (h): 459: (very) No public water systems.

3 (h): 464: No public water system

3 (i): 459: (very) No territorial lighting or street lighting except at ferry landing

3 : 77: Items circled VERY VERY IMPORTANT ASPECTS

3 : 112: keep this private island rustic

3: 257: I would also include “No more noise pollution”

3: 331: Why are these questions being asked? Is this committee going to do more than Skagit County requirements?

3: 457,458 Water quality /seawater intrusion important to me and we need to work on area-wide solution ­ and soon.


Growth and Development

4 35, 36: TYPE of development is the issue. “Gentrification” of island ­ rising property taxes, large suburban homes drive up prop. values, requiring more “suburban” services + rising taxes would drive us + others of moderate retirement means off Guemes (see # 6 and # 34):

4: 327: The main problem that I experience with respect to recent development is neighbors whose land use is not conforming to residential zoning restrictions.

4: 331: What are you going to do ­ limit development?

4: 462: I don’t really like the repercussions of development i.e.: urban sprawl syndrome, ridiculous ferry policies and procedures.

4: 459: Less is best.

4: 464: I was originally opposed to the commercial dev’t at the ferry landing. However, the Andersons have done such a fine job on the store that I believe they’ve enhanced the living quality on Guemes. That being said, I seriously doubt that any other commercial development could live up to that standard. On a case by case basis, I might agree to more commercial development. But it would have to be in keeping within the rustic and rural character of the island.


5 : 112: Go online for info.

5 (b): 306: Roads widened for bike lane or pedestrians would be good

5 (d): 323: We need law enforcement on this island ­ most important issue of all !!!

5 (e) : 41: Do not have data on need

5 (e): 191: Not enough people to fund

5 (f): 191: Up to property owner

5 (f): 387: Only for seniors already living on Guemes.

5 (f): 404: Private in-home care or large facility?

5 (f): 462: (undesirable) Good to be able to live and learn from elders but not in nusing homes. Small scale.

5 (f): 464: Okay only as cottage industry or shared housing. Not okay as a formal commercial apartment-style living.

5 (h): 467: (neutral) some

5 (h): 464: Allow existing lot owners to build. No more sub-divisions. Okay for owners of 5-10 acres to build suitable dwellings (one or two per parcel)

5 (h,I): 191: Already restricted as population increases, need can increase

5 (h,I): 275: Would depend on what and where

5 (j) : 41: Anacortes library is excellent

5 (j): 191: Need county-wide system.

5 (j): 192: County should set up library system; join SNO-ISLE library system.

5 (j): 236: Paying taxes to support Library District is a must for responsible citizens.

5 (j): 415: Volunteer library plus Anacortes library is more than adequate.

5 : 77: Items circled VERY VERY undesirable

5: 331: These are biased questions

5: 459: Owner-occupied builders only. No subdivisions below current (or 10-acre rule of county)

6 : 51: Why were economic issues (property tax, ferry cost, water, etc.) not included?

6 (i): 467: need later ferry at least 8 pm Mo-Thu.

6 (k): 333: (Length of commute time to Anacortes) already too long

6 (l) : 41: Noisy neighbors/quality of living

6 (l) 111: Too much noise

6(f,g,h,j,) 77: VERY VERY significant to me

6 (l): 182: Reduced access to beaches, trails, and roadside berry vines

6 (l): 357: We have a “over-full” ferry now ­ since the ferry does not expand then no growth should take place and we should not be taxed in “any way” for more services.

6 (l): 366: Too much commercial development.

6 (l): 464: I am opposed to greatly increased population on Guemes. We already have some people here that don’t fit in well with the close-knit community character. These are people that drive too fast, don’t seem neighborly or interested in community; build big, fancy houses that stick out like sore thumbs; and generally do not participate as community members. They are the modern affluent element who treat Guemes as a bedroom in suburbia. Guemes is not a suburb of Seattle.

6 (l) : 470: Nothing would lead me to move away from Guemes Island.

6 (l): 487: The ferry should not be used as a growth management tool. I pay taxes to support the roads and the ferry should have a longer schedule during the week. If you want growth management, write stricter development laws and codes. I “do not” believe a longer (Mon-Thur) schedule will cause a negative impact on the island. At the least, what about a 1 year trial period?

6 (l): 459: Extended ferry hours would be undesirable and would destroy the unique character of Guemes (it would create a bedroom community to Bellingham, Everett, and Seattle).

6: 187: We have owned property on Guemes since 1990 but only visit as much as we can. Hope to build when we can.

6: 213: It would take a combination of reasons for me to want to move away from Guemes. I don’t think one specific thing would make me move away. I really love living on Guemes Island.

6: 250: Move because of high taxes

6: 275: Also depends on how much development + what kind. I could see us moving away if development really deteriorated quality of life.

6 : 337: High taxes

6: 396: There is, of course, a point at which a conglomeration of factors could make the island intolerable, but its hard to imagine.

6: 448: Beach degradation; septic problems; no salt water intrusion policy or water protection; no designated recharge areas



7,8 : 101: In a future questionnaire or “Evening Star” it might be enlightening to ask prime reason why people moved to Guemes and/or why they purchased property.

7: 201: I treasure the rural environment on Guemes but oppose GIPAC and any attempts to impose restrictions and regulations on property owners by those who would impose their views on others. Property owners do preserve land without regulation.

7: 404: Who decides what the “developments rights” are?

7: 433: One cannot expect to restrict or remove one’s right to develop their own land (according to applicable development rights at time of (purchase)

7: 459: Let multi-unit developers do their deed elsewhere. There is lots of land available in the state but a very limited amount of island space.

7: 462: What sort of development are we giving rights to? I think the most important thing is that we keep balance with natural cycles ­ anything out of balance shouldn’t be allowed.

7: 463: This question needs more definition between development rights and preservation.

8 : 56: Too many questions are loaded so everyone will answer them the same way (such as question 8) This wastes time and doesn’t tell you anything you didn’t already know.

8 : 76: Concerned about lack of water and conservation of water.

8 : 148: Increase in growth rate will ultimately result in the need for paid, full-time fire protection, law enforcement, public water system, etc.) see item 6 for additional detail also.

8 : 159: I don’t consider data for growth 1990-2000 is correctly describing “current” growth rates. Suspect it is > 20% in 2000-2004.

8: 201: 2% annual growth rate is much less than the state and western Washington in particular and is not bad.

8: 260: Question 8 seems to imply a growth rate of full time residents only. I believe “weekenders” and part-time growth should be considered when determining growth agendas. I believe your 2 % growth rate is understated, if you include the above-mentioned population. Therefore, the growth rate should be less.



9 : 168: Larger ferry boat but keep same schedule!!! It is clear that during peak-season boat cannot handle higher demands on island!!! Especially dangerous as cars are parking on road close to c.c. to wait for ferry. Waiting for an accident to happen.

9 (a): 366,367 (more) organic farming

9 (a): 404: (more) if it’s organic sustainable (farming).

9 (a): 462: (more) If it is organic and sustainable/not chemically dependent; we should be able to provide ourselves with all the fresh organic produce we need.

9 © : 75: I would like to see an end to commercial crab fishing on the North Shore of

G.I. and no “parking” of oil tankers in non-industrial areas,:

9 ©: 191: ? meaning.

9 ©: 375: Define aquaculture ­ fishfarm?= “NO”

9 (d,e): 464: low impact business only, nothing industrial.

9 (e): 462: (more) Maybe 1 more.

9 (f) : 18: Same but better quality boat launches :

9 (f) : 19: More and better boat launches

9 (f) : 47 : Boat launch most important

9 (f): 275: We really need a good public boat launch with parking year around + also a public dock.

9 (f): 276: public boat launch with trailer parking ­ year around.

9 (f): 330: More boat launch access. Boat launch on public access on West Beach on all road ends. There are several road ends that would make fabulous boat launches! County Comprehensive Plan states that beach access is priority (see #9 concerning “increasing access to natural resource lands and WATER).

9 (f): 447: Improved boat launch

9(f): 459: Better maintenance of current boat ramp. If possible, move to more sheltered area.

9 (f): 464: The existing boat launch at the ferry landing is dangerous because of strong current and difficult to maintain because of shoreline sand drift. I am opposed to any actions that would interfere with the natural movement of sand + tide because it always results in degradation of the remaining beach. The only other boat launches that I am aware of are private (the resort) and the road into it is steep and difficult to manage with anything but a small boat (under 18’). I would like to see a public access boat launch (not North Beach) on another area of island. The difficulty is that a boat launch requires a large parking lot to be available to handle the vehicle+ trailer parked all day or overnight and I think that would be undesirable and an eyesore. I don’t know of any way to reconcile these opposing forces, but it might be possible.

9(f,h) : 35, 36: Hopefully would encourage less ferry use, along with ferry rates and #22+5I

9 (f): 473: (more) Not more boat launches but improving the N & S, w/adequate (well-marked) trailer parking.

9 (g) : 61: Wind o.k. less of cell + utility

9 (g) 141: Wind towers okay

9 (g): 177: Cell towers, Utility towers “No!” These should be listed separate . Wind Turbine Towers borrow the breezes; Utility towers pollute our views.

9 (g): 248: More wind towers, less utility cell towers

9 (g): 249: Bad question ­wind towers are good; utility and cell towers undesirable

9 (g): 251: “more”, excepting cell towers ­ we do not need more microwave pollution.

9 (g): 252: less cell, more wind

9 (g): 277: more wind towers less cell + utility towers

9 (g): 306: Wind generators would be o.k. ­ not more commercial towers.

9 (g) : 320: More wind, tidal, solar ­ self-sustaining energy.

9 (g): 327: More wind towers, no cell towers

9 (g): 341: # 9 (g) is a biased question.

9 (g): 374: Wind towers ­ more. They’re just fine; less cell towers.

9 (g): 375: Wind towers are o.k.

9 (g): 396: Wind only.

9 (g): 411: (Same) I would support more wind towers, but not necessarily more utility or cell towers

9 (g): 433: There must be some restriction on wind towers, same as cell towers

9 (g): 447: Improved wind and solar.

9 (g): 448: (more) wind and solar only.

9 (g): 451: Wind towers o.k.

9 (g): 459: More wind towers okay.

9 (g): 464: More wind towers okay for private use.

9 (h) 151 Amount of (ferry) parking not an issue, but amount of junk cars is.

9 (h) 152: Assuming proposed ferry parking not included.

9 (h): 473: Need to encourage walk-ons; need more parking=current ferry lasts longer w/population.

9 (h): 462: (same) Not impervious surfaces

9 (I,j,k) 192: Can consider increase as population increases

9 (k): 336: Less bicycle + other off-island tourists

9(l) : 94: More dance-kid-friendly at Hall. Plus more readings, art shows, art lessons, and more exercise classes!

9 (l): 404: Don’t know of any now.

9 (m): 404: What senior day care is available now?

9 (l,m) 101: Can’t rate

9 (n) 130: preservation/restoration of native areas

9 (n) 162: less political signs posted in yards, an ordinance to restrict size and length of posting.

9 (n) 174: Protected moorage here plus a dock for small craft on the Anacortes side.

9 (n): 306: More community gatherings/potlucks

9 (n): 320: More of all organic farming and agriculture

9 (n): 337: Daytime adult classes

9 (n): 361: A useful, part-time cottage industry would be reasonably priced regular hair cutting/salon services on island. The older women (in fact, most women) like to look nice anytime and can have problems getting to town. At this time, $15.00 is the usual price at the retirement + residences in town. A thought, perhaps, but one to be considered seriously. CAVEAT> things accomplished from need as desire that enhance your own spaces, often in spite of resource limitations: are inadvertently inevitably inviting and attractive. I.e., sweet little library, the equipped parks, the beach walks. Be careful what is asked for the prices can be high in many ways. But when do we pay attention? This is the time.

9(n): 363: Hardware store

9 (n): 410: (Same) Existing launch ramp should be improved to facilitate recreational boating and alternate vehicle removal in ferry emergencies.

9 (n): 447: more monitoring of fresh water use

9 (n) : 467: (more) Pharmacy ­ urgent care- pub or diner.

9 (n): 477: Public load/unload float maintained by county and better designed, built, and maintained launch ramp.

9 (n): 493: (more) Winery (vineyards), brewery, art gallery + art shows, alternative energy, “green” friendly ventures

9 : 159: Would like to see more progressive infrastructure ­ underground power lines, high-speed cable available everywhere.

9: 213: I think things should stay the same on Guemes for the most part. I’m not sure if we need more youth programs or senior daycare. I don’t have kids and I am not a senior. I would like a bed & breakfast to choose from so relatives of islanders have more options besides the resort which, I think, is over-priced.

9: 275: I would support a marina/restaurant/small inn

9: 290: People trying to run my goddamn life!!

9: 331: Less intervention fro Guemes Island Committees; I would like to see more access to the shoreline, develop all road ends to the shoreline. I would rather have Guemes do what the county allows + encourage people to live up to the growth management standards rather than dictate what people do on their own property.

9: 447: More monitoring of fresh water use.

9: 448: More rain water collection and more monitoring of clam + crab harvest.

10 (a): 320: Less lawns, more native vegetation

10 (a,b,f,g) 191 NO, NO, NO, NO:

10 (d,f,g) 433: Already done by county

10 (f): 403: Instead, limit the # of dwellings to be built on a min of 5 to 10 acre parcel of land w/no expansion of “lots” permitted for building.

10 (f): 404: 1 huge Walmart on 10 acres ­NO-; 3 bungalows /cottages on 10 acres-YES-

10 (f): 462: (yes) Depends on situation.

10 (g): 457,458 I am concerned that increased restrictions and setback requirements may make some of the existing small lots unusable- thus resulting in a “taking of property”.

10 (g): 462: Well, yes along shoreline, but who defines sensitive areas?

10 : 159: Limit residence size to 3500 or 4000 ft.:

10: 201: Property owners should be allowed to improve/remodel their property without interference.

10: 337: Don’t know present construction restrictions.

10: 374: Variance procedures should be followed.

10: 447: Proof that construction will not degrade environment or neighbor’s resources, such as water.

10: 459: No public projects or multi-family housing. No development of spec. homes (owner occupied only)

10: 467: Except to improve views.

11 : 26: Question is unanswerable because there is no statement about what is being stored outdoors. Did you intend cars and/or boats or refrigerators, lumber piles, sewer pipes? Please say so or give us samples of your intend.

11 : 151: What does this mean?

11 : 162: The storage of what??

11: 233: Not clear what you are talking about

11: 266: Do not understand.

11 : 290: People trying to run my goddamn life!!

11: 306: Don’t understand what this refers to.

11: 374: More clarification is needed.

11: 404: Again, who decides?

11: 408: What is current status of outdoor storage? What type of safety hazards?

11: 459: Who determines? Messy yards? Trash? Extra vehicles? As long as owner works toward compliance with county rules, form no harsh timelines or threats offines and liens. (Badly worded question)

11: 462: Unclear question.

11: 464: Lack of information; no definition or examples of health or safety hazard are given. Hidden agenda?

13 101: don’t encourage controversy or another “layer”

13: 204: Keep the County Gov’t away from Guemes. They encourage growth because it brings in more taxes. We do not need more growth nor do we need to pay more taxes. And we don’t need another $360,000 study. ­ Just leave us alone.

13: 403: Who pays the taxes? Just Guemes Islanders?

13: 404: Again, who decides?

13: 459: Not as long as Skagit County rules Guemes. Need to form island incorporated identity. For now only boat launch or other public use approved by ballot, with sunset clause. Boat launch users who live on Guemes should drive their rigs back home and park at home, then come back with car only. That means you need a dock. Suggest sharing with private launch facility but no formal marina.

13: 464: Not unless Guemes is incorporated as an island. No new services from Skagit County Gov’t.

14 : 35, 36: Certainly a land/housing tract developer should not pass infrastructure costs on to existing taxpayers.

14 : 112: New and current full time residents should bear all costs

14 : 167: Poorly worded question ­ how about a “no expansion” alternative?

14: 192: Island-wide H2O system is a political tool used ­ No Need; new roads to new areas ­ a new owner responsibility otherwise tax all.

14 : 257: Developers should bear most of the cost

14: 384: A water line should be run from Anacortes to be shared by all islanders & a PUD should be formed to pay for it.

14: 394: Water charges should be based on usage, which is the nationwide custom. For example, all current residents are using H2O from an aquifer that is not confined beneath the property they own. They are using water from beyond their own property boundaries. The point is, that infrastructure needs are created by existing and new residents. It is unclear in this survey how you are using population growth. Many people reside here less than 10% of the time, obviously, the impact on the environment is greatest by year-round residents. Watering of yards, gardens, car-washing etc. should be prohibited.

14: 404: Tourists should pay ­ we wouldn’t need “updating” except for them

14: 459: If any expansion is permitted at all. No large-scale projects (except boat ramp okay)

14: 462: Limit growth -> no more parking lots, no more impervious surfaces, especially near shorelines.

14: 464: I am not in favor of new infra-structure or services.

14 : 473: Both should share cost but newer people pay proportionally more.

15 : 76: Stop growth until conservation and resource availability issues are resolved. GOOD QUESTIONS!

15 : 77: YES! YES! YES! YES!

15: 459: No new sub-divisions permitted ­ period!

15: 464: I am absolutely opposed to new sub-divisions

15: 467: (A,B) why a moratorium ­ why not an agreed-upon limit.



County Rules for Development

16 : 141: I love the store as it is

16 : 201: Any future commercial activity should be concentrated at the hub of current activity which is the ferry dock.

16 : 306: It might depend on what the commercial venture was.

16: 408: How big is the existing current commercial zoning near the ferry dock?

16: 459: We need to leave the county and not permit county rules that would support development.

16-20: 464: I would like to see Guemes Island become independent of Skagit County, where we contract for whatever services we need. Stop being a cash con for county gov’t!! Forbid all profit-motivated development (e.g., no spec. housing or housing developments and stop division beyond what’s currently been allowed)

16: 467: (A,B) within limits

17 : 133: Support 5-acre developments only. No more building!

17 : 111 As long as it is not a requirement

17: 213: I lean towards clustering houses on smaller lots with open spaces but it’s hard to “favor” neighborhoods on Guemes.

17: 248: Clustering okay but no “bonus” dwellings

17: 249: As long as it doesn’t result in an increase in # of allowed dwellings.

17: 459: Change current law ­ no smaller lots than permitted now. Publicize this so no one buys land with the idea of subdividing so they can live off the proceeds in their retirement. Leaving large tracts of land undeveloped is currently being practiced. Island vote should be required for large-scale changes.

18 : 167: Instead of “conservation easement” you should say “permanently protected” ­ keep the language consistent.

18: 191: Unrealistic ­ must allow for expansion

18: 192: Should not be one way ­ evaluate individually.

18: 333: Don’t favor clustering period.

18: 337: Unclear if land is owned privately or is it state land your talking about?

18: 339: If we get rid of natural woods ­ etc. environment- it would possibly be the end of a beautiful place!

18: 387: “Permanently protected”

18: 459: Conservation easement on private volunteer basis (and educate property owners)

18: 462: It shouldn’t be “one or the other”; the issue is more complex than that..

18: 467: (A,B) combination, depending upon amount of space.

19 : 19: Confusing question: do you mean to buy them away so the land can not be developed, or so it can be developed?

19: 201: Property taxes to purchase development rights is a double whammy: raising property taxes directly and by restricting available land/raising demand.

19: 459: Limit taxable value of property to original purchase price. Let Nature Conservancy or similar groups pay for property. No public spending.

19: 464: Except by non-profit organizations such as Audubon Society, Sierra Club, or Nature Conservancy.

19: 499: (strongly support) Did number 19 mean tax dollars for preservation? Not development? I will guess to preservation.

19,20 : 80: Unclear- is this to purchase development rights so that others can’t use them, then yes, is this for developers, then no.:

19,20: 310: With reference to 19+20 I don’t really understand what “purchasing property rights” means?

20 : 112: question twenty makes no sense?

20: 341: # 20 is a biased question. Why?


Transportation

21 (b) 111: or 30 mph ­ ideally 25 mph on some roads like South Shore Drive + Rd + up at N. Beach.

21(b) 24: There is no law on or off the island of any kind even speed limit signs are poorly placed (25mph)

21 (b): 323: Traffic should be slower and enforced.

21(b) 35, 26: would be unenforceable

21 (b): 387: This limit would be ok if it was enforced ­ lower limit won’t change anything unless it’s enforced.

21 (b): 454: Max. speed limit 30.

21 (f): 239: This will take care of #22.

21 : 47: South Shore Rd is falling away east of ferry dock­ a guard rail could possibly save someone.

21 : 132: Better speed control on roads, especially in built-up areas. Since the county can’t post a deputy, perhaps loan radar cart to a responsible resident. Also, allow residents to place cones in road center to slow traffic.

21 : 133: I support speed bumps! Traffic on N. Beach needs to be slowed!

21 : 141: Add speed bumps (3) between tideflats at North Beach + Gravel Pit

21: 191: Some “roads” are only easements

21: 192: Roads are not dangerous. Drivers are!! Bikers follow rules of the road ­ need responsible drivers.

21: 223: Speeding is out of control ­ need some sort of enforcing even if it is “un-announced” and part time. I suspect the revenue at first would be more than cover the cost.

21: 249: A provision for parking at community center + park events is needed

21: 265: enforce the speed limits on Guemes Island. We don’t believe a speeding ticket has ever been given here. We live in a 25 mph zone where people consistently drive over 40 mph. We understand the Sheriff Dept. is understaffed and no doubt under-funded. The Dept. does a good job with the man power it has but something more has to be done for law enforcement for the island.

21: 372: Make sure all road surfaces are in good order! I am not sure GIPAC has the full support or respect of the majority of Guemes Islanders. Before any policy is dictated or recommended, this issue should be resolved.

22 (f): 473: Would like to see horse-friendly trail if this occurs.

22 : 47: The roads on G.I. are dangerous to pedestrians and bicycle-riders. People drive too fast!

22 : 177: Maybe clever polite “Bike Ped” signal warnings giving right-of-way cautions.

22: 192: Bike-walking path in some areas.

22: 459: Bicycles should face oncoming traffic just like pedestrians. That would improve safety.

22: 462: Bike and pedestrians should have right-of-way & do not require more paved surfaces ­ precisely the reason many people choose car-free transportation.

22: 510: Add shoulders where needed for parking or enforce fence setbacks

23 : 172: You have already wasted enough money trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Why did you waste the money to print on both sides of this paper? As most survey’s, I don’t think you or anybody on the committee really gives a damn what is the outcome as long as the paycheck doesn’t bounce!!!

23: 447: (no) Should be funded by county whose work the committee is doing.

23: 459: (yes) I think we should carry out planning as funding is available. I would not favor tax dollars being spent, beyond what is currently allowed.

23: 464: (yes) All contributions private and voluntary. If there are “angels” who’d be willing to contribute necessary funds for the GIPAC effort, they should be repaid through ongoing community fund-raising, even if it takes years (for re-payment). (like the handicap bathrooms at Community Center)

Comments by Al and Diana Millikan

These comments are in response to the Guemes Island Planning Survey of July 20, 2004.

We were originally attracted to Guemes Island by the rural environment and the casual atmosphere. This includes a live and let live attitude and respecting other residents choices and rights. It also includes a zoning regime which protects the rural nature of the island without impeding property owners rights. Fourteen years later we still savor the overall ambiance of island life. We oppose any additional constraints or regulations which would limit the freedom and property rights of land owners, and will cause intense and bitter controversy.

Guemes Island does not need a more restrictive sub area plan. Future growth on the island is already limited by the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan as well as existing zoning regulations, ferry service, water and sewer constraints and land already protected by conservation easements. The island is rural and relatively undeveloped. For example, the lots on the north side of South Shore Drive are well over 5 acres with no more than one home per lot. At least eight parcels adjacent to our home are over 9 acres and cannot be subdivided and one 20 acre plot has a conservation easement. In addition the large “Demopolis” waterfront tract is protected from development . These types of open space are common on the island.

The survey seems to be drafted in a way to achieve a intended outcome and smacks of the “not is my back yard” syndrome. Suggestions such as “restrict clearing of trees while building,” and “encourage siting buildings at the edge of a parcel” etc., makes our hair stand on end!! Further, questions 28-34 are personal and unnecessary and should not be included in the survey without a precise explanation of how and why they will be used. If many individuals, like ourselves, refuse to answer these questions, the survey will likely produce inaccurate results.

We are also very concerned that an unscientific poll such as this can result in subjective conclusions which favor the preconceived outcome. Also, putting two survey answer forms on one page encourages one person to complete the survey twice, and, allowing resident non-land owners to participate may skew the results because the outcome does not come at a cost to their property value, property rights and personal freedom.

Guemes Island is a wonderful place to live. Lets not spoil it by imposing unnecessary new regulations and impositions on landowners.