[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6097267,"mediaKeyId","2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02","parentId",2828514,"title","Commission reviews options to close East Sound lower‑income housing deficit; staff suggest mix of upzoning and limited UGA expansion","audioSeconds",934,"startMs",2327000,"endMs",3261000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02&start=2327&end=3261","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02/thumbnail_2327000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6097267/San-Juan-County/Washington/Commission-reviews-options-to-close-East-Sound-lowerincome-housing-deficit-staff-suggest-mix-of-upzoning-and-limited-UGA-expansion","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097267-929ec67f0572552510228aa1a73872c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190070&Signature=WzQIABXvvYqT21egBiZ1F2P8bliaezbhpq~jKRmgIxB-6u4fP06xkMT2XVcxIeC3524XHfBqNY4d4lIqjJQJvcddBm2MSaVPJnwfZHFk1z~qVrjLr4Gh1VL1HnqF5J6tRbfKEQWOMw5DeakRZszNB7bos-vGstinBo9J6XXL8ng-JvodR0eOivnVhjb~cO6xQqO1Xs~4AicYVEVK9hnL4-I0ji34D1BMxe0NykAuLh7Gq5lYA-nwBYC~s9f57YisTVecOJZ3QqVEXuqtMtpH4bkwMynzmLVYas~qcpTckHmMQM4sBldc2jNkL3ggCTpkDbf-V0Wq8SPeQcRgSOUdlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Juan County, WA","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","San Juan County planning commissioners reviewed consultant findings March 21 on options to address a shortfall in housing capacity for lower‑income households in the East Sound urban growth area (UGA), and by consensus asked staff to carry a menu of upzoning and limited expansion options forward to county council for further review.

The issue in brief: Leland Consulting presented the county’s land capacity analysis and said that under the Commerce “Housing for All” allocation framework the East Sound subarea shows a deficit in capacity for households earning up to 80% of area median income. Consultants presented a combination of measures — modest upzoning within the UGA, changing minimum densities in village commercial zones, and limited expansion of the UGA onto certain contiguous parcels — that together could eliminate the deficit and leave a modest surplus for the planning period.

Key numbers and options
- County allocation: consultants said the county’s total housing need for the planning period is 3,180 units, 2,264 of those outside Friday Harbor. The initial land capacity analysis showed a 227‑unit deficit for households at 0–80% AMI in East Sound.
- Proposed changes that were presented and analyzed included: increasing minimum density in the village commercial designation (estimated +28 units), rezoning four small parcels to village commercial (estimated +20 units), an L‑shaped upzone to allow 12 units/acre on underused parcels (estimated +39 units), and limited UGA expansion onto a parcel already owned by a nonprofit affordable‑housing provider (presented estimate ~107 units serving lower incomes). Two additional expansion areas proposed by the East Sound Planning Review Committee were estimated at roughly 40 units each.
- Combined, the consultants said, the proposals would eliminate the deficit and yield a surplus of about 51 units in the 0–80% AMI band under the assumptions used.

Public and commission comments
- Commissioners and public commenters raised practical concerns about relying solely on UGA expansion, noting that development timelines depend on landowner decisions and financing (citing Friday Harbor expansions that have taken many years). Several commissioners favored including the parcel already owned by an affordable‑housing provider because ownership increases the likelihood of near‑term development for deed‑restricted housing.
- Commissioners also emphasized that upzoning alone does not guarantee affordable outcomes; market‑rate development can result on rezoned parcels unless paired with incentives, density bonuses, or funding for nonprofit developers. Staff and consultants acknowledged that additional regulatory and program tools would be needed (for example, density bonuses or code changes) to encourage affordability.

Commission action
- The planning commission did not make a formal roll‑call vote on map changes at the March 21 meeting. By consensus the commission asked staff to carry the menu of upzoning and limited expansion options presented (including the nonprofit‑owned parcel and the L‑shaped upzone plus village commercial changes) forward to county council for further review. Sofia (planning staff) said the group’s input would be refined, brought to council and then returned to the planning commission during the public hearing phase of the comp plan update.

Context and next steps
- Consultants and staff noted that Department of Commerce guidance encourages jurisdictions to explore upzoning within UGAs before proposing UGA expansion. Consultants said they considered additional upzoning opportunities within East Sound but found limited redevelopable land because of environmental constraints, airport setbacks and deed restrictions on some parcels.
- Staff said map amendments for multiple areas (East Sound UGA, Friday Harbor UGA, and mineral resource lands overlay) will be considered during the comp plan update process and will be adopted together; Friday Harbor’s update depends on the county’s capacity showing. The planning commission will review a consolidated draft map during a future hearing and make a formal recommendation to council.

Ending
- Staff asked commissioners to send any written clarifications or specific edits by email; the presentation and consultant memo will be updated and forwarded to council for its review, and the full comp plan map packet will be scheduled for subsequent public hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - March 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Consultants presented options March 21 to address a 0–80% AMI housing capacity deficit in the East Sound UGA, and the planning commission by consensus asked staff to carry a menu of upzoning and limited UGA expansion options to county council.","taxTitle","San Juan County, Washington","taxId",72708,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6097272,"San Juan County planning commission hears broad public support and technical briefing on draft climate element",10790,354000,11144000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02&start=354&end=11144","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02/thumbnail_354000.jpg","/articles/6097272/San-Juan-County/Washington/San-Juan-County-planning-commission-hears-broad-public-support-and-technical-briefing-on-draft-climate-element","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097272-6551cb604ac0fb97720af3d20789e702/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190070&Signature=NPQuZsdkYltxhFMs~d0NlrW2ol-W4zI6iYwEQ02OEq77eBgMMd5fOsdoQGlpdVDPPl~S10rNWw8bjSEAy~DQvxMHF7~3jbO1HYj8Hy9MoE9uyZQyrMuuYyKd7kqI2W8zl7SerYy-UKOMFokd0suajXOzGyhIohxVRz0u1-GwTE8TpwgeTHtrp~V3-1kPnP-UL5QozZEa35274Hiy9wmmj-prQQ2eUzGlr1PTzaOfDtRhQhcY0vDy7VZ4lGuGZOObnVsennHeYZt68PJoDz~gdzwSamNu-GFYDfiinObgLlhQrTmGU6SQKMX93dLuEVZ0FQHtZkKZe3mLEyybVeFiBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Juan County Planning Commission members heard more than a dozen public comments and a staff presentation on March 21 about the county's first draft climate element for the comprehensive plan, with speakers urging stronger implementation language, more emphasis on forest stewardship and clearer steps on water and transportation resilience.

The draft element was developed under the Growth Management Act requirements added in 2023 and funded by a $300,000 Department of Commerce planning grant, county staff said. “The climate element is composed of two subelements, an emissions‑reduction subelement and a resilience subelement,” Angela Broderick, the county’s climate and sustainability coordinator, told commissioners during the presentation.

Why it matters: The climate element will guide how the county plans for hazards and emissions over the coming decades and will be used to shape more detailed, near‑term work the county calls a climate action plan. Public commenters said the draft should move beyond aspirational language to requirements, timelines and funding commitments that make county policy actionable.

What speakers told commissioners
- Faith Vyondipart of the Madrona Institute described the Climate Compass outreach process and told the commission that “Compass participants have generated 539 ideas,” urging the commission to add a policy to allow forest stewardship rather than mandatory timber harvest for designated forest lands.
- Vince DeCusey, president of the board of APELCO, urged the commission to adopt “actionable shalls” rather than aspirational language, warning: “Please don't let this become another binder on the shelf.”
- Eva Schulte, executive director of Friends of the San Juans, recommended additional resilience measures for water and buildings, including tree retention, relocating buildings out of flood risk zones when feasible, and studying seawater intrusion.
- Community speakers and advisory committee members repeated priorities identified during outreach: protecting ecosystems, improving wildfire resilience and forest management, increasing local renewable energy and expanding transportation alternatives that reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Staff and technical points
- Broderick said the county created the greenhouse gas inventory in 2023 (baseline year 2019) and that transportation, land use and building energy are the largest emissions sectors in the county's profile. The consultants and staff also performed a policy audit and a vulnerability assessment focused on water resources, transportation/mobility (including ferry dependence) and buildings/energy.
- Broderick said the county elected to include both resilience and emissions subelements even though the emissions subelement is not mandatory for a jurisdiction of San Juan County’s size. She said the team coordinated with the Department of Commerce and with tribes as part of the process.

Public priorities and gaps identified
- Commenters repeatedly asked for stronger, measurable commitments and for the county to prioritize policies it intends to implement rather than leaving everything as optional. Multiple speakers recommended a county‑level forest health plan, changes to the county’s open‑space/current‑use tax program to prioritize stewardship and sequestration, and further attention to water supply assessment and infrastructure resilience.
- The vulnerability assessment summarized for commissioners said county stormwater and low‑lying coastal areas are exposed to sea level rise and flooding; wastewater and septic systems are vulnerable to inundation; and groundwater recharge and water system reliability are threatened by drought. Transportation vulnerabilities include ferry delays and limited transit options.

Next steps and process
- Staff said they will carry public and commission comments into revisions and will present the draft climate element to county council at the end of the month; the county intends to follow the element with a climate action plan that will set priorities, timelines, budgets and responsible parties. Broderick and consultants said the cap will contain more granular, time‑bound actions than the comp plan element.

Commission discussion and follow up
- Commissioners asked for clearer, measurable goals where appropriate and suggested that many of the implementation‑level, time‑bound and budgeted actions belong in the climate action plan or in element‑specific implementation (for example, transportation and water elements). Staff agreed and invited written clarifications and suggestions from commissioners to be sent to county staff for incorporation.

Ending
- Staff asked members of the public who submitted written or chat comments to instead email comments to planning staff so the records can be organized and tracked. Broderick said the climate action plan development will involve the newly formed Climate and Sustainability Advisory Committee and that the county will continue community outreach as it moves from policy to implementation.","San Juan County Planning Commission members heard public comment and a staff briefing on March 21 on the county's first draft climate element, with speakers urging stronger implementation language on forests, water and transportation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6097262,"Planning commission approves administrative minutes (summary of procedural votes)",151,149000,300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02&start=149&end=300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2828514-3fd8352a9290aa263a75a27f86e6ad02/thumbnail_149000.jpg","/articles/6097262/San-Juan-County/Washington/Planning-commission-approves-administrative-minutes-summary-of-procedural-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6097262-223e5c544d7502af9ca971c06319fa6e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190070&Signature=J6oGTzFVELfYGyGPUiIQu8x8TqDOZxPwRdUFhfnHsz6GbQN-MOqBtj3A8X8AmVupiyZMcZXam8FkbeZl3N-cHUQycPueju~G4JaOu33zie~ATN9Dsja9v4Hdo~eOu2TPc0MKDdWcO31mehTFlzsDNpgjSgEDHoq~P3gFC82mA3uAXBKEDOQHuOwxFvH3ZyscjQRh-Cvv4LYrFPCasewsJV9Sm-5D6Xa0tVX1rx2Ogw7yorrmtgFDI0~uKozPoWeFeYgFWE3~zcJGaE9zeELODvGBQhqZgTRFw6laMmzxEjyhHw0-sKITH~rOCgIUThunFJnL1SkZn816MszXzB0HPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the March 21 meeting the San Juan County Planning Commission took two procedural votes to approve prior meeting minutes.

- January 17 minutes: A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded; a roll call showed multiple commissioners voting yes (Sheila, Bill, Peter and another commissioner identified as Anna in the record), and the motion carried.

- February 21 minutes: A motion and second were made to approve the February 21 minutes. Several commissioners who were not present at the February 21 meeting recorded themselves as abstaining. The clerk recorded the motion as passing with one yes vote and three abstentions; staff said the result still recorded the minutes for the public record.

No other formal legislative votes (ordinances, resolutions or map adoptions) were taken at the March 21 meeting; the substantive items of the day were discussion of the East Sound UGA housing options and the draft climate element.","The commission approved the January 17 minutes by roll call and approved the February 21 minutes in a later vote that recorded one yes and several abstentions; no substantive policy votes were taken on March 21.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission reviews options to close East Sound lower‑income housing deficit; staff suggest mix of upzoning and limited UGA expansion

San Juan County planning commission hears broad public support and technical briefing on draft climate element

Planning commission approves administrative minutes (summary of procedural votes)