San Juan County staff present map-amendment options to close East Sound affordable‑housing gap

San Juan County Department of Community Development staff told the Lopez Village Planning Review Committee that the county’s 2025 comprehensive plan update identifies a deficit of about 227 housing units for households at 0–80% of area median income (AMI) in the East Sound urban growth area and presented map‑amendment options — including targeted up‑zoning and limited urban growth area (UGA) expansions — intended to create the capacity to meet that need.

The department’s consultant, Leland Consulting, ran a land capacity analysis and a housing allocation model that divides the county’s projected housing needs by UGA and by income band. “We have run through all of the comp plan elements except for the transportation element with the planning commission,” Sofia Kassem, San Juan County Department of Community Development planner, told the committee. She said the county expects to complete consultant work by June and move toward public hearings in the fall if the timeline holds.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan’s maps and land‑use designations must show that higher‑density housing is permitted where the county expects demand. Commerce (the Washington State Department of Commerce) reviews the plan and expects counties to demonstrate they explored in‑UGA options before proposing UGA expansions, Kassem said.

Key findings and options presented - Lopez Village UGA: County staff reported Lopez Village can accommodate its assigned housing allocation; staff identified roughly 244 additional units assigned to Lopez over the planning period. Kassem said that Lopez did not require map amendments to meet the projected need. - East Sound UGA: The land capacity analysis found a shortfall concentrated in the 0–80% AMI bracket. Kassem summarized the consultant findings: “We did find through the LCA, that Lopez Village was gonna be able to accommodate the housing unit allocation. East Sound, however, was not; we have a deficit of 227 units for these 0 to 80% AMI income groups.” - In‑UGA strategies: Staff and the consultant identified opportunities to increase capacity by increasing allowable densities (for example, raising minimum residential densities in some village‑commercial areas and modifying dimensional standards such as lot coverage and height) and by encouraging redevelopment on vacant and redevelopable parcels. - Targeted sites and nonprofit land: The presentation identified several specific areas where up‑zoning could yield additional 0–80% AMI units. For example, increasing density on one identified parcel was estimated to add about 39 units for the targeted income group; an OPAL (affordable housing community land trust)‑owned parcel could yield about 107 units if brought into the UGA and developed at assumed densities. - UGA expansion: Because in‑UGA options did not fully close the shortfall, the consultant presented two limited expansion areas (labeled “area B” and “area C”) that the Planning Commission and the East Sound Planning Review Committee recommended for council consideration. Combined with the other map and code changes, the package of options shown to the committee would create roughly 423 additional units across multiple AMI bands and produce a net surplus of about 51 units in the 0–80% AMI band, a scale the Department of Commerce signaled would likely be acceptable.

Constraints and caveats - Critical areas and buildability: The consultant’s critical‑areas review flagged steep slopes, streams and wetlands in parts of East Sound that limit redevelopment. Kassem said some parcels in the southwest corner of the UGA are constrained and increasing density there would not yield the anticipated capacity. - Funding and development uncertainty: Kassem stressed that map changes create potential capacity; they do not guarantee construction or that units will target the lower AMI bands. She noted OPAL’s site assumptions changed after conversations with OPAL staff (OPAL indicated lower buildable density and a mix of 0–80% and 80–120% AMI units), which reduced the expected low‑income capacity on that site. - Regional allocation rules: The county allocates roughly half of projected growth to UGAs by policy, but actual development has historically continued in rural areas; the consultant noted Commerce’s planning tool assumptions are oriented to mainland jurisdictions and recommended that the county document why inter‑island transfers of capacity are not feasible.

Next steps Kassem told the committee the planning commission will continue review (transportation element next) and the county council is scheduled to review several elements at an upcoming briefing. The county’s consultant contract and the state grant funding that support the update extend through June; staff said they aim to finish consultant work before that contract expires and then focus on map amendments for public hearings later in the year. Kassem said staff will brief the council and reach out to property owners for any proposed expansions; she emphasized council has not yet directed the county to adopt any particular expansion.

The county’s recommendations will go next to the Planning Commission and then to the County Council for any formal decisions and public hearings.