EPRC backs targeted East Sound UGA changes to address low‑income housing deficit

Eastsound Planning Review Committee members recommended that county planning staff and the Planning Commission examine a set of targeted land‑use changes aimed at closing a shortfall in zoned capacity for lower‑income housing inside the East Sound urban growth area (UGA).

The committee’s discussion on the comprehensive plan update centered on a land‑capacity analysis prepared by Leland Consulting Group. Andrew Oliver, senior analyst with Leland Consulting Group, said the county’s state‑assigned housing targets create a shortfall “particularly for those housing targets serving lower income members of your community.” He described two broad ways to increase capacity: UGA expansion and upzoning inside the existing UGA.

The analysis showed a planning target of about 515 new housing units for the East Sound UGA through 2045. Leland’s work found a deficit in capacity for units that would serve lower‑income households; the consultants quantified a gap of roughly 227 units in the lowest income bands within the UGA based on existing zoning and developable parcels.

To reduce that deficit the consultants presented three options the committee discussed: (1) add an OPAL Community Land Trust parcel north‑east of the current UGA (the consultant team estimated that parcel could yield roughly 90–91 housing units under reasonable assumptions); (2) upzone an L‑shaped area that currently allows about 4 units per acre to a designation that would allow roughly 12 units per acre (the consultants estimated about 47 additional units from that change); and (3) raise the minimum density in the village commercial designation from 4 units per acre to about 12 units per acre (estimated to yield around 33 additional units). The consultants said combining the OPAL parcel with the two upzoning changes would shift the analysis from a 227‑unit deficit to a surplus in the lower‑income band on paper.

Sofia Casam, San Juan County planner and county lead for the comprehensive plan update, emphasized that the meeting was a preliminary stage of a longer process: “Nothing is happening today. We’re just wanting to talk about some options and hear from you.” She and the consultants noted that state law (the Growth Management Act) and the Department of Commerce’s allocation tool drive the county’s requirement to show land capacity for housing across income bands and that much of the requirement for lower‑income capacity is expected to be met inside UGAs.

Committee members and public commenters raised infrastructure, environmental and market concerns. Tina Whitman, science director at Friends of the San Juans, and other participants urged that zoning changes be paired with concrete incentives—fee waivers, pre‑approved plans, parking reductions and funding—to make denser development financially feasible. Participants also questioned whether utilities, roads and ferry access could support new development; Ryan Page, housing program coordinator with San Juan County Health and Community Services, and an East Sound Sewer and Water District representative said sewer capacity is being planned and that the district expects additional capacity after planned upgrades (the district representative said the system will accommodate additional connections after 2027 and that further upgrades could be pursued if development accelerated).

Committee discussion narrowed the list of feasible expansion/upzoning candidates. The consultants explained why they treated a southeast candidate as unlikely—access constraints, flood risk and environmental constraints—and why the northeast OPAL parcel and the L‑shaped interior upzone looked more promising: larger vacant parcels, adjacency to existing development and fewer critical‑area constraints. Several residents urged the consultant and county to also examine a western parcel adjacent to the UGA (recently logged, flat and with road access); the committee asked staff and consultants to run numbers for that parcel as an additional option.

EPRC members reiterated that the land‑capacity analysis is not a permit to build but a requirement to show the county has zoning capacity to meet state targets. The committee’s direction was procedural: to forward its recommendation and feedback to the Planning Commission for the next step in the comprehensive plan update, and to ask staff/consultants to refine unit counts and infrastructure analyses for the OPAL parcel, the L‑shaped upzone areas, the village commercial minimum density change, and the western parcel that attendees raised.

A final note from the meeting: consultants and county staff said subsequent steps will include development‑code updates and infrastructure reviews (transportation and utilities) before any rezoning or UGA boundary change could be adopted. The consultants and county staff repeatedly told attendees that later policy and funding steps will be needed to make any additional zoned capacity feasible to build.