San Juan County advisory panel reviews UGA expansion and upzoning to close 220-unit shortfall

On Feb. 6, 2025, San Juan County Department of Community Development planner Sofia told the county—s Environmental Planning Review Committee (EPRC) that the county—s land capacity analysis shows a deficit of about 220 housing units in the 0 to 80% area median income brackets and asked the EPRC to prepare a recommendation at its March meeting.

Sofia, a planner with the Department of Community Development (DCD), said the county is focusing on three places that together should meet the shortfall: two up‑zone areas (A and B) inside or adjacent to the Orcas Village urban growth area (UGA) and an expansion area near Bartel Road. She said the county will ask the EPRC next month for a formal recommendation that staff can carry to the Planning Commission.

Why it matters: the committee—s recommendation will shape the comp plan map and could directly affect what parcels can be built for housing, whether new connections to centralized sewer are required and what infrastructure the county must plan and pay for. Sofia said DCD will bring consultants to the March meeting to answer technical questions.

Key facts discussed included the roughly 220-unit deficit identified in the land capacity analysis; proposed density changes that would increase some zones— minimum development expectations; and utility constraints. "We're looking at a deficit of about 220 or so, in, units for the the 0 to 80 AMI brackets," Sofia said. She told the committee that one of the faster, lower-cost options would be increasing density inside the existing UGA before expanding the UGA boundary.

Committee members and staff detailed three main approaches: 1) increase allowable density inside the existing UGA (upzoning); 2) expand the UGA onto specific neighboring parcels; and 3) use code changes or incentives to encourage affordable housing. Sofia noted the county has two candidate up‑zone areas and an expansion area near Bartel Road that, combined, should meet the LCA shortfall if pursued together.

On density, staff noted existing residential zones allow about 4 units per acre in some places and proposed changing that floor in targeted village commercial areas so developers must plan to fit more units on site. In the Easton Village commercial designation the current code allows between 4 and 40 units per acre; consultants suggested increasing the minimum so new residential proposals would be planned at a higher baseline. "You cannot get 40 units in an acre with our current parking requirements and height restrictions. You just can't do it," EPRC member Bill said during the discussion.

Public-works and sewer capacity questions were central. Staff said Bartel Road and the adjacent Bartwood Development already have sewer main access and sewer membership on many lots, making service extension there comparatively easier. By contrast, the Southeast area past Crescent Beach would require major infrastructure to reach centralized sewer and would be significantly more costly. Sofia said the county will be contacting utility providers and flagged the finance and feasibility differences between parcels.

Committee members also discussed parking requirements, building height and design standards: lowering parking minimums could make denser projects feasible but would require parallel investments or policies (transit, public parking) to offset on‑street impacts. Staff suggested the EPRC might include a recommendation on parking and other code incentives in its March recommendation so those ideas enter the comp-plan record and follow-on code updates.

Sofia said the comp-plan update process includes later steps for code changes and a critical areas ordinance (CAO) update; the growth-management periodic update requires the county to demonstrate capacity and follow statutory timelines. Staff said a CAO consultant contract is under negotiation and that code changes would follow map and policy steps.

Next steps: DCD will ask the EPRC for a recommendation at the March meeting; consultants from the county—s team will attend; staff will contact utility providers and public works to clarify road access and sewer feasibility; and the EPRC may bundle code incentives (parking, height, inclusionary incentives) into its formal recommendation.

Ending note: committee members agreed public outreach will be important. Panel members discussed posting notices in the Orcasonian and social channels and agreed staff and EPRC would coordinate outreach and provide opportunities for public comment at the March meeting.