San Juan County planning commission reviews draft land-use element, hears public concerns on farmworker housing and resource protections

The San Juan County Planning Commission reviewed the draft land‑use element of the county comprehensive plan and took public comment on proposals for rural densities, farmworker housing and critical‑area protections.

The draft element update, presented by county planning consultants, reorganizes narrative and policy text, aligns “Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development” language with state Growth Management Act terminology and consolidates scattered policies into unified subject sections, planners said.

The land‑use update matters because it frames how the county directs growth, protects island natural resources and designates urban growth areas for the next 20 years, commissioners and presenters said.

Faith Manduka, agricultural resource committee coordinator, asked the commission to accept the ARC’s recommendations reflected in the draft and told commissioners the committee relied on annual farmer/rancher listening sessions, a 2023 agriculture viability survey and a housing market survey. "The ARC worked really hard on these and got input from ... annual farmer rancher listening sessions," Manduka said, urging the commission to accept the committee's recommendations.

Anna Nelson, a land‑use planning consultant representing Roach Harbor Resort, said the resort submitted written comments and requested clarifying language describing how the resort’s master‑plan designation was adopted and how related districts operate. Nelson said a pending map amendment to the resort boundary may require further edits once the map decision is final.

Eva Schulte, executive director of the nonprofit Friends of the San Juans, requested three clarifications: (1) that the consultant framing of “balancing growth with conservation” not be read to weaken protections for critical areas; (2) that a new combined policy mentioning habitats of terrestrial and aquatic species be kept separate from critical‑area protections so it does not dilute existing safeguards; and (3) clarification of how any proposed exemptions for nonresidential agricultural buildings would operate and whether they would affect permitting or environmental regulations. "It should be added as a separate policy, because not all habitats ... qualify as critical areas," Schulte said.

Schulte also urged that if farmworker housing is allowed, the commission include protections so those units do not later convert to vacation rentals, citing examples from other jurisdictions where farmworker housing became unavailable to the intended workforce.

Commission discussion focused on clarity, presentation and the limits of county authority. Commissioners requested clearer track‑change color coding and conventional red/blue markup to distinguish deletions from insertions. Commissioner comments probed the draft’s handling of LAMIRDs (state‑defined Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development), asking that the plan explicitly note which of the three state LAMIRD types are being referenced and how those terms align with existing local categories such as activity centers, island centers and master‑plan resorts.

Several commissioners and staff discussed growth limits and tools to direct growth into appropriate centers. Commissioner Darcy asked whether the element or the official map identifies areas where rural densities have been reduced compared with the 1979 plan; staff said such specifics are part of the comprehensive plan official maps, which will be updated and presented to the commission in March. Planning staff and a county attorney emphasized that while the Growth Management Act guides planning, it does not provide a simple legal mechanism to set a strict population cap; instead, the county uses urban growth area boundaries, LAMIRD designations and development standards to shape where growth occurs.

Sarah (planning consultant) and Sophia (OTEC planning lead) said the reorganization is intended to consolidate topic‑specific provisions (for example, lighting or archaeological protections) into single code locations to improve usability and to insert placeholders for future provisions. They also said the March agenda will include the official map update and that additional written comments — including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comments received after the distributed draft — will be incorporated before formal recommendation hearings.

The commission will receive the land‑use map and additional edited materials in March and will have further workshop opportunities and a public hearing before making a recommendation to county council.

Public comment and commissioner feedback will be provided to council and incorporated into subsequent drafts; the commission was reminded this review is one step in a phased process that includes a later formal ordinance and public‑hearing steps.

The commission adjourned the session for the morning and will continue work on the comp plan at upcoming meetings.