Planning Commission forwards comprehensive plan periodic update to County Council after lengthy public hearing

The San Juan County Planning Commission on Sept. 19 completed a public hearing on the 2025 comprehensive plan periodic update and voted to forward findings and recommend the draft ordinance to County Council after making policy wording edits requested by commissioners and public commenters.

Senior planner Sofia Kassem briefed the commission on the periodic update process required under the Growth Management Act, the work completed since March 2024, and the statutory changes that shaped the draft plan, including new requirements for a climate element and more granular housing needs analysis by income category. Kassem said the county’s land capacity analysis found a deficit of roughly 227 housing units for households at 0–80% AMI (area median income) and presented a package of map amendments designed to accommodate that shortfall: a set of density increase areas and three candidate urban growth area (UGA) expansion parcels identified as expansion areas A, B and C. Taken together, the draft map changes would add capacity for about 279 units in the 0–80% AMI range, a surplus above the 227‑unit target.

Public testimony stretched for more than an hour and featured a large turnout from East Sound and Lopez Island. Friends of the San Juans urged more detailed SEPA review and cautioned about cumulative marine impacts in the TIP and comp plan. Several speakers representing neighborhood groups on Orcas Island raised environmental and public‑safety concerns about proposed expansion areas A–C in East Sound: ecological sensitivity (including a mapped great blue heron rookery), tree and old‑growth loss, emergency egress and fire‑safety for dead‑end roads (Bartell/North Beach), and projected intersections that county documents show could decline to Level of Service F by the 2030s. Landowners from the candidate areas also testified: one owner of a ~20‑acre legacy parcel in expansion area B told the commission that inclusion in the UGA would substantially raise assessed value and property taxes even if no development occurred, coercing subdivision or sale.

Several witnesses supported the draft’s housing approach and climate policies; agricultural stakeholders supported agrivoltaics language in the draft. Multiple speakers asked staff for more data on water availability and how growth scenarios align with utility capacity, and others recommended alternatives for locating housing capacity (for example, Mount Baker Farm) rather than the proposed parcels.

Commissioners spent deliberation time clarifying policy language on utilities and Essential Public Facilities (EPFs). Several public commenters and commissioners urged deleting a proposed requirement that utility distribution or utility‑scale infrastructure “compensate for adverse impacts to shorelines and rural character,” arguing that “compensate” is vague, litigation‑prone and could bar needed resiliency projects. By consensus the commission directed staff to remove the phrase “avoid and compensate for” and to instead require that facilities be sited to “minimize adverse impacts” or be subject to SEPA and the shoreline master program standards; the same change was applied in two policies (utilities 4.5 and 7.3). Commissioners also clarified the county’s EPF siting process: listing an item as an EPF does not remove public review — EPF designation requires a multi‑step siting process, public meetings and council selection of acceptable sites or alternatives.

At the close of deliberations the commission adopted the staff‑draft findings (14 findings) with a narrowly framed modification to make explicit that the recommended map amendments are intended to address the LCA shortfall (finding 11). The findings were adopted on a roll call (Sarah yes; Sheila yes; Bill abstain; Gary yes; chair yes). The commission then voted to recommend the draft comprehensive plan ordinance, as modified during the meeting, to County Council. Staff will brief county council next Tuesday and the council’s public hearing on the plan is expected in late November or early December; Kassem said she will bring the commission’s decisions and public concerns — including the property‑tax and water questions — to the council briefing and follow up with the assessor as requested by the commission.

The commission’s actions are procedural recommendations to County Council; any specific development proposal on newly mapped parcels would require site‑specific environmental review, necessary permit approvals and, if applicable, developer‑funded infrastructure improvements for roads and utilities.