San Juan County Council pauses Odland Park maintenance facility plan after residents press to save legacy trees

San Juan County Councilors on April 21 agreed to pause design and permitting work on a proposed maintenance facility and seasonal housing project at Odland (Audland/Auburn) Park after a large turnout of Lopez Island residents raised concerns about tree loss, trail impacts and inadequate early outreach.

Residents called repeatedly for more public planning and for alternatives that would preserve the park’s ‘cathedral’ of legacy trees. Cindy Smith, a Lopez resident, told the council: “I am asking you today to take a leadership role in protecting and preserving our island’s few remaining legacy tree forest areas,” and urged the county to reject the current site and find a less damaging location.

Parks and Fair Director Brandon Andrews opened the staff presentation by apologizing for the process, saying “This could have been prevented and, that was on me,” and describing the project’s path onto the county capital plan and the engineering constraints staff say shaped site selection. Andrews reviewed site constraints—steep slopes, a premium floodplain and existing Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) funding restrictions on some park areas—and presented two alternatives: (1) a revised footprint that moves the building closer to the road and lowers roof lines to reduce visual impact, and (2) the preferred long‑term alternative of siting the maintenance shed and reception area at the existing residence/office footprint while relocating seasonal housing elsewhere.

Residents and stakeholder group members pressed technical and legal questions. An online commenter who helped draft the environmental review warned the county may be vulnerable to litigation if environmental justice and community resources are not fully addressed. Lucy Francis, a stakeholder group volunteer, said the current draft had already incorporated many edits but urged the council to let the stakeholder process finish before adoption: “I believe this ordinance could help to deter some of the conflicts without the need to call for enforcement,” she told the council when speaking about related wildlife and park-management regulations.

Council discussion focused on process and next steps rather than an immediate vote. One council member, who recounted being briefed on the project when it first entered the capital plan, described the lack of early public outreach and urged a time‑bounded consultation to produce a community-backed path forward. Another councilor proposed forming a small, representative ad hoc group from Lopez to work with staff; Andrews said the technical re-design and permitting work will take time and estimated he could return to broad community engagement after his leave (he indicated an anticipated return Aug. 3).

The council’s practical direction was procedural rather than a final approval or rejection of any site: keep the project on the capital improvement plan for 2026, authorize staff to pull together additional site and funding information and run background feasibility work while the director is on leave, and reengage the Lopez community upon his return. Chair summarized the timeline the council agreed on: staff will prepare information and community engagement plans so that, by Nov. 1, the council would have a community‑informed recommendation and financial implications in time for capital-plan decisions.

Funding and housing alternatives were discussed but not decided. Andrews flagged potential funding sources that could be explored, including lodging‑tax‑related funds (LTAC) for certain types of visitor-serving infrastructure, and described temporary housing options—trailers or park models—if housing must be moved during construction. Council members repeatedly stressed the need to co-locate maintenance and park operations (the reception/check-in and maintenance functions) to maintain summerscale operations, while also pursuing housing solutions that might serve multiple county departmental needs.

The council did not adopt a formal ordinance or make a final site decision at the meeting. Instead, it instructed staff to gather detailed site plans, tree‑removal estimates, septic and utility feasibility, and funding scenarios; form or coordinate with a small Lopez representative group to refine options; and return with those materials after the director’s leave so the community can consider specific alternatives. The meeting recessed for lunch after the direction was set.

What’s next: staff will do background feasibility and design work (site plans, tree impacts, septic/utility assessments and funding research) and the council expects renewed community engagement when Director Andrews returns in August, with a target of a community‑informed recommendation by Nov. 1 to inform the 2027 capital plan cycle.