||| FROM SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS |||
The San Juan County Council is conducting a comprehensive review and revision of the County’s Uniform Development Code (UDC), also known as Title 18. This update is intended to achieve a more user-friendly development code, streamline permit review processes, and promote consistent standards for development throughout the islands. Community members and frequent code users are encouraged to provide input on provisions of the UDC that should be revised.
“Sections of the UDC have been amended over the years, but it’s time for a comprehensive update of that section to support the needs of our planners, residents, and businesses,” said Council Chair Jane Fuller. “It is the mechanism through which long-term planning projects are carried out, and it’s important that it be clear, concise, and up to date.”
County Code and the Comprehensive Plan
The San Juan County Code (https://www.codepublishing.
- State of Washington’s Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW)
- Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW)
- Subdivisions Code (Chapter 58.17 RCW)
- State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW)
The UDC, also known as Title 18, includes Land Use Designations, Overlay District Regulations, the Shoreline Master Program, Development Standards, Land Divisions, and more.
How to Submit Revisions
Are you a frequent user of the County Code? Do you have ideas to make it better? Let us know!
Please email examples of specific elements of the UDC, also known as Title 18, you would like to see updated, fixed, or clarified to: codeupdate@sanjuancountywa.gov. Please be as specific as you can and include the code number and an explanation of the issue you are concerned about. If you have suggestions for how to address your issue, those are welcome as well!
Example: “I have had trouble with SJCC 18.xx.xxx because ….” Or “I am confused by the requirements of 18.xx.xxx as they relate to 8.xx.xxx because they each refer to a different standard.”
The County will be compiling code revision recommendation through September of 2024 and presenting those at a County Council meeting in October 2024. Feedback about the code will continue to be accepted at codeupdate@sanjuancountywa.gov after October 1, 2024, but will not be included in the presentation to Council.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
It’s encouraging to see San Juan County taking steps to update the Uniform Development Code (UDC), especially with the goal of making it more user-friendly and efficient. However, I believe an additional, transformative investment could be made: the creation of a map-centric guide that integrates the UDC with a parcel-based, task-specific permitting tool.
This tool could provide residents, planners, and developers a clear, visual representation of how the code applies to individual parcels. By entering an address or selecting a parcel, users could receive customized information about land use designations, zoning overlays, environmental considerations, and other relevant regulations, with links to the exact sections of the UDC that govern their project. The platform could then guide users through the permit requirements for their specific task—whether it’s subdividing land, building a dock, or obtaining a variance—breaking down the steps and codes involved.
Such a tool would greatly streamline the process for all parties involved, reducing confusion and errors, saving time and resources, and increasing accessibility to San Juan County’s planning framework. The use of mapping technology could simplify the nuances of the UDC, offering clarity and ease of navigation that goes beyond a purely text-based code.
I hope the County Council will consider investing in this type of modern, interactive solution as part of the comprehensive code update. It would be a lasting benefit for the entire community.
My concern about collecting this feedback is that most of the people won’t give feedback because they are not familiar with the exact UDC codes, which is asking the populace to take on a big learning curve in a very short period of time, and those are the people who really need to weigh in because they are the most impacted. The County should not be using one size fits all unified development codes for all the islands and their UGAs. One size does NOT fit all of our islands or our UGAs and higher density land uses.
To base our codes without considering each island’s unique characteristics – which can only be considered with familiarity with our lands and waters, falls far short of any goals that would protect the environment, which should be our first priority over unlimited growth without any nuance.
Streamlining permits should not be the sole purpose that dictates this entire process. Without understanding of the unique geographic and geologic characteristics of each island, these codes will not solve our problems or support our vision in any of our Comprehensive Plans to date, in which we have repeatedly expressed our concerns for not only protecting the environment, including in our UGAs, but also in keeping our rural character and quality of life.
All of these things have been severely abused in Eastsound UGA. Our forests are falling. Vacation rentals proliferate here like on no other island. Why? How did this happen? We are becoming either a dust bowl or a flood zone with the relentless cutting down of trees in our riparian wetland watersheds and shorelines on both sides of the narrow land bridge that comprises our UGA wind tunnel. The tree ordinance being worked on does not include UGAs, where protection of our forests is needed the most. Our Conservancy Overlay in Eastsound SubArea Plan has been gutted and it toothless.
Our development codes should differ from those of Lopez and San Juan, and Shaw. Until we consider the unique qualities of each island with the goal of protecting their Critical Areas and things like wetland contiguity, we are failing our vision to protect and preserve what we cherish, and we will end up continuing to harm all that residents hold dear. What is the County’s solution to all of this when so many of its departments are at odds with each other? At the very least, the Public Comment period should be extended to the end of the year, especially in an election year where two out of 3 Council seats are up for grabs.
It is concerning to me that the county plans to do a “comprehensive review and revision” of the County’s Uniform Development code and they publish notice for public comment that provides us a mere 11 days to respond . The UDC Title 18 to probably one of the most complex and convoluted sections of our code. I commend the County Council from taking on this much needed review but the timeline they are providing public comment is insufficient. I realize they will continue to take comment after this point however the initial feedback is often what guides the focus on these reviews. As of the last County Council meeting the councilwomen had not provided any direction for guiding principles. To their credit they said they wanted to hear from the stakeholders/members of the community before setting that direction but 11 days isn’t a reasonable period of time to give the public time to respond..
The UDC as it currently stands is very difficult to follow. Simplification is needed however the devil is in the details on how they go about “simplifying”. As an example in the meeting the SJC Prosecuting Attorney Amy Vira described one of the areas that they may want to look at is does the code for each hamlet/village need to be different, could they be standardized? There have been countless hours of local community work on each village plan. We need to be engaged to ensure that a group of consultants, most of which do not even live in the San Juan Islands, do not attempt to rewrite these codes to “standardize them”. Also we need to ensure that the work that has been done by local individuals, in their roles on advisory committees , is strongly considered in this process.
I am also curious as to why this initiative is being lead by the prosecuting attorney’s office. Our charter is designed to ensure that the San Juan County council sets the policy which is then implemented by staff. Historically this type of work has been lead by SJC Community Development and Planning who consults with the PAs office as needed. This staff has the intimate knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan and is the department that reviews all of the building permits and works with property owners to understand the code. They would seem to me to be the ones far better equipped to lead this initiative. I have huge respect for Amy Vira and this is in no way a criticism on her abilities but more that this project seems to better suited for SJC CDP. And while I hate to make assumptions, does this have anything to do with the reduction in resources due to the change to a 4 day work week as well as the decision to outsource much of the work of that department?
Please put this project on your radar and remain vigilant in tracking what is being done on San Juan Island that could have a huge impact on what we are allowed to do on Orcas.
According to County notices there will be a Comprehensive Plan update due the be completed by summer 2025.
Hopefully with wide public participation. The Vision Statement will provide the guiding principles for review of goals and policies and the direction we want to go as a County.
AFTER that, the UDC can be revised to fit those goals and policies. To do that now seems like putting the horse behind the cart.
Also the 10 day comment period through the email process only, seems extremely short and limited (not everyone is using email) for an adequate review. Something that has to be done again after the Comprehensive Plan update.
Are we wasting time and energy here? Am I missing something?
Ed Suij
Sadie Bailey’s and former Council- and Charter Committee member Patricia Miller’s comments are right on the mark on both counts: public scoping of the code “streamlining” process is inadequate; and the “Uniform” Development Code does not need to be unitary.
The two-week period for submitting public comments is, indeed, too short, given the complexity of the code; but, more important, it is a passive, shotgun approach. The logical place to start would be an active search of recent cases where there have been conflicts, ambiguities and questions of interpretation of the codes, and discussions with permit applicants, contractors and planners themselves (are there any current planners left in DCD?)
Second, while Chair Fuller and the Council are right that the Code (in fact any code) which is a compendium of additions and amendments over many years, needs periodic grooming for consistency and ease of use, simplicity does not mean total uniformity. Our county, like our islands, is diverse. Besides primarily rural lands, we have three designated Urban Growth Areas: Friday Harbor (not part of the County), Lopez Village and Eastsound Village, along with a variety of “hamlets.” The two County UGAs have different characters and the needs and preferences of their respective populations may also differ to some degree. For that reason, the UGAs each have a “Subarea Plan, ” which is incorporated as part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan; and, these subarea plans, where they may differ from the Comp Plan, TAKE PRECEDENCE over it. The Eastsound Planning Advisory Committee (EPRC) has been is charged with, among other things, reviewing and updating Eastsound’s subarea plan. The Committee has worked diligently to prepare draft revisions to the Eastsound Subarea Plan and corresponding sections of the UDC. These updates have been sidelined by the DCD and Council for several years pending Comp Plan updates, past and present, and now, the code consistency project. Meanwhile, development goes on in Eastsound according to a subarea plan and code last revised ten years ago. The EPRC functions as Eastsound’s voice in Friday Harbor; and that voice has been largely ignored. Sadie and Patty are both right: the individual character of Eastsound needs to be recognized and honored.