The commission reviewed staff’s proposal to accommodate seasonal and remote workforce housing within Title 17 without creating a separate, standalone workforce‑housing ordinance.

Staff proposed a new definition, “remote location workforce housing,” to allow non‑traditional housing typologies (park models, travel trailers, temporary foundations) for workforce accommodation where permanent structures are infeasible. Ben (staff) said the county could incorporate that typology into the existing Planned Residential Cluster Development (PRD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) sections so applicants can propose flexible housing arrangements on appropriately sized parcels.

The commission discussed multiple scenarios: seasonal agricultural labor, recreational resort staffing and potential mine projects referenced by members of the public. Staff noted that large, long‑term operations (for example, a mine serving hundreds of workers) would likely require a full SMARA (Surface Mining and Reclamation Act) review and CEQA analysis; housing demands would be evaluated as part of those land‑use entitlements.

Commissioners directed staff to add the proposed definition into Article 9 and allow the cluster/PRD path to include remote workforce housing where appropriate (for example, parcels over a threshold acreage or where public‑health and building‑standards are met). Staff will also refine limits on temporary occupancy (seasonal vs. permanent) and clear standards for water, wastewater and road access.