San Juan County planners review draft housing element; public and commissioners press for specifics on tiny homes, ADUs and affordability rules

SAN JUAN COUNTY, Wash.

San Juan County Planning Commission staff and consultants presented a revised draft of the county's housing element during a Feb. 21 workshop, describing changes made to meet new state Growth Management Act requirements and to respond to public and advisory committee feedback. Because commissioners did not have a quorum, the meeting was a workshop only and the commission took no formal actions.

The draft presented by Sofia Cassel, Department of Community Development project manager, and David Fisk of Leland Consulting Group frames housing for the county's 20-year planning horizon, updates population and capacity analyses, and adds policy language on middle housing, ADUs, tiny homes, deed restrictions and steps to remove code barriers. Cassel said public comments received during the update will be considered and asked commissioners to submit further comments by Feb. 28.

Why it matters: The housing element must now show planning targets across income bands required by state law and identify how the county intends to meet deficits. Commissioners and stakeholders said clearer implementation steps are needed so the policy goals translate to actual housing production.

Fisk told the commission the element now explicitly addresses state requirements, strengthens policy language for lower-income households and proposes new implementation tools such as preapproved housing plans and deed-restriction programs. He said the land-capacity analysis will be updated once county decisions on targeted land-use changes (particularly for Eastsound) are finalized; those map-change options are scheduled for the March meeting.

Public testimony underscored urgency and competing priorities. Catherine Dietzmann, shoreline and mapping specialist with Friends of the San Juans, urged the county to preserve permanently occupied housing in urban growth areas and to reduce the number of vacation rentals as existing permits lapse. Dietzmann said the county's stock of seasonal or occasional-use housing is unusually high and supplied figures: "37.5% versus 7.4%" statewide for seasonal or recreational housing, and recommended a prioritized approach including reducing development barriers in Eastsound, increasing density within existing boundaries and considering UGA expansion only as a last option.

A second public speaker, who identified herself only as Heather, described difficulty finding housing despite holding a master's-level job: "I had to sleep on someone's floor because the only apartment I could find ended up having black mold... My coworker slept in a teepee." She also raised a conflict-of-interest concern about Friday Harbor city council members who she said are short-term rental operators.

Commissioner discussion focused on tools and tradeoffs. Commissioners asked for more implementation detail and warned that capacity does not guarantee production of specific housing types. Commissioner Bill Bangs suggested distinguishing goals, policies and discrete actions, arguing that actions must be specific enough to evaluate progress in future reviews. He also asked for an assessment of achievability for the planning targets, noting the county would need sustained production rates not previously reached.

A central policy debate concerned density bonuses and long-term affordability requirements. The draft includes policies (6.5 and 7.4) proposing long-term resale or rent restrictions on units produced through density bonuses; the housing advisory committee reportedly recommends 50-plus-year restrictions. Sofia Cassel said some stakeholders and affordable housing providers have warned that long resale restrictions can make financing difficult. A county consultant summarized the trade-off: requiring all bonus units to be permanently restricted supports long-term affordability but may reduce developer interest or project viability; requiring a percentage could be a middle ground. Homes for Islanders was explicitly mentioned by a commissioner as saying resale restrictions have made financing and resale of units difficult in practice.

Other specific items discussed: - ADUs: Commissioners and staff discussed a potential policy to restrict ADUs from short-term rental use; several commissioners supported limiting vacation-rental use of ADUs under state RCW allowances. - Tiny homes and tiny-home communities: The draft explicitly supports tiny homes within UGAs and activity centers; commissioners asked for clarity on suitable sizes and family suitability and suggested piloting projects with local affordable housing providers. - Adequate provisions/code audit: Consultants provided (or will provide) a code-audit checklist identifying potential barriers to housing production (heights, lot sizes, parking, lot coverage); staff agreed to circulate the memo to commissioners. - Timeline and next steps: Cassel asked for comments by Feb. 28. Land-use options and map changes are expected to be introduced at the March meeting; a full draft is planned for May.

The meeting produced no votes. Because a quorum was not present, the commission did not confirm the agenda, did not approve minutes from the Jan. 17 meeting and will defer formal actions to future hearings when a quorum is present.

What's next: Commissioners and the public can submit written comments to the planning team by Feb. 28; map and land-use options intended to address Eastsound capacity will be presented in March. The commission will revisit the housing element and the proposed code changes at future meetings before forwarding recommendations to county council.

Ending: The Planning Commission emphasized the need for clearer, implementable actions tied to the policy language so the county can track progress on housing production over the plan horizon.