Island County tells Oak Harbor it must plan for 41% of low-income housing; council agrees to consider rezoning

Island County commissioners told the Oak Harbor City Council on Feb. 11 that the city must show how it will accommodate 41% of the county’s 0–50% area median income (AMI) housing requirement within city limits as part of the 2025 comprehensive-plan update, and Oak Harbor councilmembers said they are willing to consider rezoning and other infill strategies to try to meet that target.

The discussion, held as a joint meeting of the Board of Island County Commissioners and the Oak Harbor City Council, focused on differences between Oak Harbor’s land capacity analysis and the county’s interpretation of countywide planning policies and state growth-management rules. Island County Commissioner Melanie Bacon said the county’s concern is that Oak Harbor’s submitted numbers would push most dense, low‑AMI housing into the city’s urban growth area (UGA) instead of the city core, “where services and infrastructure do not exist.” She said the county’s October letter proposed options to increase density in the city and that the county expects the city to “accommodate 41% of the necessary housing at the 0 to 50% AMI level.”

Oak Harbor Mayor Wright and city staff responded that the city has produced a land-capacity analysis and has been exploring rezoning and redevelopment options, including raising height limits in the downtown “triangle” roughly bounded by Highway 20, Pioneer and Midway. City principal planner Kat Camack said the city’s consultants analyzed the triangle and other candidate areas but that even with rezoning “there’s still gonna be a shortfall” in units. Councilmembers said they have discussed moving downtown from a 4‑story maximum to a 5‑story maximum and identified other candidate areas for higher density, but reiterated concerns about market feasibility, redevelopment timelines and impacts on existing neighborhoods.

Commissioners repeatedly emphasized legal and procedural stakes. County speakers noted that state law and the Growth Management Act require jurisdictions to document capacity for the 20‑year planning period at the start of the period, and County staff said past expansions that lacked defensible capacity analyses were rejected at the Growth Management Hearings Board. Commissioner Bacon said the county needs a defensible plan to present to state reviewers and that if the city cannot show sufficient capacity inside city limits, the county will ask for a UGA expansion — but only as a last resort and only with justification that will survive review.

The two sides discussed tools and tradeoffs that could reduce the shortfall, including: rezoning single‑family areas to allow multifamily infill; docketing rezonings as part of the comprehensive‑plan adoption so the city’s future zoning is documented in the plan; annexing developable UGA land to city limits (annexation may require voter approval); and “land swaps” that trade undevelopable parcels (for example wetlands) for developable parcels so capacity increases without outward expansion. County staff also encouraged Oak Harbor to document plans to extend water and sewer services into areas the city intends to develop.

Councilmembers raised implementation concerns: the time and cost of redevelopment, the political sensitivity of rezoning established neighborhoods, infrastructure and sidewalks in annexed areas, and the risk that paper capacity does not materialize in the market. Oak Harbor Councilmember Zamora urged careful placement of rezonings to avoid “unintended consequences” and noted the practical expense and complexity of demolition and redevelopment. County officials offered limited financial partnership options — mentioning county rural economic development funds and transportation priorities — and said they want to work with Oak Harbor on infrastructure and programmatic supports.

By the end of the meeting County staff summarized the emerging agreement: Oak Harbor will work with its consultants and county staff to explore infill and rezoning strategies intended to increase the city’s share of 0–50% AMI housing, and county and city staff will continue to identify UGA proposals or needed expansions with defensible justification. Commissioner Bacon said the county needs a clearer city position soon because state review deadlines and the county’s December deadline for the comprehensive‑plan update impose time constraints. Mayor Wright and several councilmembers acknowledged they will pursue rezoning options and bring refined, documentable proposals back to the joint process.

No formal votes or motions were taken at the joint meeting.