Council candidates answer housing questions (Part 1 of 4)

||| FROM GEORGE J ZWEIBEL and SANDY BISHOP |||

Affordable housing is unquestionably one of the most important issues the new SJC  Council will face and one that is a concern to most everyone who lives or works in the islands.  We have been actively engaged in affordable housing for years, on both the development and policy sides  of the issue.  

We  took it upon ourselves to ask the four candidates running for San Juan County Council positions a series of eight questions about affordable housing.  

1. As you see it, what is the Council’s role with regard to affordable housing?

Rick Hughes: Affordable housing should be the top priority for the San Juan County Council. Our role is an important mix of:

• • Executing the 8 goals in the SJ County Comprehensive Plan Housing section as determined by staff, council and concerned islanders;
  • Collaborating with the Housing Advisory Committee to balance the needs of affordable housing and the environment; and
  • Most importantly, always listening to public input and pushing for innovative ideas.

Additionally, SJCC needs to make accessible/affordable housing permit approval as a priority, expand the first-time home buyers fund and loans that allow for the purchase of land that can be used for more affordable livable structures (e.g, tiny homes, prefab, panelized kit homes) or critical infrastructure like septic. The county should also prioritize approval of all affordable housing projects, and provide more first-time homebuyer loans for homes and land. I also propose working with other providers to lower utility installation costs (which are often cost-prohibitive for potential homeowners) and make more land available for home construction. In addition, modifications to the guest house rule for affordable rentals are critical.

Justin Paulsen: The first priority for Council should be to assure that the policies and resources are in place to guarantee that a reliable, predictable and efficient process exists for the analysis and processing of building and land-use applications. One of the most critical expenses in any project is that of lost time – we cannot afford to be the cause of a pushing a project over budget due to administrative failure. Second, the Council should assure that planning policies and code revisions are regularly reviewed to assure that codes and interpretations are consistent across disciplines. This cannot be a once in a decade process. It needs to be regular and ongoing in order to prevent unnecessary, costly delays while also recognizing points for enhancements of opportunity. Finally, Council must be actively engaged with community partners, incentivizing and supporting projects which provide maximum impact for County tax dollars. Allocation of Affordable Housing REET dollars to projects is incredibly important and having local control of where those monies are targeted is one of the most powerful and flexible tools that San Juan County has.

Kari McVeigh: The County has a major responsibility in regards to permanently affordable housing, from setting the conditions for how permanently affordable housing will be built, to where it might be built. Additionally, the Council determines the types of
permanently affordable housing (e.g. single family, muti-family, ADUs, rentals, etc.), how such housing will be utilized, by whom, and by requiring that it remain permanently affordable forever.

Stephanie O’Day: The Council, as the legislative arm of the county, can adjust the codes to allow for more ADU’s on properties to be used for long term rentals.

2. Are there specific Code changes you would propose to allow creation of more affordable housing? If so, what are they and what are your reasons?

Hughes: I propose changing the current code to permit more flexibility with livable ADU’s (Accessory Dwelling Unites) so that they can be built on smaller lots, on separate water/septic and be more than 100 feet away from the primary resident, always taking into account shoreline master plan and critical areas ordinances. Tiny homes need to be allowed and easy to permit. These ADU’s could never be short term rentals.
From the Comp plan Goal/Policy 6&7

• • Allow bonuses for multi-family affordable housing development
  • Expand the existing density bonus program to provide further incentives for creating affordable housing in Urban Growth Areas and Activity Centers.
  • Allow up to 50% of dwelling units counted as affordable housing for the purpose of obtaining affordable housing privileges to be for moderate income households.
  • Establish a fund and identify funding sources to be used for the offset of building permit fees for affordable housing.
  • Change ADU rules
  • Allow Mobile Home/Tiny Home Parks
  • Increase funding of the first time home buyers loan program
  • Make all affordable housing permits to be discounted and approved as a priority
  • Encourage renewable energy options with all new construction.
  • Increase Farm worker housing density allowance
  • As has recently been implemented on Cortez Island, a 3% lodging tax added to the cost of a stay for a visitor that is collected for affordable housing. Work with Senator Lovelett on passing SB 5420, which will allow local jurisdictions to add this additional affordable housing lodging tax.

Paulsen: I believe that San Juan County needs to enhance opportunities to increase housing stock in a wide band of income levels. From a code perspective, we should be targeting changes which enhance both ownership and rental access. I would specifically support a reconsideration and analysis of the current regulations regarding ADUs. I would specifically look at utilizing the as-of-yet un-formulated “Transfer of Development Rights” portion of the code (SJCC 18.60.040) as a mechanism for creating opportunities for ADU construction and clustering. Through careful construction of this portion of the UDC, incentives could be included which would allow for creating housing which is available to a wider spectrum of incomes and is restricted to year round rental. Properly managed, this revision could be used to move density away from resource starved areas, preserving limited natural resources.

I support the analysis of potential density calculation changes within our UGA/s which may provide density bonuses for development of efficiency/studio designed housing. Acknowledgement of the reduced cost and impact of smaller per/unit development is one way to increase senior/entry level/workforce-based housing stock while addressing cost concerns.

McVeigh: I believe that the Council has a variety of options to amend codes to allow for the fast tracking of permanently affordable housing plans, to allow for the creation of pre-approved plans for affordable housing, and to incentivizing the creation of ADUs for the purpose of providing permanently affordable housing. To do so we need to amend ADU regulations, create density bonus/exception for RRC (Rural Residential Clusters), create density bonus/exception for FR (Forest Reserves) or allow RRCs in FR, allow greater residential density in RGU, allow ADUs with an easement for “affordable housing” with enforcement rights by the County, and allow commercial uses to include an extra residential unit.

O’Day: Yes, currently the county code only allows ADU’s on 5-acre properties and within 100 feet of the main home. I would like to have that adjusted to 4-acre parcels and farther away from the main home, while retaining setbacks from adjoining properties, to encourage more ADUs for long term rentals. The lottery for ADUs should be set aside. Stock plans for small houses and quicker building permit approvals for tiny house and manufactured home placement should also be a goal.