||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||


On May 18, Director of Community Development Erika Shook gave council members four options for establishing countywide and/or island-specific caps on vacation rental permits (excluding Friday Harbor). Driving those options, she explained, were “logical possibilities related to actual numbers.” She also emphasized that these options are designed as starting points for discussion.

As itemized in her Staff Report:

Option 1: Countywide Cap – Floating
“The number of vacation rental permits outside of the Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation in any given year shall not exceed 8% of total housing units existing as of December 31 of the previous calendar year.” Under this scenario, and based on mostly updated 2020 data, the number of new permits would have been 35 – 40, determined by a lottery.

Option 2: Countywide Cap – Fixed
“The number of vacation rental permits countywide outside of the Master Planned Resort (MPR) designation shall not exceed a total of 1,445, and no more than 29 vacation rental permits shall be issued in any given year.” This figure is based on an estimated 18,000 housing units by the end of the 15-year “planning horizon” (1,445 is 8% of 18,000).

Option 3: Floating Cap by Island (unrelated to a countywide cap)
“The number of vacation rental permits issued in any calendar year on [San Juan/Orcas/Lopez] Island shall not exceed 8% of the total number of permits for single family residences issued on [San Juan/Orcas/Lopez] Island as of December 31 of the previous calendar year.” This is the most restrictive option, which would have resulted in less than 10 new permits in 2021.

Option 4: Floating Cap by Island (as allowed under a countywide cap)
“The number of vacation rental permits issued in any calendar year on San Juan Island shall not exceed 34% of the total number of permits allowed to be issued in a given year under Option A or B.” On Orcas, the portion would be 33%; on Lopez, 15%. The number of permits allowed in 2021 under this scenario would have fallen somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2. Shook concluded that, “Yearly calculations are more difficult and time-intensive. The simplest option is to select fixed numbers rather than rely on annual calculations.”

“I feel most comfortable with an overall fixed county cap as well as island caps,” responded Cindy Wolf. “The reason is that if we tie VR permits to the building of housing stock, there is no guarantee that new housing stock will bring new workers. If we are prioritizing for community and the ability to provide good service to our visitors, it’s important not to overtax our infrastructure. Under Options A and B, we could easily reach 600 VRs just on Orcas by 2036. Orcas already has half of all VRs in the county. A 500-permit cap on Orcas is a reasonable number, which is more than we have now.” Though not by much: There are currently 491 permitted VRs on Orcas, compared to 382 on San Juan and 130 on Lopez.

Christine Minney agreed that “a countywide fixed cap is a good starting point . . . something that we can send back to the Planning Commission (for further consideration).” She then added, “I wholeheartedly agree that we need a fixed cap by island . . . because the impacts are very different.”

Jamie Stephens asked if the cap “would take into account permits that were abandoned or given up?” Shook assured him it would, to which Stephens then responded that he agreed with the points raised by Minney and Wolf.

Minney then asked if it was possible to limit permits by land use or neighborhood. “This can be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan,” replied Wolf.

“Saturation,” said Stephens, “has been more of a problem than the overall number.”

To add your comments to the discussion, Council members can be reached at the addresses below:


 

**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.**