County's Response to Affordable Housing Petition: All Requirements Met

In a pre-hearing brief prepared by San Juan County responding to [intlink id=”hearings-board-to-review-campbells-housing-element-petition-today-in-eastsound” type=”post”]John Campbell’s petition[/intlink], (see previous story), County attorneys cite instances of case law setting precedents for their arguments, state statutes and administrative law. The County notes that “Fred Klein was granted intervenor status which limits his participation in this matter to the issues which directly affect his interests.”

The County’s brief states that in 2009, the County adopted an ordinance which amends the comprehensive plan by:

1) revising the Housing Element;
2) making changes with regard to population projections … and
3) replacing the 1999 housing needs assessment.. with a current version.

The County responds to the issues of Campbell’s petition, as well as to separate arguments brought up by Klein. The County states that Klein’s assertion that residential development potential in Eastsound is inadequate is incorrect, as is Klein’s contention “that 90% of housing need must be located within the UGA.[Eastsound Urban Growth Area].

“The Housing Needs Assessment shows that between 1990 and 2006, the County’s total population increased by 60% while the working age population increased by 33%,” the County brief states, in support of its contention that “the housing element and housing needs assessment discuss the shifting demographic of San Jan County….The County is required only to provide housing only for the projected population.”

In 2009, the County’s housing element “was substantially revised,” the brief states. “These amendments include … new affordable and general housing policies,” such as:

• a study of public land for affordable housing
• a study of a joint San Juan County and Friday Harbor Housing Authority
• support of County housing services such as emergency assistance, loan counseling, landlord-tenant counseling and credit counseling
• further incentives for creation of affordable housing through expansion of the existing density bonus program
• an increase in the number of units in the rural residential cluster program to 12 units (currently 8 units)
• allowance and incentives for rental of accessory dwelling units on a long-term basis
• monitoring avialability and cost of affordable housing annually to ensure housing affordability for middle-income households
• refining the permitting process in efforts to minimize delays
• establishing a housing authority

“The County’s amended housing element present a multi-pronged approach to providing for the housing needs of the County,” the County brief asserts.

It also states that “there is no basis for the [petitioner’s] statement that the entire population allocated to Eastsound is very low to moderate income…. Additionally it is not true that the only option of Orcas Island residents is government assisted housing. Other options, such as  housing in accessory dwelling units, exist… there are many sites … which show potential construction of more than 1 unit…”

“The housing needs assessment is a compilation of demographic and economic information designed to proved a projection of the County’s housing needs during the planning period [to 2020]. …The Housing Needs Assessment does not prevent the vision statement [of the County’s Comprehensive Plan]  from being implemented, it simply identifies the County’s housing needs.”

The County brief states, “The needs assessment, is an assessment, not a plan to be implemented. In contrast, the housing element includes goals and policies regarding the county’s housing needs; these are to be implemented. These documents are not incompatible.”

The County concludes its response by saying that it “requests that the Board find that the County is in compliance with the Growth Management Act and dismiss the petition for review.”

Following input from Campbell and County staff today, the Growth Management Hearings Board will deliberate and have said that it will make a decision by mid-February 2010.