On Tuesday, the Olympia City Council approved an interlocal agreement with multiple jurisdictions to advance a regional housing and land capacity analysis.
The agreement involves collaboration with Lacey, Tenino, Tumwater, Yelm, Thurston County, and the Thurston Regional Planning Council to conduct a regional housing and land capacity analysis for comprehensive housing plan updates, as required by the state Growth Management Act (GMA).
Before voting on the resolution, Councilmember Dani Madrone requested the item pulled from the consent calendar to provide more context to the regional housing and land capacity analysis.
Madrone explained that the analysis connects to the previous housing needs allocation, which projected housing unit needs across different income levels over the next 20 years.
Olympia's Community Planning and Development Director, Leonard Bauer, explained that the study builds on the previous year's regional housing allocation work, which was mandated by House Bill 1220. The bill established new standards for the type of analysis required to be included in the housing chapter of the local comprehensive plan.
The Planning director noted that dividing those county-wide projections among jurisdictions was the first step. Each jurisdiction was allocated a certain number of housing units to plan for the next 20 years at each income level based on the overall county-wide projections.
Bauer added that the next analysis phase will specifically look at land capacity within existing zoning districts. Based on census data, it aims to relate the allowable housing types in each zone to current income levels in those areas.
Bauer said the study will assess how well-situated each jurisdiction is to accommodate housing needs at various affordability levels through 2045.
During the discussion, Councilmember Jim Cooper asked Bauer if the analysis would include factors like access to transportation and services for lower-income residents without vehicles. He noted that looking at the holistic living costs is important, not just the land value to income ratio.
In response, Bauer said that transportation access is separate from the land capacity analysis, but it could be reviewed under the comprehensive plan update to ensure they address different needs.
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
BobJacobs
This looks like the legislature trying to make it appear they are doing something about the shortage of housing.
A common legislative ploy.
Only private developers will solve the housing shortage.
Bob Jacobs
Thursday, February 15 Report this
jimlazar
Jim Cooper is asking the right question: is the TOTAL cost of housing, including transportation, affordable. Building a bunch of trailer parks halfway to Grand Mound will not solve housing issues, because people will need to drive, and driving is expensive.
The annual cost of owning a car is in the thousands of dollars when you consider monthly payments (technically, interest and depreciation), insurance, maintenance, and fuel.
It is simply not feasible to run transit to lightly populated areas. The RuralTransit program costs more than $10 per ride to operate -- nearly all grant-funded. That is no solution.
The solution is smaller apartments located along frequent bus routes. The studio apartment-style hotels I love to stay in when I travel (Home2Suites, Residence Inn, Homewood Suites) are the kind of housing that can be affordable to small and low-earning households.
Low-income households with children will remain dependent on subsidized housing; there is no market solution to that part of the housing crisis. Congress has been unable to adequately fund the Section 8 Housing Voucher program. It's not a problem that local government can address with its very limited financial capability.
Thursday, February 15 Report this
Southsoundguy
Why will low-income households remain dependent on government welfare? Why can't society figure this out independent from government interventions? It is almost like you have assumed the conclusion which you want to prove...
Thursday, February 15 Report this
OlyKid88
I don't see how any result from this effort can lead to an actionable plan as local governments don't develop housing projects or build housing. They possess very few tools to have much, if any, impact on investments made by the private sector.
The City does have the MFTE (Multi Family Tax Exemption) available to encouraged development in City defined opportunity zones that have historically received little to no housing development. The MFTE allows for the exemption of property taxes for a duration of 8,12 and 20 years determined by the type of housing being built. The specifics are too much to go into, but my opinion is that the MFTE isn't creating the benefits the City intended. However, we are now in a much higher interest rate environment with inflation and higher input costs so maybe the MFTE will become a tipping point to help projects pencil out and qualify for financing. My opinion is that it should be available only to those projects that provide low income/affordable housing. At this point, now that a large number of apartments have been built, market rate projects should be excluded. I would like to see a larger, open debate with data on this topic.
The City should focus on streamlining the permit process, work to reduce impact fees, manage zoning and rethink building requirements that add considerable building cost. They should ensure that the infrastructure is in place to meet the needs of the specific zoning requirements that they have set on empty parcels. All of these costs are passed on to buyers and actually encourage building larger, more expensive homes. A new 1000 square foot, 2 bdrm/1 bath home can't absorb all those costs.
The City Council would benefit from meeting with builders, bankers and developers to understand the process, the risk points and the economics that are involved. Most have never known, or met, anyone on the City Council. Many businesses downtown will say the same thing. I've lived here my entire life and I've never known anyone on the Council. On the one occasion I did speak with a Council member once (who is no longer on the Council) and she spent the entire conversation explaining to me how my business worked, complete with a word salad that made no sense.
In general, the Council often projects a lack of understanding, interest or involvement with private business, banking, economics and development. Right or wrong, I blame this blind spot on the typical academic background of the people on the Council. A masters degree in public administration from Evergreen.
There is no such thing as a private developers building low income/affordable housing, This type of housing only can happen through government subsidies.
As an example, 12 homes by Habitat for Humanity are to be built on free land with a considerable amount of free volunteer labor and some donated materials.
Another good example is the 43 unit Billy Frank building downtown managed by LIHI (Low Income Housing Institute). Funding came from numerous government grants and subsidies. The negative of LIHI projects is that they cost the public a multiple of what private construction would cost. This is true even though the City sold LIHI the lot for $1, construction utilized lower grade finishes, had fewer amenities and a lower quality of design and construction. It is built on the typical downtown fill, but used a less expensive concrete slab on grade foundation. Most privately developed buildings would utilize deeply drilled pilings to prevent sinking or cracking from a soil liquification event such as an earthquake. Billy Frank also has an exterior, vs interior, stairway and no onsite parking. The building is built on a polluted lot with a large area at the rear of the building so polluted it is totally fenced off. Even with all these numerous and substantial cost savings, the building is far more expensive than the newest market rate construction. Strange isn't it? That is a topic for another time.
Private developers borrow at current interest rates, buy market priced land and pay current skilled labor rates and material costs. The result is market rate housing. This will always be the case.
Thursday, February 15 Report this