A county-wide study shows that Tumwater has sufficient land capacity to accommodate future housing needs for low-income households until 2045, but a city planner warns that the margin of error is too small to be complacent.
Planning Manager Brad Medrud told the General Government Committee on Wednesday, Oct. 9, that an analysis by the Thruston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) show that available zoned land in the city can accommodate a surplus of 35 low-income residential units.
The land capacity study shows that the city would have capacity for 5,729 low-income housing units compared to the 5,694 units needed for the city.
“We've got 35 more in capacity than what the need is, which to my mind, the margin of error is way too small to say, ‘Yeah, we're fine,’” Medrud told the committee.
“My proposal going forward is that we still have to do some work to really make sure that we account for the 80% [area median income households] by a higher factor than what this shows,” Medrud added.
The required numbers are based on preliminary data by TRPC which has been working on how it would allocate 54,356 housing units among its cities and urban growth areas. The Washington Department of Commerce (Commerce) projected the county would need that much to accommodate growth until 2045.
Of that amount, 29,053 will be for low-income households, which is defined as those earning 80% or less of the area median income.
TRPC reviewed several methods for allocating the housing needs and ended up on a variation of a method used by Snohomish County.
The chosen methodology led to the TRPC allocating 5,694 low-income housing units for Tumwater. The following table breaks this number further among various levels within the low-income bracket.
|
Tumwater |
Income level (% of area median income) |
|||
|
0-30% (in permanent supportive housing |
0-30% (not in permanent supportive housing) |
30-50% |
50-80% |
|
|
City |
554 |
1,320 |
1,002 |
1,129 |
|
Urban Growth Area |
170 |
415 |
307 |
797 |
|
Total |
723 |
1,736 |
1,309 |
1,926 |
Commerce also projected that the county would need 936 emergency housing units, 184 of which TRPC allocated to Tumwater.
Councilmember Michael Althauser noted this number is very low compared to the number of people experiencing homelessness. Medrud agreed but said that he would need to research further how Commerce came up with the projected number.
The land capacity study found that Olympia, Lacey, and the unincorporate areas of the county also have sufficient capacity to accommodate future low-income housing needs, while Tenino, Yelm and Grand Mound will be deficient. The study stated that the three jurisdictions would need to develop strategies in their comprehensible plan update to eliminate those deficits.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
FirstOtter
Who desginates what type of land is considered 'sufficient"? Farm Land? Grassland, forests, anything that's not paved and is currently considered unbuildable? Does it mean 'land' in the form a small lot in the middle of Olympia, for instance, that currently has a vacant building on it? Don't go saying there's sufficient land if you're using the same metrics the state used when it tried to shove a mega airport up our rear ends. That was seven square miles of what they called "Greenfields" that were anything but. Their map covered thousands of homes, buildings, cemetaries, tree lots, schools, and only after their project was nixed did the planners admit that 'greenfields' meant 'anywhere there's not an airport".
In this case, open land, rural land, farms, ranches, prairies, forests, are NOT sufficient for yet more development.
Friday, October 11 Report this
Southsoundguy
Www.strongtowns.org for reading on better governance around this issue.
Saturday, October 12 Report this
FirstOtter
Why hasn't the old Tumwater Brewery been considered for development? It already has the water, sewer, electrical necessities. It has a huge parking lot. There's even a green area that can be used as a park for the residents of a low income housing. It's even on a bus line, for pete's sakes!
Sunday, October 13 Report this
Deanima
First Otter, the land capacity analysis was for land WITHIN the city limits and urban growth areas. Before shooting from the hip, read up on the things you comment about. Also, redevelopment work on the old brewery the old brewery has been underway for some time and is well documented.
Monday, October 14 Report this
FirstOtter
Deananima, I didn't know that about the brewery. Thanks for the information.
Monday, October 14 Report this
MrCommonSense
Why haven't we figured out how to solve the "affordable" housing "crisis"? Cost of building is too high, higher paying jobs too few in our area, demand to live here to great, interest rates are up, impact fees ridiculous, sewer and water connections outrageous, permit fees exorbitant, building codes gone crazy, sidewalks for everyone, street lights (Olympia ugly retro 1800's) expensive (see new development on Sleater-Kinney).... guess we can stop now..... Until these are realistically addressed, housing will simply continue to be expensive and get more expensive. We would be remiss if we didn't mentioned "buyers" who "forget" they should be saving a down payment. Everyone seems to "need" a new car and spend $5 on a daily latte.
Here is a simple real life example of how density could be increased. Lott should have borrowed money years ago when it was basically "free" and extended sewer lines in the cities and within the urban growth boundary where multifamily exists on septic systems. Owners of properties with failed septic systems would have connected to sewer and the land used for drain fields and septic reserve areas could be used for additional multifamily units. Instead, property owners have been upgrading their septic systems because sewer is too far away. Short sighted planning which we are all paying a Lott for. Pun intended.
Tuesday, October 22 Report this