Will Olympia’s zoning changes produce affordable housing? They’re ‘a modest first step’
More than 80 people logged in to a Planning Commission public hearing last week where commissioners heard feedback on proposed residential zoning changes that would allow for more and denser types of housing to be built in residential neighborhoods.
Over more than two hours, 39 people gave testimony. Of those, 28 people supported the proposed zoning changes or thought they should go further. Three people had concerns about specific provisions, and eight more opposed allowing the new housing types entirely.
The Olympian wrote about how the proposed amendments would change Olympia’s zoning code last week. In brief, they would:
- Allow duplexes in areas zoned R 4-8 (Residential 4-8 units per acre), the city’s largest and lowest-density zone, as well as on all corner lots in every residential zoning district, and reduce minimum lot size for duplexes.
- Allow triplexes and “courtyard apartments” in R 6-12 zones (Residential 6-12 units per acre).
- Ease restrictions on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), including removing requirements for property owner to live on-site and for one off-street parking space, increasing maximum height of detached ADUs from 16 to 24 feet, and allowing ADUs of up to 800 square feet, regardless of primary house size.
Many of the supporters urged the commission to recommend bolder changes to the zoning code, such as allowing triplexes and courtyard apartments in all residential zones, or abolishing parking requirements and design review altogether.
They called the changes “modest” and “a good first step.”
The reasons were numerous: the need for more housing as the city grows in population and rents rise, the desire to reduce car usage by concentrating housing near existing infrastructure, and the threats posed by climate change.
Key to their arguments were fulfilling the city’s stated goal of promoting infill development, meaning channeling new growth into the urban areas instead of expanding sprawling suburbs further into rural areas. Increasing density, the argument goes, will protect natural areas from being over developed.
“These regulations, by providing housing in the city close to transit and making use of existing utilities, are a modest step to realizing this promise of our comprehensive plan,” said Holly Gadbaw, a former city council member and mayor who worked on one of the city’s first comprehensive plans.
Fundamentally, supporters argued, Olympia just needs more housing.
“Though it is modest after years of arguing about housing, it really just needs to move forward as soon as possible,” said Janae Huber, founder of Olympians for People Oriented Places. “This housing crisis has been going on for too long, and too many people are unable to find housing in our community.”
Of those who spoke against the proposal, many concerns centered around the fear that a flood of new development will result from out-of-town investors buying up property and building denser units, quickly changing the character of neighborhoods.
“I feel pretty strongly that opening up small tracts from the neighborhood lands for multiple apartments only increases profitability for certain investor contractors and decreases the stability of neighborhoods,” said Linda Malanchuck-Finnan, a resident of the Castlewood neighborhood.
Malanchuck-Finnan said she sees only luxury apartments being built, and she believes safeguards should be put in place to ensure that some of the new housing that the relaxed rules might encourage be affordable.
“I think that we do need lower-rate apartments and those have not been being built because they’re not profitable. I think we’ve seen a lot of what I would consider pretty high-priced houses and apartments built and not the ones that we really need,” she said.
While many who opposed the changes cited fear that their neighborhoods would change, others said that neighborhoods had already changed: They’ve gotten more expensive, pricing certain people out.
ADUs specifically could offer seniors an opportunity to “age-in-place,” noted Anna Schlecht, the co-chair of the Thurston Thrives Senior Housing team.
“Speaking on behalf of seniors, when you allow people to stay in place, you stabilize neighborhoods – and I think that’s one of the things the opponents are also concerned about,” Schlecht said.
At least two people expressed concern that eliminating the owner-occupancy requirement for ADUs would lead to them becoming “party houses.” Multiple others worried about not having enough parking, or said they believe more commuters from Seattle will move in and drive up costs further.
Supporters countered that fears of rapid development are overblown.
“If you look at other jurisdictions who have undertaken this kind of work, you’ll see that the changes have really produced very modest results,” said Mike McCormick, a South Capitol resident and former state planner who worked on the creation of the Growth Management Act. “I think those that are concerned and scared about the potential impacts are overestimating what’s going to actually happen.”
In 2018, the city studied how much new housing could result from the Missing Middle regulations, which went further than the current proposal in allowing new housing types. According to a data projection compiled by the Thurston Regional Planning Council, the Missing Middle was predicted to allow for the construction of between 474-946 new housing units in low-density neighborhoods over a 20-year time period, an increase of 3-6% in Olympia’s housing capacity. The analysis, which did not include the potential for new ADUs, was based on buildable land, lot sizes, current development plans, and environmental and spatial constraints.
One thing that both supporters and detractors noted was that the amendments allow for more diverse types of housing units to be built, but do not directly address the need for affordable housing.
Several people mentioned “inclusionary zoning,” a tactic that’s been tried in larger cities that require larger developments set aside a certain percentage of units to be rented below market-rate.
Multiple people on both sides expressed frustration with the multifamily tax exemption, a statewide incentive program that in Olympia has been used mainly to subsidize the development of market-rate housing downtown, with the notable exception of Merritt Manor on Martin Way. Reforms to that program have been discussed by the city’s Land Use and Environment Committee, but have not been addressed.
The discussions and fears about increased density and changing neighborhoods have been going on for a long time, noted the former council-member Gadbaw.
“The council that I served on faced the same kind of opposition when the city allowed for townhouses, [also] a modest proposal. Opponents brought their children who held signs [reading] ‘save our neighborhood’,” Gadbaw recalled. “Several years later, after townhouses had been developed in his neighborhood, the leading opponent to this regulation stopped me on the street and said, ‘You know Holly, these townhouses haven’t been a detriment to our neighborhood — in fact, they’ve been a good addition.”
The Planning Commission will meet again on Oct. 5 to discuss a recommendation for city council.
This story was originally published September 26, 2020 at 1:06 PM.
.jpg)