Last-minute Home Fund donation seals West Bay Yards deal
Olympia City Council on Tuesday approved a development agreement for the West Bay Yards project, the largest new housing development the city has seen in decades.
It came with a last-minute twist, too.
Just days before the vote, Puyallup-based developer Milestone Companies sweetened the deal by offering to pay $250,000 to the city’s Home Fund, a sales tax levy that finances the construction of affordable housing.
At a public hearing last week, some members of the public criticized the project — which contains 478-units spread across five buildings and 20,000 square feet of commercial space — for not including any affordable housing.
Yến Huỳnh, the only council member to ask about affordable housing at last week’s public hearing, said that while she had concerns about the way the process played out, she voted for the agreement because it ultimately benefits the city.
“As a renter, someone that hears community member’s concerns, and considering that we’re in a housing crisis … I do not feel that less housing, further exacerbating the already low vacancy rate with an only-growing population, is part of the answer,” Huỳnh said.
Development agreements, which are voluntary but binding, lock in the city’s existing land use regulations — things such as the zoning code, comprehensive plan, shoreline master plan, density, design standards — that would specifically affect West Bay Yards for the next 15 years. Under the agreement, development impact fees are frozen (or “vested”) at their current levels for the duration of each of the project’s three phases.
In turn, the developer agrees to make certain improvements to the property. In this case, the biggest one would be a commitment to restoring the West Bay shoreline in the terms laid out in the city’s 2016 West Bay Environmental Restoration Final Report. The terms include in-water restoration of intertidal beach and marsh areas, as well as a publicly accessible boardwalk/waterfront trail.
The vote was 6-1, with the lone no vote coming from council member Clark Gilman, who announced his intention to vote against the proposal prior to last week’s public hearing.
Gilman said his opposition stemmed both from the sheer volume of community concern and from the negotiation process with the developer, which occurred largely behind closed doors with city staff. The city received hundreds of pages of comments, many concerned about the development’s impacts on traffic, quality of life, and the natural environment.
“It’s the kind of decision where I would have expected the city to enlist the community’s assistance to drive a hard bargain,” Gilman said. “I don’t believe that this development agreement reflects negotiating for community and residents’ benefit.”
Council members spent about an hour on Tuesday asking staff questions about traffic impacts, the permitting and regulatory process, and possible exemptions to the development agreement, such as if there is a public safety emergency that necessitates the city changing its land use regulations.
According to Deputy Public Works Director Mark Russell, the city plans to add sidewalks, bike lanes, and traffic calming devices, and will not widen West Bay Drive.
Council member Dani Madrone said that while she initially shared the community’s concerns, she believes that the agreement negotiated by city staff is consistent with the city’s vision as laid out in numerous studies and “maximized” what improvements the developer was willing to pay for.
“The resources to save a dying ecosystem are scarce,” Madrone said. “The community is getting meaningful public benefits, including gains for the environment and public access, and if we don’t approve this development agreement, I suspect that this project will move forward and leave these opportunities behind.”
Gilman said the current agreement is “almost word for word” the same as the initial offer made by the developer in August 2020, and asked staff what exactly was negotiated.
“I’m just trying to better understand what was negotiated, what were we advocating for, and maybe, why weren’t we able to get anything,” Gilman asked Planning and Engineering manager Tim Smith.
Smith said that an important staff priority was making sure each of the project’s three phases had distinct timelines.
“A lot of the negotiation was about the timing of the improvements,” Smith said.
Many of the concerns posed by residents were about the process being opaque and moving too quickly, said Huỳnh, who herself sought more time to consider the proposal.
In response to Huynh’s question, City Manager Jay Burney said this was the developer’s final offer.
“They feel this is their best offer and they don’t feel an extension of time would lead to them making any further concessions in the development agreement, so they are asking for a decision to be made this evening,” Burney said.
Although she voted for the agreement, Huỳnh proposed that future development agreements be first considered by the Land Use committee, to lengthen the public process and provide more opportunities for community input.
“While this development agreement is not a perfect formula that solves all of our housing and environmental concerns to the extent we wish, it does move us toward our comprehensive plan goals, it is consistent with the long-time efforts of prior councils, advisory boards, and commissions,” Huỳnh said.
Other council members made similar points about improving the process in the future to be more community-driven and transparent.
“Ultimately I really can’t think of a reason why I would vote against it,” said council member Renata Rollins. “When I think of all the public benefits around restoration and this additional support for the HOME Fund, which I hope will set a new precedent for the ways that private development can partner with the city, I really can’t think of a reason why I would vote no.”
This story was originally published March 31, 2021 at 11:07 AM.
.jpg)