Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater staff outline housing element: plan must add roughly 9,200 units and address displacement risks
Summary
City staff previewed the housing element of the comprehensive plan, describing an assigned countywide allocation of roughly 9,192 additional housing units, a focus on housing affordable to households under 80% AMI, and proposed goals and implementation actions to reduce displacement and expand housing types.
City planning staff presented a draft housing element for Tumwater’s comprehensive plan at the June 10 council work session, telling council members the city must accommodate roughly 9,192 additional housing units across the city and its urban growth area and prioritize capacity for households under 80% of area median income (AMI).
Brad, a city staff member presenting the element, told the council that the Growth Management Act requires cities to plan for housing affordable to all economic segments. Staff summarized results from the housing needs assessment, land capacity analysis and a racially disparate impacts review produced for the update.
Why it matters: the housing element establishes goals, policies and implementation actions that will guide zoning, incentives, and partnerships over the 20-year planning horizon and help the city demonstrate compliance with state planning requirements.
Key figures and capacities: staff said Tumwater had about 12,274 housing units in 2020 and that the countywide allocation process led to an additional need of roughly 9,192 units, producing an aggregate target near 21,466 housing units. Staff emphasized that the largest portion of that need falls under 80% AMI; meeting that demand will require low-rise and mid-rise multifamily housing, middle housing (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes), and public support or incentives for lower AMI groups.
The presentation discussed several technical measures: HUD median-income cutoffs used in AMI bands, a “portability/affordability index” for buyers and renters, and a cost-burden analysis showing a sizable share of households spending 30% or more of income on housing. Brad said the land capacity analysis compared allocated need to existing zoning capacity and found only a narrow surplus for the 0–80% AMI range under current zoning and development patterns; staff proposed adjustments to zoning categories and density ranges in the land use element to increase capacity.
Displacement and equity: staff reported a racially disparate impacts review and identified economic displacement (loss of lower-cost housing and mobile home community risks) as a prominent local concern. The draft element includes anti-displacement policies and proposed implementation actions targeting mobile home park protections, tenant stability programs and partnerships to expand ownership opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.
Council members asked about ownership opportunities, cottage housing, transit service and infrastructure timing. Brad said townhomes and condominiums can support ownership opportunities but acknowledged financing, condominium law complexity and the local development market constrain some options; he recommended pursuing demonstration projects and public–private partnerships to expand ownership types. On transit, staff said the city is coordinating with Intercity Transit and regional partners and is including infrastructure planning alongside housing to avoid unfunded sprawl.
Next steps: staff will post the housing element and appendices in the council packet folder, solicit council feedback and schedule follow-up discussion; the element will be refined ahead of an ordinance this fall as part of the comprehensive-plan update process.
