Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Density And Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for clearer metrics, incentives to reach development-area density goals
Summary
Members emphasized that the draft plan must include specific, measurable strategies to achieve higher density in development areas — including clearer activity‑center boundaries, rezoning options, incentives for missing‑middle housing and tracking metrics tied to the big moves.
Commissioners and staff spent considerable time on Aug. 26 discussing how the draft plan translates future‑land‑use categories and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) into actual development outcomes inside the county’s development areas.
Several commissioners said the 2015 plan’s density targets were not achieved and asked how AC44 will correct that. Commissioners recommended stronger, concrete tools in the plan to encourage density inside development areas: examples cited included targeted rezoning of specific parcels (rather than relying only on applicants to seek rezonings), clearer activity‑center boundaries linked to incentives, regulatory changes to ease the “missing middle” housing types, and performance incentives for projects that provide additional affordable units.
Commissioners suggested that the draft should make clearer whether the county is (a) changing the map to add higher‑density land, (b) consolidating land-use categories, or (c) using regulatory and incentive tools to increase net development capacity inside existing FLUM designations. Several commissioners argued the last approach — enabling higher realized density on land already in the development area — must be the focus because the board has signaled that major boundary expansion is not expected.
On metrics, staff proposed tracking a limited set of indicators tied to the plan’s “big moves” (for example, population growth by location, change in preserved and new affordable housing units, and cost‑burdened households). Commissioners warned against an unworkable laundry list of metrics and asked staff to coordinate with the county’s strategic‑plan and spear reporting processes so performance measures are actionable and resourced.
Transportation and transit came up repeatedly: commissioners said removing parking requirements or enabling reduced parking in activity centers depends on realistic multimodal options (transit, safe bike/ped networks) and suggested the plan include short‑ and medium‑term “baby steps” to measure progress toward reduced vehicle miles traveled.
Staff said they will consolidate and refine indicators for the big moves so the plan provides a clear set of measurable targets and reporting expectations while relying on the county’s strategic‑plan machinery for detailed annual performance tracking.
