Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates how to make housing more attainable; agrees to form informal working group
Summary
Commissioners spent the bulk of the meeting debating whether state and local building‑code requirements are driving up housing costs, cited specific elements (insulation R‑values, blower‑door tests, soils compaction and geotechnical reports), and agreed to form an informal working group of builders, engineers and commissioners to compile a prioritized list of county regulations and state code provisions to present to county commissioners and legislators.
The King County Planning Commission devoted its longest discussion of the Oct. 8 meeting to strategies for improving moderate‑income housing availability. Commissioners and builders raised multiple examples of regulatory and cost drivers they said make new homes unaffordable in the county.
Commissioner Doug Heaton argued that some code requirements—pointing to recent shifts such as the move from R‑19 to R‑28 wall insulation and mandated blower‑door (air‑tightness) tests—have increased construction costs and suggested the state could make certain standards optional or allow local discretion. He estimated blower‑door testing and related upgrades add roughly $1,500–$3,000 per home, and said some soils and geotechnical requirements can add substantially more where they are applied.
Other commissioners and builders agreed that some county ordinances or local engineering practices (for example, soils‑compaction testing and geotechnical reports) impose costs that differ across jurisdictions. Participants noted examples where neighboring municipalities apply different standards and suggested that a combination of disclosure (documenting nonstandard construction in the title record) and locality‑specific options could expand lower‑cost building choices.
Rather than drafting ordinance language immediately, commissioners agreed to form an informal working group (not a formally appointed committee) of interested builders, engineers, commissioners and staff to identify specific county regulations and county‑level requirements that go beyond state code, prioritize them by impact on cost, and draft a recommended list to present to the county commission and state legislators. Volunteers included commissioners and local builders; staff (Shannon) will compile volunteer contact information and ensure meeting minutes capture the list for follow‑up.
Commissioners also discussed affordability benchmarks: staff provided median household income (about $75,000) and attendees used a broadly accepted affordability guideline (roughly one‑third of monthly income toward housing, or about $1,900 per month) as a target for attainable mortgage payments. Commissioners noted that some recent projects labeled “affordable” still produced rents or payments above local affordability targets and emphasized the need to focus on measures that would reach median‑income households.
Next steps: staff and volunteer commissioners will convene the informal working group, compile a prioritized list of county and state requirements to present to the county commission, and report back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. No formal policy or ordinance changes were made at the Oct. 8 meeting.
