HomeMy WebLinkAboutAfter meeting material - GMSC 08.06.24
Growth Management Steering Committee
Meeting 5
August 13, 2024
Joel
1
Discussion and Potential Action - CPP
Committee responses to 7/11/24 Final Review Draft of Countywide Planning Policies for adoption by resolution.
Public Comment
2
Joel
2
Discussion and Potential Action – Housing Allocation - HAPT
Method exploration A, B, C
Method C scenarios, 70/30 CPP split not viable for method use.
Method C designed for rural counties with multiple UGA’s.
3
JOel
3
Method A
4
Emma
Pros & Cons (Opportunities & Challenges)
Method A
Focuses on new growth. “Everyone does the same thing with new growth.” Rural and UGAs have equal [percentage] targets.
Method B
Focuses on the planning horizon year. “Everyone tries to reach the same goal in 2045.”
Method B: in future want total combo of housing and existing. Make sure everyone has same percentage of jx total growth, just combines both estimated and future. Creates a level playing
field in the future. Redistrbiutes equity. Method B is a conversation piece because has negative numbers.
Method C
Can customize results. Uses Method A distributions, but directs all 0-50% AMI housing to UGAs. Model C Subtracts 0-50% from rural and allocates to UGAs, offset by >120%. Allows suballocations:
county can allocate 0-50% AMI housing to rural areas such as LAMIRDs with careful consideration of capacity. Because level of <50% AMI housing is so large in many counties, the >120%
AMI housing in UGAs is not enough to offset this methodology. To address this, Model C requires county/city to put enough growth in UGAs to allow shift to happen. New model shows what
minimum % of growth needs to go to UGAs to make methodology work.
Method C scenarios of various Urban/Rural splits
Maximize suballocation number
Make UGAs % equal (75% minimum urban allocation/2)
40%, 40% UGAs and 20% Rural
4
Method B –Commerce configured for Discussion Purposes
5
Methodology
Characteristics
Methodology Results
Pros & Cons (Opportunities & Challenges)
Method A
Focuses on new growth. “Everyone does the same thing with new growth.” Rural and UGAs have equal [percentage] targets.
Method B
Focuses on the planning horizon year. “Everyone tries to reach the same goal in 2045.”
Method C
Can customize results. Uses Method A distributions, but directs all 0-50% AMI housing to UGAs. Model C Subtracts 0-50% from rural and allocates to UGAs, offset by >120%. Allows suballocations:
county can allocate 0-50% AMI housing to rural areas such as LAMIRDs with careful consideration of capacity. Because level of <50% AMI housing is so large in many counties, the >120%
AMI housing in UGAs is not enough to offset this methodology. To address this, Model C requires county/city to put enough growth in UGAs to allow shift to happen. New model shows what
minimum % of growth needs to go to UGAs to make methodology work.
Method C scenarios of various Urban/Rural splits
Maximize suballocation number
Make UGAs % equal (75% minimum urban allocation/2)
40%, 40% UGAs and 20% Rural
5
Port Townsend Housing Needs Assessment Draft Excerpts
6
Extreme gap in existing middle income units compared to need creates competition for other incomes.
Supply for 0-50% AMI groups insufficient and increasing per HAPT model
6
Port Townsend Housing Needs Assessment Draft Excerpts
7
Renters face higher levels of cost burden, with about half of renter households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, compared to approximately a quarter of homeowners.
This shows a need for more affordable rental housing in the city.
While renters tend to have smaller household sizes, with 77 percent living in one- or two-person households, just 19 percent of all Port Townsend households have three or more residents,
suggesting a need for small units for both owners and renters in Port Townsend.
7
Housing/AMI Alignment @ $350/sq ft to build
Evans Vista Pro Forma Research
Critical gaps in Port Townsend <50% and 100-120% AMI
Serves low and moderate income
Non-profits can deliver moderate density @ 80-120% (OHT, Habitat, typ. $250/sq ft). Scale not needed. Feasible in UGAs.
8
“Just Keep Swimming: 36/34/30”
Impacts: Rural sub-allocations cannot be made for county LAMIRD’s like Brinnon, Chimacum etc. Also, the >120% for both UGA’s is “0.” UGA’s LCA may not develop policy levers for moderate
density middle housing types.
9
9
“Allow rural sub-allocations, keep allocations equal, meet 75.33/24.67 minimum”
Impacts: This puts all of the >120% AMI into the rural county, and doesn’t distribute any middle housing types to the UGA’s where middle housing types can be accommodated. Maximizes
114 units available for redistribution to 0-50% LAMIRD categories (County determines).
10
10
“Allow rural sub-allocations, increase each UGA by 4%”
Impacts: Modest >120% AMI allocations to UGA’s for middle housing density. Port Townsend has a higher share of each bracket, but especially the lowest one. Only 103 units of rural 50-80%
AMI can be redistributed to 0-50% LAMIRD categories (County determines).
11
11
“40/40/20 maximize urban spread of incomes”
Impacts: This would increase urban allocations equally with 40% each allowing rural sub-allocations for LAMIRD’s. Only 94 units of rural 50-80% AMI can be redistributed to 0-50% LAMIRD
categories (to be determined as appropriate later by County). This method redistributes UGA lower income brackets units to middle housing >120% AMI, resulting in a sizeable increase
of 70 units for each UGA in the 120% category. This lessens pressure to deliver high amounts of extremely affordable housing with competitive grant conflicts and limited capacity for
area housing providers.
12
12
What is down-renting?
13
When middle and higher income households are likely occupying some share of the units that would otherwise by affordable to those with lower incomes. Often referred to as "down renting,"
this can reduce the supply of units affordable to those with lower incomes.
13
Relevant CPP policies (emphasis added)
14
6.5. A sufficient quantity of land will be appropriately zoned or designated to accommodate a wide range of housing types, densities, incomes, and mixtures, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070.
Multi-family housing should only be located within UGAs, MPRs, or rural centers. Attention to middle housing types and densities supporting middle housing types should be expanded to
bridge the gap between detached single-family units and large multifamily housing.
6.7. Each UGA shall accommodate its fair share of housing affordable to low- and moderate income households according to housing units by income allocation and by promoting a balanced
mix of diverse housing types.
14
Recommendation – Housing Allocation – HAPT
Method C 40/40/20 split amplifies CPP Housing goals
Enables LAMIRD’s sub-allocation flexibility
Addresses 0-50% low-income AMI acute need for multi family in UGA
Addresses need for middle housing and low rise multi family to protect against down-renting.
High need for apartments in 0-50% AMI = slow to deliver, requires Public Private Partnership, intermediate needs must be scalable within what private and non-profits can deliver.
15
15
Tonight’s Proposed Actions
Staff recommends Method C 40/40/20 (PT/PHUGA/Rural) instead of 70/30 Urban/Rural
CPP amendments, recommendation motion for adoption by resolution to BoCC
Upcoming meeting dates/locations?
16
Joel
16