HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 20 2025 Agenda Packet
Y ELM P LANNING C OMMISSION A GENDA
TH
T UESDAY, M AY 20, 2025 4:00 PM
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR VIA ZOOM.
nd
In person: Yelm City Hall, 106 2 Street SE, Yelm, WA 98597
Via Zoom: Click here to join Zoom Meeting
Or Dial in: 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 870-3193-3305 Passcode: 564018
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Chair, Richard Lomsdale Vice Chair, Robert Howard David Johnstone
Anne Wahrmund John Graver Dana Allen
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Minutes from the meeting held on April 15, 2025, are attached.
5. CITY STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
a. Department update.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. The public comment portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to address
the Commission regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Comments are limited
to three minutes and five speakers. Comment on matters listed on the agenda are
welcomed.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
a. Proposed Capital Facilities Tables
Gps!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!Vqebuf
b. Intro to Housing Element Attachments are not required to be read prior to the
meeting.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. None
10. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA | Page 1 of 2
Qbhf!2!pg!95
MEETING INFORMATION
All regular meetings are recorded and may be viewed at www.yelmwa.gov.
office at 360-458-8816at least five(5) working days prior to meeting. Information on the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Title VI Statement is available at
https://www.yelmwa.gov/connect/departments/human_resources/index.php.
DISCLAIMER
AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER.
THIS AGENDA MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UP TO 24 HOURS PRIOR TO
MEETING.PLEASE SEE WWW.YELMWA.GOVFOR CURRENT AGENDA.
Next Planning Commission Meeting
th
Tuesday, May20, 2025,at4:00 PM
AGENDA|Page 1 of 2
Qbhf!3!pg!95
YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 2025 – 4:00 PM
YELM CITY HALL
Richard Lomsdale called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
Members present: Richard Lomsdale, Bob Howard, Anne Wahrmund, David Johnstone, Dana
Allen, and Christopher Le.
Members Absent: John Graver.
Staff: Gary Cooper,Andrew Kollar, Clayton Webie, Chris Vaccaro, and Hazel Hooker.
Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY BOB HOWARD TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM MARCH 17,
2025 SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND. ALL IN FAVOR.
City Staff Communications:
Joint City Council Planning Commission Meeting: Scheduled for May 13th; includes
presentations from consultants and representatives on climate work, transportation, and
housing allocation.
Draft Chapter Housing Element: Expected to be provided a week prior to the next meeting.
Public Comment: No audience members chose to address the commission at this time.
Unfinished Business: No unfinished business reported.
New Business:
o Conflict of Interest Discussion: RICHARD LOMSDALE MOTIONED TO INCLUDE AN
AGENDA REVIEW FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN FUTURE MEETINGS,
DISCUSSION OCCURRED, SECONDED BY CHRISTOPHER LE. ALL IN FAVOR.
o Working Group for Procedure Updates: RICHARD LOMSDALEMOTIONED TO
ESTABLISHED A WORKING GROUP TO REVISE OUTDATED RULES OF PROCEDURE
AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS; DISCUSSION OCCURRED, SECONDED BY BOB
HOWARD. ALL IN FAVOR.
Ongoing Items:
o Staff report on various projects, including updates on climate measures and
comprehensive plan timeline.
o Discussions about prioritizing measures for wildfire mitigation, flooding solutions
(like Yelm Creek), and hazard preparedness were raised.
o RICHARD LOMSDALEMOTIONED TO HAVE COMMISSIONER SEND COMMENTS
ST
TO CLAYTON BY MAY 1. ALL IN FAVOR.
Public Hearing: No public hearing.
Subcommittee Reports:
Qbhf!4!pg!95
YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 2025 – 4:00 PM
YELM CITY HALL
Parks Committee: Anne updated on trail project bid; ADA swing installation; Splash Park
operational testing planned.
Tree advisory board:
Arbor Day Celebration Scheduled for April 25th, featuring musical performers, tree giveaways,
and an art contest.
Adjournment: MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING MADE BY BOB HOWARD, AND SECONDED BY
ANNE WAHRMUND. MEETING ADJOURNED UNANIMOUSLY AT 4:57 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Hazel Hooker, Public Services Administrative Assistant
Qbhf!5!pg!95
Ubcmf!pg!Dpoufout;
Dbqjubm!Gbdjmjujft!Fmfnfou!Ebub—!!Qh/!7
Ipvtjoh!Fmfnfou!Sfrvjsfnfout—!!Qh/!23
Ipvtjoh!Ejtqmbdfnfou!Bobmztjt—!!Qh/!25
Ipvtjoh!Bmmpdbujpo!'!Dbqbdjuz—!!Qh/!41
Gjstu!Esbgu!pg!Ipvtjoh!Fmfnfou—!!Qh/!83
Qbhf!6!pg!95
Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Data
May 2025
T ABLE 1 - R ELATIONSHIPS OF V ARIOUS P LANS
Time Degree of Financial
Type of Plan Affected Area
Frame Action Implications
Community City and Urban
Comprehensive
Vision, Goals, 20+ Broad Policy None Growth Area
Plan
and Policies (UGA)
Water System
Plan
General Sewer
Plan
Stormwater
Management
Facilities Goals Plan
and Policies City, UGA, and
Parks & 20+ Specific Policy Forecast of needs Regional
Level of Service Recreation Plan Drainage basins
standards
Transportation
Plan
ADA Transition
Plan
Local Road
Safety Plan
Construction
Capital Facilities Prioritize Estimates Target areas and
Strategic 6
Plan (CFP) Projects specific sites
Revenue Estimates
Project site or
Construction
Implementation Annual Budget 1 Obligated Funds equipment
Funding
specific
Completed
Operations
Operations Annual Budget 1 Obligated Funds facility or
Funding
equipment
Qbhf!7!pg!95
T ABLE 2 - C APITAL F ACILITIES P LAN F UNDING S OURCES
Funding Source
General Fund Contributions (Including Interest)
Municipal Building Fund
Sewer Rates
Water Rates
Current Revenues
Stormwater Rates
Water and Sewer System Development Charges
Impact Fees (Parks, School, Fire, Transportation)
Real Estate Excise Tax
Councilmatic (No Public Vote)
Bonds General Obligation (Public Vote Required)
Revenue (Paid by Utility Rates or other revenue source)
Federal Aid to Urban Streets Fund
Community Development Block Grant (HUD)
Federal Highway Safety Funds
Federal Grants
Federal Highway Administration (STBG, TA)
Land and Water Conservation Fund
USFWS
Transportation Improvement Board
Hazardous Bridge Replacement
Stormwater Management Grants
Department of Commerce
State Grants and Loans Department of Ecology
Recreation and Conservation Funding Board
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Loans
Clean Water Fund
Developer Contributions
Other Private Donations
Local Improvement Districts
Qbhf!8!pg!95
T ABLE 3 - 10 Y EAR C APITAL F ACILITIES P LAN S UMMARY
Park Projects Funding Source 2024-2034
Connection between Prairie Line Trail SR 510 Yelm Loop WSDOT $0
Connection between Longmire Park and SR 510 Yelm Loop WSDOT $0
55 acres of additional land for parks Grants/Local Match $4,400,000
Yelm Prairie Line Trail Phase 2B (Nisqually River Bridge) Grants/Local Match $1,600,000
Cochrane Park Multi-Use Path, Dock, Picnic Shelter Local Funds $350,000
Longmire Park Upgrades Grants/Local Match $2,500,000
Veterans Memorial Grants/Local Match $2,500,000
City Park Swing Grants/Local Match $100,000
Buildings/Facilities Projects Funding Source 2024-2034
Public Services Expansion Local $300,000
City Hall Bonds/Grants $15,000,000
Fleet Expansion
Recreation Center
Transportation Projects Funding Source 2024-2034
SR 510 Yelm Loop Phase 2 WSDOT $58,500,000
SR 507 / Bald Hill Rd SE / Morris Rd SE Roundabouts (design
WSDOT $4,500,000
/ ROW)
Bald Hill Rd / Morris Rd SE Roundabout (construction) WSDOT/Grant/Local $3,500,000
Extend SR 510 Yelm Loop to Bald Hill Road SE (Phase 3) TFCs/Grants $4,000,000
Rhoton Rd SE Reconstruction Railway Rd SE to Yelm Loop
Grants $5,940,000
Phase 2
Central Business District (CBD) Activated Alley TFCs/Grants $600,000
Solberg St SW Sidewalk Local $60,000
CBD Sidewalks Various locations TFCs/Grants $400,000
CBD Street Reconstruction Second St SE, Third St SE,
TFCs/Grants $3,400,000
Fourth St SE
Longmire St SW / SR 510 Intersection Improvements TFCs/Grants $1,630,000
Mill Rd SE at SR 507 Intersection Realignment TFCs/Grants $2,200,000
Crystal Springs Rd/Coates Ave NW Intersection
TFCs/Grants $1,700,000
Improvements
Burnett Rd / 93rd Ave SE Intersection Improvements TFCs/Grants $3,500,000
Mosman Ave Phase 3 Second St to Fourth St SE TFCs/Grants $3,800,000
Washington Ave /McKenzie Ave SE One-Way Couplets TFCs/Grants $3,500,000
Qbhf!9!pg!95
Water Projects Funding Source 2024-2034
Storage Reservoir #5 Grants/Water Rates $9,000,000
Distribution System Upgrades Water Rates $4,500,000
Sewer/Reclaimed Water Projects Funding Source 2024-2034
Collection System Upgrades Rates/SDCs $1,230,000
Expand Cochrane Park RIBs Local Funds/SDCs $2,000,000
WRF Phase II Upgrade MRB Conversion and Solids
Grants/Loans $38,000,000
Processing
WRF Phase III Additional Denitrification Local Funds/SDCs $500,000
Stormwater Projects Funding Source 2024-2034
Bald Hill Rd SE Drainage Study - City Limit to SR 507 Grants/Local Match $500,000
SR 507 at 1208 Yelm Ave Infiltration gallery Grants/Local Match $200,000
SR 507/Clark/103rd Infiltration galleries Grants/Local Match $350,000
Yelm Ave W Infiltration Gallery - Edwards to Longmire Grants/Local Match $200,000
McKenzie SW Infiltration Gallery - Longmire to Solberg Grants/Local Match $150,000
Qbhf!:!pg!95
T ABLE 4 - L ONG T ERM C APITAL F ACILITIES N EEDS
Park Projects 2034-2044
48 acres of additional land for parks $4,400,000
Prairie Line Trail Yelm Ave W Overpass $3,100,000
Transportation Projects 2034-2044
Yelm Ave W Boulevard Improvements Burnett Rd SE to First St $7,500,000
Yelm Ave W CBD Improvements sidewalks, parking and access control $2,200,000
Yelm Ave E Reconstruction/Intersection Improvements Plaza Dr to Creek St SE $1,300,000
Yelm Ave E Reconstruction Creek St SE to Yelm Loop (SR 510) $3,500,000
Vancil Rd to Morris Rd SE Connection $1,950,000
103rd Ave SE Bridge Replacement $2,900,000
th
Extend 105 Ave Yelm Terra St to Mill Rd SE $2,250,000
Bald Hill Rd SE Reconstruction & Drainage Improvements $6,850,000
th
Extend 105 Ave - Clark Rd to Vancil Rd SE $4,500,000
NP Rd SE/Wilkensen Rd SE Reconstruction Rhoton Rd NW to Yelm Loop Ph 2 $6,750,000
Extend Parkview Dr SE Parkview Loop to Mill Rd SE $1,350,000
Tahoma Blvd Extension Tahoma Terra to SR 507 (2.5 miles-4 lane) $25,000,000
Extend Coates Rd SE Cullens Rd to Killion Rd SE $1,400,000
thth
Mill Road SE Reconstruction 107 Ave SE to 104 Ave SE $1,750,000
Railway Rd SE Sidewalk Rhoton Rd NW to Middle Rd SE $950,000
Cullens Rd SW Reconstruction Yelm Ave E to Van Trump SW $1,400,000
Railway St SW Reconstruction First St N to Middle Rd SE $1,950,000
Jefferson Ave NW & NE Improvements $2,350,000
Water Projects 2034-2044
Distribution System Upgrades $6,000,000
Additional Well (#7) $2,700,000
Sewer/Reclaimed Water Projects 2034-2044
Collection System Upgrades $2,000,000
Qbhf!21!pg!95
T ABLE 5 - I NVENTORY OF M AJOR C ITY A SSETS
Parks Location
Cochrane Memorial Park Mill Rd SE
Longmire Community Park Canal Rd SE
Yelm City Park First St S/Mosman Ave SE
Yelm Skate Park First St S
Dog Park Rhoton Rd NW
Transportation Location
Sidewalks (~225,000 LF) Various
Yelm Prairie Line Trail (~13,800 LF) Yelm Ave W to Nisqually River
Arterial Streets (~2.7 CL miles) Various
Collectors Streets (~11.1 CL miles) Various
Local Access Streets (~24.5 CL miles) Various
Water Location
Water Distribution Main (~335,000 LF) Various
Well #1 Second Ave SE
Well #1A Second Ave SE
Well #3 (not in service) 100th St SE
SW Well Tahoma Blvd SE
Historic Water Reservoir (not in service) Second Ave SE
th
Baker Hill Reservoir 105 Way SE
Public Services Reservoir Rhoton Rd NW
SW Reservoir Tahoma Blvd SE
rd
SE Reservoir (under construction) 103 Ave SE
Sewer/Reclaimed Water Location
Sanitary Force Main Sewer (~233,000 LF) Various
Sanitary STEP Tanks (~2,900) Various
Reclaimed Water Distribution Main (~42,000 LF) Various
Reclaimed Water Outfall Pipeline (~8,500 LF) NP Rd SE WRF to Nisqually River
Rapid Infiltration Basins Cochrane Park - Mill Rd SE
Government Buildings/Facilities Location
Boys & Girls Club Yelm Ave W
Yelm City Hall Second St SE
Yelm Public Services Facility Rhoton Rd NW
Water Reclamation Facility NP Rd SE
Public Safety Building McKenzie St SE
Yelm Community Center Second St SE
Qbhf!22!pg!95
Housing Element Requirements
(2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established
residential neighborhoods that:
(a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing
needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected
growth, as provided by the department of commerce, including:
(i) Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households;
and
(ii) Emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive
housing;
(b) Includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory
provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing,
including single-family residences, and within an urban growth area boundary,
moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes,
and townhomes;
(c) Identifies sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited
to, government-assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and
extremely low-income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing,
group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters,
permanent supportive housing, and within an urban growth area boundary,
consideration of duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes;
(d) Makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community, including:
(i) Incorporating consideration for low, very low, extremely low, and
moderate-income households;
(ii) Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing
availability including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development
regulations, and other limitations;
(iii) Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment location;
and
(iv) Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing
needs;
(e) Identifies local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate
impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, including:
(i) Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect;
(ii) Disinvestment; and
(iii) Infrastructure availability;
Qbhf!23!pg!95
(f) Identifies and implements policies and regulations to address and begin to
undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by
local policies, plans, and actions;
(g) Identifies areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market
forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital
investments; and
(h) Establishes antidisplacement policies, with consideration given to the
preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low,
very low, extremely low, and moderate-income housing; equitable development
initiatives; inclusionary zoning; community planning requirements; tenant
protections; land disposition policies; and consideration of land that may be used
for affordable housing.
In counties and cities subject to the review and evaluation requirements of
RCW 36.70A.215, any revision to the housing element shall include consideration of
prior review and evaluation reports and any reasonable measures identified. The
housing element should link jurisdictional goals with overall county goals to ensure
that the housing element goals are met.
The adoption of ordinances, development regulations and amendments to
such regulations, and other nonproject actions taken by a city that is required or
chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 that increase housing capacity, increase
housing affordability, and mitigate displacement as required under this subsection
(2) and that apply outside of critical areas are not subject to administrative or
judicial appeal under chapter 43.21C RCW unless the adoption of such ordinances,
development regulations and amendments to such regulations, or other
nonproject actions has a probable significant adverse impact on fish habitat.
Qbhf!24!pg!95
Qbhf!25!pg!95
Qbhf!26!pg!95
Qbhf!27!pg!95
Qbhf!28!pg!95
Qbhf!29!pg!95
Qbhf!2:!pg!95
Qbhf!31!pg!95
Qbhf!32!pg!95
Qbhf!33!pg!95
Qbhf!34!pg!95
Qbhf!35!pg!95
Qbhf!36!pg!95
Qbhf!37!pg!95
Qbhf!38!pg!95
Qbhf!39!pg!95
Qbhf!3:!pg!95
Qbhf!41!pg!95
For more information contact:
Michael Ambrogi, Senior Planner
Thurston Regional Planning Council
2411 Chandler Court SW, Olympia, WA 98502
ambrogim@trpc.org | info@trpc.org
Title VI Notice
Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) hereby gives public notice that it is the agencys policy to
assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of
1987, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI requires that no person
shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any Federal Highway Aid
(FHWA) program or other activity for which TRPC receives federal financial assistance. Any person who
believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI has a right to file
a formal complaint with TRPC. Any such complaint must be in writing and filed with the Title VI
Coordinator within one hundred and eighty (180) days following the date of the alleged discriminatory
occurrence.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
Materials can be provided in alternate formats by contacting the Thurston Regional Planning Council at
360.956.7575 or email info@trpc.org.
Qbhf!42!pg!95
THURSTON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL is a 23-member intergovernmental board made up of
local governmental jurisdictions within Thurston County, plus the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. The Council was established in 1967 under RCW 36.70.060,
which authorized creation of regional planning councils.
Provide visionary, collaborative leadership on regional plans, policies, and issues
for the benefit of all Thurston region residents.support this mission, we:
Support regional transportation planning consistent with state and federal funding requirements.
Address growth management, environmental quality, and other topics determined by the Council.
Assemble and analyze data that support local and regional decision making
Act as a convener, build regional consensus on issues through information and citizen involvement.
Build intergovernmental consensus on regional plans, policies, and issues, and advocate local
implementation.
2024 Membership
Government Jurisdiction Name of Representative
Town of Bucoda Miriam Gordon
City of Lacey Robin Vazquez, Chair
City of Olympia Dani Madrone
City of Rainier Dennis McVey
City of Tenino John O'Callahan, Secretary
City of Tumwater Eileen Swarthout
City of Yelm Joe DePinto
Thurston County Carolina Mejia
Intercity Transit Debbie Sullivan
LOTT Clean Water Alliance Carolyn Cox
Port of Olympia Amy Evans Harding, Vice Chair
PUD No. 1 of Thurston County Chris Stearns
Olympia School District Hilary Seidel
North Thurston Public Schools Esperanza Badillo-Diiorio
Tumwater School District Mel Murray
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Amy Loudermilk
Nisqually Indian Tribe David Iyall
Associate Members
Thurston County Economic Development Council Michael Cade
Lacey Fire District #3 Liberty Hetzler
Puget Sound Regional Council Josh Brown
Timberland Regional Library Cheryl Heywood
The Evergreen State College William Ward
Thurston Conservation District David Iyall
Executive Director
Marc Daily
Qbhf!43!pg!95
Project Partners
City of Lacey Vanessa Dolbee, Community and Economic
Development Director
Ryan Andrews, Planning Manager
City of Olympia Leonard Bauer, Community Planning and
Development Director
Tim Smith, Interim Community Planning and
Development Director
Casey Schaufler, Associate Planner
City of Tenino Cristina Haworth, SCJ Alliance
Dan Penrose, SCJ Alliance
City of Tumwater Brad Medrud, Long Range Planning Manager
Mike Matlock, Community Development Director
City of Yelm Gary Cooper, Planning and Building Manager
Thurston County Ashley Arai, Interim Community Planning and
Economic Development Director
Thurston Regional Planning Council Staff
Allison Osterberg, Planning Manager
Michael Ambrogi, Senior Planner
This project was funded by an interlocal agreement between TRPC and the project partner jurisdictions.
Qbhf!44!pg!95
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Housing Need Allocations .......................................................................................................................... 7
Countywide Housing Needs ...................................................................................................................... 7
Baseline Housing Supply .......................................................................................................................... 9
Preferred Allocation Method .................................................................................................................... 10
Land Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 13
Summarize Land Capacity by Zone ........................................................................................................ 13
Categorize Zones by Allowed Housing Types and Density Category .................................................... 16
Relate Zone Categories to Potential Income Levels and Housing Types............................................... 16
Summarize Capacity by Zone Category ................................................................................................. 18
Compare Allocated Housing Need to Capacity ....................................................................................... 19
References ................................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendixes ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix I: Housing Need Allocation Method ......................................................................................... 29
Appendix II: Estimated Capacity and Density Category by Zone ........................................................... 31
Revision Notes
Land capacity analysis for emergency housing was added in the March 2025 revision of this report.
Qbhf!45!pg!95
This page intentionally blank
Qbhf!46!pg!95
House Bill 1220 passed by the state legislature in 2021 added new
requirements to the Growth Management Act for jurisdictions to plan for
and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of
the population of this state. Thurston County and the cities of Lacey,
Olympia, Tenino, Tumwater, and Yelm contracted with Thurston Regional
Planning Council (TRPC) to facilitate a process and provide data analysis
support to implement this law.
The Thurston region has a long history of planning for affordable housing
and much has been done at both the local and regional level. HB 1220
addresses just a small piece of the affordable housing problem
whether land, and how it is zoned, is a barrier to new affordable housing.
Qbhf!47!pg!95
Data from TRPC and the state Dept. of Commerceidentify a need for 54,356new housing units to
and
to ensure future residents can afford housing 29,053additional units willneed to be affordable to
low-income households. An additional 936 emergency housing units and beds are needed for the
population experiencing homelessness.
Figure 1
Countywide Housing Needby Income
HB 1220 gives jurisdictions discretion to decide how much low-income housing each jurisdiction should
plan for, as long as the countywide need is addressed. The project partners recommended TRPC accept
an allocation that met the three values they identified: fair, clear, and cooperative.
Figure 2
Low-Income Housing Need(0-80% AMI)Allocated to Each Jurisdictionand its UGA
Qbhf!48!pg!95
The project included a land capacity analysis
that comparedthe low-income housing need
allocated to each jurisdiction to the amount of
buildable land in zones that can accommodate
low-income housing types. For most
jurisdictions,land and how it is zoned
is not the barrier to accommodating low-
income housing.Deficits were only found in
three jurisdictions: Tenino, Yelm, and the Grand
Mound UGA.
Figure 3
Low-Income Housing Need Compared to Capacityfor Jurisdictions and Their UGAS
The land capacity analysis found that:
The Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater urban areas, and the rural unincorporated County have
sufficient capacity to accommodate future low-income housing needs, as allocated regionally.
The Tenino, Yelm, and Grand Mound urban areas have deficits in capacity to accommodate
future low-income housing needs, as allocated regionally. These jurisdictions will need to include
strategies in their comprehensive plan update that will eliminate these deficits.
All jurisdictions have sufficient capacity to accommodate future needs for emergency housing.
While HB 1220 requires jurisdictions to ensure zoning is not a barrier to affordable housing,on its own,
the law will not lead to more affordable housing.All jurisdictions will need to identify policies, programs,
and funding gaps to achieve affordable housing goalsin the housing elements of their
comprehensive plans. Jurisdictions will also need to implement the other requirements of HB 1220 not
discussed in this report, including addressing policies with racially disparate impacts and establishing
anti-displacement policies.
Qbhf!49!pg!95
This page intentionally blank
Qbhf!4:!pg!95
In 2021, the Washington State Legislature passed HB 1220 which requires cities, towns, and counties to
projected housing need each jurisdiction is planning for in the housing element of its comprehensive plan.
Specifically, jurisdictions must estimate the number of housing units needed for moderate, low, very low,
and extremely low-income households; and emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent
supportive housing (Table 1). Jurisdictions must also show that there is sufficient land available to
accommodate the housing need identified.
1
The state Dept. of Commerce (Commerce) provided guidance for jurisdictions to implement HB 1220.
The guidance recommends that jurisdictions work collaboratively to implement the law. In that spirit,
Thurston County and the cities of
contracted with Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) to facilitate a process among the project
partners and provide the necessary data analysis. The city of Rainier and town of Bucoda were also
invited to participate.
The project was completed in two phases. In Phase 1, the project partners reviewed options for allocating
the countywide housing need to jurisdictions. In Phase 2, TRPC completed a land capacity analysis
identifying any zoning constraints to accommodating those allocations.
HB 1220 also established requirements for jurisdictions to identify local policies and regulations that result
in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing and identify and implement policies
and regulations to undo them; and identify areas at higher risk of displacement and establish anti-
displacement policies. These requirements are being addressed by the jurisdictions in a separate process
and are not included in this report.
Qbhf!51!pg!95
Table 1: Housing Types Called out in HB 1220, and Thurston County Income Thresholds
Percent of Thurston Equivalent 2023
Housing Type
Area Median Income* Household Income*
Extremely Low Income Less than 30% Less than $30,750
Very Low Income 30 to 50% $30,750 to $51,250
Low Income 50 to 80% $51,250 to $82,000
Moderate Income 80 to 120% $82,000 to $102,500
Subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes
people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and
Permanent supportive housing utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than
would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing,
especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors.
Temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are
homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to
Emergency housing address the basic health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of
individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require
occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement.
Facilities that provide a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are
currently homeless Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter
Emergency shelter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may
include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight
accommodations.
Note: Housing types are defined in RCW 36.70A.030. *Income thresholds are based on HUD estimates for a family of
four.
Qbhf!52!pg!95
The first step in implementing HB 1220 is to identify the housing need allocation for each jurisdiction
the number of units apportioned to each jurisdiction to meet the countywide need for moderate, low, very
low, and extremely low-income households; and emergency housing, emergency shelters, and
permanent supportive housing. While HB 1220 requires Commerce to identify the countywide number of
units in each income range, it gives jurisdictions discretion in how that need is allocated to cities,
unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs), and the rural unincorporated County.
Between August and October 2023, TRPC convened a project team that included planning directors and
staff from Thurston County and the cities of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Yelm. This group identified
the following shared values to assess different housing need allocation methods and select a preferred
approach:
Fair
Distributes new low-income units across all jurisdictions
Recognizes the differences among jurisdictions and existing housing distribution
Recognizes needs of community members especially people who rely on permanent supportive
housing and emergency housing
Clear
Easy to communicate to public and elected officials
Tailored to jurisdiction boundaries (including UGAs)
Uses established methods to limit risk of legal challenges
Cooperative
Builds on existing structures and processes including the Regional Housing Council,
Comprehensive Plan updates, Countywide Planning Policies
Supported by all workgroup members
The project partners also agreed that the total number of housing units allocated to each jurisdiction
should be consistent with the jurisdiction population, employment, and housing projections adopted by
2
TRPC in September 2019.
recent population and employment forecast estimates that 54,356 new housing units will be needed
2
between 2020 and 2045 to support projected population growth (88,707 new people). Table 2 shows the
number of housing units projected for each jurisdiction. These projections were developed consistent with
Qbhf!53!pg!95
Table 2: TRPC Projected Housing Need by Jurisdiction
Housing Units
2020-2045
2020 2045
Census TRPC Projection
Projected Need
Bucoda Town 241 375 134
Lacey City 23,042 28,196 5,154
UGA 13,562 22,532 8,970
Olympia City 25,642 38,286 12,644
UGA 5,093 6,744 1,651
Rainier City 850 1,421 571
UGA 54 77 23
Tenino City 780 1,299 519
UGA 5 14 9
Tumwater City 11,064 17,740 6,676
UGA 1,210 3,726 2,516
Yelm City 3,456 10,960 7,504
UGA 515 659 144
Grand Mound UGA 424 734 310
Rural Unincorporated 35,500 43,031 7,531
Total 121,438 175,794 54,356
Note: TRPC forecast adopted September 6, 2019, for jurisdiction boundaries as of September 1, 2023. Numbers may
not add to total due to rounding.
HB 1220 adds a requirement that jurisdictions plan for a specific number of housing units affordable for
moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households; and emergency housing, emergency
2
ousing for All Planning Tool (HAPT)
provided the estimated housing need for each income range and housing type shown in Table 3. Income
ranges are expressed as a percent of the area median income; the equivalent household incomes for the
Thurston region in 2023 are shown in Table 3. While HB 1220 does not require jurisdictions to plan for
housing affordable to households earning more than 120% of the area median income, this need is
included so the number of units can be summed up to the total .
While cities, towns, and counties have discretion over how this need is allocated among the jurisdictions,
the countywide housing need identified by Commerce for each income range cannot be changed.
Qbhf!54!pg!95
Table 3: Dept. of Commerce Housing Needs by Income Levelfor Thurston County
Estimated Total Future Net Estimated Total Future Net
Supply Supply Need Supply Supply Need
(2020) (2045) (2020-2045) (2020) (2045) (2020-2045)
Housing Units
0-30% AMI (PSH) 180 3,774 3,594 0.1% 2.1% 6.6%
0-30% AMI (Non-PSH) 2,874 11,632 8,758 2.4% 6.6% 16.1%
30-50% AMI 12,405 20,836 8,431 10.2% 11.9% 15.5%
50-80% AMI 38,285 46,555 8,270 31.5% 26.5% 15.2%
80-100% AMI 26,403 30,776 4,373 21.7% 17.5% 8.0%
100-120% AMI 15,489 19,870 4,381 12.8% 11.3% 8.1%
Remainder 24,476 41,025 16,549 20.2% 23.3% 30.4%
Other 1,327 1,327 0 1.1% 0.8% 0.0%
Total 121,438 175,794 54,356 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Emergency Housing
626 1,562 936
(Beds)
Note: which HUD estimates was $102,500 in 2023 for Thurston
County. Income ranges are expressed relative to the AMI; income ranges are for a family of four
supportive housing.
totals due to rounding. Housing types are defined in RCW 36.70A.030.
The project partners agreed that it was important to plan for housing in both the incorporated and
unincorporated urban growth areas of each jurisdiction. Since the tools provided by Commerce did not
provide estimates for UGAs, TRPC revised the baseline housing supply estimates provided by Commerce
using the assumptions listed below. In addition, TRPC revised the baseline supply to reflect current
(September 1, 2023) jurisdiction boundaries.
-level housing estimates where newly annexed jurisdiction boundaries do not
align with 2020 Census blocks.
The percentage of housing by income range in each UGA is the same as what Commerce
estimated in the HAPT tool for its adjacent incorporated area.
There is no permanent supportive housing or emergency housing in the unincorporated UGA.
Any permanent supportive housing units where Commerce was unable to determine the
jurisdiction (68 units total) were assumed to be in Olympia based on data provided by Olympia
staff in the 2023-2027 Thurston-Olympia Consolidated Plan.
The revised housing supply uses newly released 2020 decennial census data on seasonal and
migrant housing instead of American Community Survey (ACS) estimates used in the Commerce
HAPT tool. (While HB 1220 does not require jurisdictions to plan for seasonal and migrant
housing, these units are removed from the available housing supply.)
HB 1220 only requires housing need allocations for cities, towns, and the unincorporated areas. However,
the partners requested housing allocations for the unincorporated UGAs to inform how they plan for
housing needs in areas likely to be annexed over the next 20 years. These UGA estimates are for
informational purposes only; Thurston County in consultation with the cities has discretion over how
Qbhf!55!pg!95
the housing need is allocated between urban and rural unincorporated areas as long as the total housing
units align with Table 1.
The project partners reviewed several methods for allocating the countywide housing need to
jurisdictions. Two methods were developed by Commerce in its HAPT tool. TRPC staff also meet with
staff from King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties to discuss their method. Due to their earlier
periodic Comprehensive Plan update deadline, all four counties had made progress implementing HB
1220.
The project partners ultimately preferred a variation of the method used by Snohomish County, because it
best achieves the shared values identified on Page 7. The preferred method modifies the Snohomish
County method so that no low-income housing or emergency housing is allocated to the rural
unincorporated County. The partners developed this modification in response to feedback from
Commerce that residential zoning in rural areas predominantly large, single-family lots
cannot accommodate the housing types and utilities required for low-income housing, permanent
supportive housing, and emergency housing.
The preferred method:
Begins with an expectation that each jurisdiction should plan for the same share of the new
housing need in each income range, but credits jurisdictions that currently have a higher-than-
average share of low-income housing.
Results in allocations that are positive and consistent with the housing need projected for each
jurisdiction (Table 2) and for each income range countywide (Table 3).
Is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and is supported by all project partners.
Limits allocation of low-income housing to rural areas, in line with Commerce guidance.
The preferred housing need allocation is shown in Table 4; the process for calculating it is described in
Appendix I. The housing need allocations were adopted by TRPC on December 6, 2024. These
allocations replace numbers provisionally accepted by TRPC on March 1, 2024.
Qbhf!56!pg!95
300360
Qbhf!57!pg!95
331112101150
103179282253286133184150153936
Beds
Housing
Emergency
9
21233819
395114137105114323
1,3901,5582,9482,6603,0551,2381,5611,1251,1637,531
16,549
Remainder
000
2096964111
540721152103103627171798757798
1,2611,1441,2964,381
120%
-
100
0000000
67444457
235220220806333518518
Income)
2,0932,3281,1404,373
100%
-
80
80000000
515590590161161797143
2,8413,3571,1291,9262,0852,0858,270
80%
-
50
00000000
3023
435307
1,1991,4682,6672,8773,3121,0021,3091,0901,1208,431
Housing Units
supportive housing.
50%
-
30
000
Income Level (Percent of Area Median
1265652540
278107107415
1,0861,6982,7842,3392,6171,3201,7361,3731,3988,758
PSH
-
Non
30%
-
6000
0
434333331016
PSH
424684942156554170723557567
1,1081,0983,594
PSH
9
23
134571594519528144310
5,1548,9701,6516,6762,5169,1927,5047,6487,531
14,12412,64414,29554,356
Total
TownCityUGATotalCityUGATotalCityUGATotalCityUGATotalCityUGATotalCityUGATotalUGA
2045 Housing Need Allocations
-
by TRPC on December 6, 2024.
2020
:
4
BucodaLacey Olympia Rainier Tenino Tumwater Yelm Grand MoundRural UnincorporatedThurston County
Table AdoptedNote: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.
This page intentionally blank
Qbhf!58!pg!95
The second step in implementing HB 1220 is a land capacity analysis to identify if there is sufficient
capacity based on zoning and development regulations to accommodate the identified housing
1
need. outlines five steps for completing the land
capacity analysis, which are described in this report:
1. Summarize Land Capacity by Zone
2. Categorize Zones by Allowed Housing Types and Density Category
3. Relate Zone Categories to Potential Income Levels and Housing Types
4. Summarize Capacity by Zone Category
5. Compare Allocated Housing Need to Capacity
These steps are described below. The land capacity analysis was completed as part of Phase 2 of the
project.
Due to the unique nature of joint planning in Thurston County, the partners requested that the land
capacity analysis combine data for cities and their unincorporated urban growth areas. How low-income
housing is allocated within unincorporated urban areas will be addressed in the
plans and the joint plans the cities have with Thurston County.
zoning, development regulations, development trends, and market factors. Capacity includes greenfield
development, infill development, and redevelopment. Under the ILA for Phase 2, the partners agreed to
recently adopted forecast and the 2021
Buildable Lands report. The documentation for that model including the assumptions that went into it
45
can be found in TRPC forecast documentation and the Buildable Lands report.
The capacity estimates for each zone are shown in Appendix II.
and the 2021
Buildable Lands Report, the capacity estimates differ from those published in 2021 Buildable Lands
Report for the following reasons:
Extension of Planning Horizon to 2045. The planning horizon for the Buildable Lands Report was 2040
while the planning horizon for Comprehensive Plans is 2045. The capacity for housing need allocations
includes additional capacity due to:
Land expected to be redevelopable after 2040
Accessory dwelling units expected to be built between 2040 and 2045
Development of some master planned communities projected to occur after 2040
Qbhf!59!pg!95
Difficult-to-sewer areas and areas without sewer expected to have sewer after 2040
Recent development. TRPC also adjusted the capacity to account for recent housing development. If a
the permitted number of units.
TRPC did not revise capacity to account for changes in market trends, zoning, or development
regulations that have occurred since the last forecast was updated. Doing so would require substantial
updates to the population and housing forecast adopted by TRPC in 2019 that serves as the foundation
for the housing need allocations and was not included in the scope of work of the current ILA.
Bush Prairie Habitat Conservation Plan. The City of Tumwater and the Port of Olympia are working on a
mitigation in the Bush Prairie HCP (and other jurisdiction HCPs) would reduce capacity in the rural
unincorporated County. However, the latest draft of the Bush Prairie HCP identifies significant mitigation
wit
mitigation is most likely to occur by the factors show in Table 5. The estimated acres removed for
mitigation were provided by Tumwater staff.
Table 5. Capacity Reduction Factors for Bush Prairie HCP
Acres Removed Total Area Reduction
Zone for Mitigation (Vacant Parcels) Factor
MFH 5 18.7 26.8%
MFM 30 83.1 36.1%
MU 30 27.0 100.0%
SFL 190 354.6 53.6%
SFM 40 227.2 17.6%
Note: Acres removed for mitigation provided by Tumwater staff. Total area is
parcels.
ng
projects the number of ADUs likely to be built over the next 20 to 25 years based on past trends and
estimated number of ADUs for each jurisdiction is shown in Table 6.
Within urban areas of Thurston County (including cities, towns, and unincorporated urban areas), TRPC
projects 565 ADUs across 11,886 potential ADU lots a participation rate of about five percent. Potential
lots have only one single-family unit and no additional dwellings and are located in areas platted prior to
ADUs across
24,271 potential ADU lots a participation rate of about one percent. Potential lots have one single-
family unit and no additional dwellings.
Qbhf!5:!pg!95
For the land capacity analysis, Tumwater and Yelm requested revisions to the ADU assumptions in their
urban areas based on observed or expected trends. These are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Estimates of Accessory Dwelling Units by Jurisdiction.
Accessory Dwellings
Adopted Potential ADU
For LCA
Jurisdiction Forecast Lots
Bucoda City 9 No Change 195
City 97 No Change 2,045
Lacey
UGA 43 No Change 906
City 309 No Change 6,502
Olympia
UGA 1 No Change 16
City 5 No Change 104
Rainier
UGA 0 No Change 0
City 19 No Change 395
Tenino
UGA 0 No Change 0
City 73 No Change 1,536
Tumwater
UGA 0 10 0
City 9 100 185
Yelm
UGA 0 20 2
Grand Mound UGA 0 No Change 0
Urban Total 565 686 11,886
Rural Total 280 No Change 24,271
Countywide 845 966 36,157
Qbhf!61!pg!95
zone
based on the density and types of housing allowed. The partners agreed to use the example categories in
Table 7. In May 2024, TRPC met with jurisdiction staff to review the
housing types allowed in each zone and assign a density category; this information is shown in
Appendix II.
Table 7: Categories for Classifying Zones by Housing Types Allowed
Zone Category Typical housing types allowed
Low Density Detached single-family homes
Moderate Density Townhomes, duplex, triplex, quadplex
Low-rise Multifamily Walk-up apartments (up to 3 floors)
Mid-rise Multifamily Apartments in buildings with ~4-8 floors (~40-85 feet in height)
Apartments in buildings with ~9 or more floors (>85 feet in height) and requiring steel
High-rise/Tower
frame construction
Note: Manufactured homes are not listed as a housing type because by law
they should be allowed in all zones that permit residential uses. High-Rise/Tower zones are likely to be relevant only
in major metropolitan cities. Condominiums are omitted since they are a type of ownership, not housing.
For the land capacity analysis, housing types are
provides examples of this relationship for moderate- and high-cost communities in Washington State
which may be used in the land capacity analysis if a more detailed market analysis is not available. The
project partners agreed to use the relationship for moderate-cost communities (Table 8) for this analysis.
Note that the assigned affordability levels are intended to indicate the potential for that zone to
accommodate housing affordable to different income levels, not a guarantee that any housing in those
zones actually will be affordable at specific household income levels.
Qbhf!62!pg!95
Table 8: Relationship of Zone Categories to Housing Income Levels Served in Moderate-Cost Communities
The project partners noted that in some situations, low-income housing may be built in low or moderate
density zones. This could include:
Housing built by Habitat for Humanity or similar organizations. Table 9 shows the number of
recently constructed Habitat for Humanity projects in Thurston County.
Under HB 1110, cities between 25,000 and 75,000 are required to allow duplexes in residential
zones, and quadplexes if at least one unit is affordable to a low-income household.
The land capacity analysis used HB 1110 as a guide for estimating how much capacity in moderate-
density zones could accommodate low-income housing. The land capacity model found 1,104 parcels in
Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater the three jurisdictions affected by the law with capacity for four or
more units. Total capacity on those parcels is 18,697, or 4,674 low-income units assuming one in four is
an income-restricted unit (Table 10).
Table 9: Recent or Upcoming Habitat for Humanity Projects
Jurisdiction Project Units Zone Density Category
Lacey Deyoe Vista Subdivision 33 MD Low-rise Multifamily
Tumwater Tâlícn Housing Development 28 MFM Low-rise Multifamily
Yelm 22 R-4 Moderate Density
Olympia 3900 Boulevard Rd 112 RM-18 Low-rise Multifamily
Olympia Fairview 16 R-4-8 Moderate Density
Olympia Trinity Court 6 R-4-8 Moderate Density
Olympia Covenant Court 20 RM-24 Mid-rise Multifamily
Total 237
Qbhf!63!pg!95
Table 10: Parcels with Capacity for Four or More Unitsin Moderate Density
Zones
Capacity
Jurisdiction Parcels Total Low-Income
Lacey City 92 1,540 385
UGA 334 8,376 2,094
Olympia City 333 3,144 786
UGA 114 1,466 366
Tumwater City 205 3,737 934
UGA 26 435 109
Total 1,104 18,697 4,674
In Step 4, the total capacity in each zone category is summarized. This provides the total capacity that
could accommodate housing in each income level. These totals are shown in Table 11; detailed capacity
by zone is in Appendix I
Table 11: Housing Capacity by Zone Category
Midrise Lowrise Moderate Low
ADUs Multifamily Multifamily Density Density
Total
0-80% AMI 0-80% AMI 0-80% AMI 0-80% AMI 80-120% AMI >120% AMI
Lacey and UGA 140 2,387 5,085 2,479 8,256 50 18,397
Olympia and UGA 310 3,468 7,352 1,152 5,404 1,255 18,941
Tenino and UGA 19 39 0 0 376 211 644
Tumwater and UGA 83 1,455 3,148 1,043 3,692 2,441 11,861
Yelm and UGA 120 0 2,655 0 5,610 745 9,130
Rainier UGA 0 0 0 0 0 108 108
Grand Mound UGA 0 0 0 0 406 0 406
Rural Unincorporated 280 0 0 0 0 17,744 18,024
All Partner
952 7,349 18,239 4,674 23,744 22,554 77,512
Jurisdictions
Qbhf!64!pg!95
The final step of the land capacity analysis is to compare the allocated housing need allocated to each
jurisdiction to the capacity for new housing. A summary of the difference between the allocated housing
need and capacity is shown in Table 12; detailed findings are shown in Tables 13-20
columns). A positive number (surplus) indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the
allocated housing need for a given income level while a negative number (deficit) indicates that there is
insufficient capacity. HB 1220 does not require jurisdictions to plan for or accommodate housing for high-
income households; data for that income range is excluded.
The land capacity analysis found no deficits in the Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater urban areas. Deficits
were found in Tenino, Yelm, and Grand Mound. The project partners agreed that they would identify
strategies to eliminate these deficits as part of their periodic Comprehensive Plan updates. All deficits
were found in the low-income categories; no deficits were found in the moderate-income range.
No deficits were found in the rural unincorporated County. Per Commerce guidance, the low-density
residential zoning in rural areas predominantly large lots cannot accommodate the housing types
and utilities required for low-income housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency housing.
Table 12: Summary of Housing Surplus/Deficit by Jurisdiction
Lacey Olympia Tenino Tumwater Yelm Rainier Grand
Rural
and UGA and UGA and UGA and UGA and UGA UGA Mound UGA
Aggregate Housing Need
0-80% AMI 9,915 7,616 98 5,694 5,170 0 223 0
80-120% AMI 1,261 3,623 316 1,937 1,316 0 68 0
Capacity
0-80% AMI 10,091 12,282 58 5,729 3,025 0 0 280
80-120% AMI 8,256 5,404 376 3,692 5,860 0 406 0
Surplus / Deficit
0-80% AMI 176 4,666 -41 35 -2,145 0 -223 280
80-120% AMI 6,995 1,781 60 1,755 4,545 0 338 0
Note: A positive number (surplus) indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the allocated housing
need for a given income level while a negative number (deficit) indicates that there is insufficient capacity
Qbhf!65!pg!95
In August 2023, Commerce released updated guidance requiring that all jurisdictions complete a land
capacity analysis for emergency housing to meet the intent of HB 1220. TRPC used a seven-step
selection process to identify potential emergency housing sites
housing as referenced in HB 1220; it excludes permanent supportive housing which is addressed in the
previous section.
Identify all parcels in zones that allow emergency housing and indoor emergency shelters.
Jurisdiction staff provided a list of zones that allow emergency housing for use in the land capacity
analysis (Table 13Table 1). By law, emergency housing must be allowed in any zone that allows hotels
(RCW 35A.21.430 and 35.21.683). The list of zones is not comprehensive; other zones may allow
emergency housing on an emergency or conditional basis, or may allow emergency housing with spacing
or intensity restrictions.
From the parcels identified in Selection 1, narrow the search to vacant parcels, hotels, and motels,
significantly under-developed or under-utilized parcels, developed parcels with no active business
licenses, and those sites that have been declared a nuisance.
For the purposes of the land capacity analysis, only vacant parcels were included. In addition, only the
parcel area outside of critical areas or their buffers was included. Vacant parcels were defined as:
,,
Having at least 0.2 acres outside of critical areas or their buffers
Having an assessed building to land value less than 0.1 and an assessed land value greater than
$100,000
Add any parcels that have pending development permits for emergency housing and remove any parcels
that have pending development for uses other than emergency housing.
Staff identified four projects currently under consideration:
studio and ten one-bedroom units at State Ave site.
LIHI Maple Court PSH: Transition current Maple Court facility in Lacey into traditional permanent
supportive housing with 124 studio units.
LIHI Franz Anderson PSH: Construct 71 permanent supportive housing studio units on Franz
Anderson Rd.
: 30 studio units in tiny home village. Site yet to be
determined.
Qbhf!66!pg!95
Because the identified projects are adding permanent supportive housing (addressed in the previous
sections) or a site has not been identified, the analysis did not add them to the capacity estimates. The
analysis did remove any parcels expected to be developed for non-emergency housing purposes using
TRPC permit and subdivision databases.
Apply any adopted spacing or intensity requirements to the parcels.
The City of Olympia allows emergency housing in some residential zones if it meets spacing
requirements. To simplify the analysis, only zones that did not have spacing or intensity limits for
emergency housing were included.
Determine how many emergency shelter beds or emergency housing units could be accommodated.
be accommodated on each site: a site-specific analysis and assumed density method. TRPC took the
latter approach, using an assumed density of 50 beds per acre for future emergency housing, excluding
critical areas and buffers. This assumption was based on the Quince Street Village in Olympia, which has
100 units on 1.4 acres (71 units per acre). In addition, the analysis assumed that no more than 150 units
or beds would be built on a single parcel.
Add up the capacity from all available sites identified in Step 5.
Table 13 shows the estimated capacity for emergency housing by zone.
Document the capacity for emergency shelter and emergency housing in the jurisdiction compared to the
allocated emergency housing need.
Tables 14 through 21 show the identified capacity for emergency housing compared to the allocated
emergency housing need. No deficits were identified.
Qbhf!67!pg!95
Table 13: Emergency Housing Capacity by Zone
Emergency
Jurisdiction Zone City/UGA Parcels Acres Housing
Capacity
Lacey CBD 4 City 8 6.7 333
Lacey CBD 5 City 6 3.3 164
Lacey CBD 6 City 5 38.4 375
Lacey CBD 6 UGA 1 4.8 75
Lacey GC City 4 6.7 229
Lacey HPBD-BC City 18 238.1 1,113
Lacey HPBD-C City 14 59.9 884
Lacey LI-C City 3 17.6 225
Lacey MHDC City 11 16.5 617
Lacey MHDC UGA 8 12.7 432
Lacey WD City 14 7.5 367
Olympia CSH City 1 0.7 36
Olympia DB City 16 5.1 248
Olympia GC City 12 7.0 343
Olympia HDC-4 City 41 49.3 1,317
Olympia UW City 10 5.7 279
Tenino C-1 City 1 0.3 16
Tenino C-3 City 1 0.5 23
Tumwater CBC City 6 5.7 211
Tumwater GC City 23 103.9 1,395
Tumwater GC UGA 4 23.6 300
Tumwater MU City 13 12.3 563
Tumwater MU UGA 3 3.0 148
Tumwater TC-MU City 3 19.6 225
Yelm C-1 City 28 87.1 1,576
Yelm C-2 City 3 16.3 225
Yelm C-3 City 2 9.2 150
Yelm CBD City 7 3.2 157
Yelm I City 5 16.8 286
Yelm MPC City 9 964.3 662
Yelm R-16 City 6 12.6 362
Yelm R-4 City 8 43.3 455
Yelm R-6 City 12 55.5 696
Grand Mound UGA AC UGA 32 89.0 1,920
Qbhf!68!pg!95
Table 14: Lacey City andUGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 1,108
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 2,784
Mid-rise Multifamily
9,915 10,091 176
ADUs
30-50% 2,667
(Housing Units)
50-80% 3,357
80-100% 0
Moderate Density
1,261 8,256 6,995
(Housing Units)
100-120% 1,261
Emergency Housing (Beds) 282 282 4,814 4,532
Table 15: Olympia City and UGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 1,098
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 2,617
Mid-rise Multifamily
7,616 12,282 4,666
ADUs
30-50% 3,312
(Housing Units)
50-80% 590
80-100% 2,328
Moderate Density
3,623 5,404 1,781
(Housing Units)
100-120% 1,296
Emergency Housing (Beds) 286 286 2,223 1,937
Table 16: Tenino City and UGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 33
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 65
Mid-rise Multifamily
98 58 -41
ADUs
30-50% 0
(Housing Units)
50-80% 0
80-100% 220
Moderate Density
316 376 60
(Housing Units)
100-120% 96
Emergency Housing (Beds) 11 11 39 28
Table 17: Tumwater City and UGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 723
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 1,736
Mid-rise Multifamily
5,694 5,729 35
ADUs
30-50% 1,309
(Housing Units)
50-80% 1,926
80-100% 1,140
Moderate Density
1,937 3,692 1,755
(Housing Units)
100-120% 798
Emergency Housing (Beds) 184 184 2,842 2,658
Qbhf!69!pg!95
Table 18: Yelm City andUGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 567
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 1,398
Mid-rise Multifamily
5,170 3,025 -2,145
ADUs
30-50% 1,120
(Housing Units)
50-80% 2,085
80-100% 518
Moderate Density
1,316 5,860 4,545
(Housing Units)
100-120% 798
Emergency Housing (Beds) 153 153 4,569 4,416
Table 19: Rainier UGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 0
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 0
Mid-rise Multifamily
0 0 0
ADUs
30-50% 0
(Housing Units)
50-80% 0
80-100% 0
Moderate Density
0 0 0
(Housing Units)
100-120% 0
Emergency Housing (Beds) 0 0 0 0
Note: Rainier did not participate in the project so data for the city are not available
Table 20: Grand Mound UGA
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 16
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 40
Mid-rise Multifamily
223 0 -223
ADUs
30-50% 23
(Housing Units)
50-80% 143
80-100% 57
Moderate Density
68 406 338
(Housing Units)
100-120% 11
Emergency Housing (Beds) 6 6 1,920 1,914
Qbhf!6:!pg!95
Table 21: Rural Unincorporated County
Zone Categories Housing Aggregate Total Surplus or
Income Level
Serving These Needs Need Housing Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 0
Low-rise Multifamily
0-30% Other 0
Mid-rise Multifamily
0 280 280
ADUs
30-50% 0
(Housing Units)
50-80% 0
80-100% 0
Moderate Density
0 0 0
(Housing Units)
100-120% 0
Emergency Housing (Beds) 0 0 0 0
Qbhf!71!pg!95
This page intentionally blank
Qbhf!72!pg!95
1. Dept. of Commerce (2023) Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/1d9d5l7g509r389f0mjpowh8isjpirlh
2. Dept. of Commerce (2024) Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT)
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/i4ku9gqhckvs73yj66mzlfc3hn036ct5
3. TRPC (September 6, 2019) Consent Calendar
https://www.trpc.org/Calendar.aspx?EID=344
4. TRPC (2019) Population and Employment Land Supply Assumptions for Thurston County
https://www.trpc.org/236/Population-Employment-Forecasting
5. TRPC (2021) Buildable Lands Report for Thurston County
https://www.trpc.org/164/Buildable-Lands
Qbhf!73!pg!95
This page intentionally blank
Qbhf!74!pg!95
The project partners preferred the method used by Snohomish County to allocate the housing need to
jurisdictions best achieved the values the group identified: fair, clear, and cooperative.
The Snohomish County method was modified so that no low-income housing or emergency housing was
allocated to the rural unincorporated County. This was in response to feedback from Commerce that
residential zoning in rural areas predominantly large lots could not accommodate the housing types
and utilities required for low-income housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency housing.
The allocation method follows a four-step process. Examples for the city of Lacey are include.
Step 1: Same-Share Housing Need (HAPT Method A)
-2045 housing need, assuming the same percentage is affordable in
16.1% of the countywide 2020-2045 housing need needs to be affordable to a very low-income
household. For the city of Lacey, that would equate to 799 housing units.
Step 2: Theoretical Housing Baseline
Calculate the theoretical 2020 housing supply if every jurisdiction had the same share of housing in each
income range.
Currently, 10.3% of housing units in Thurston County are affordable to a very low-income household. If
the percentage of housing affordable in each income range was the same in every jurisdiction, Lacey
would have 2,371 housing units affordable to a very low-income household.
Step 3: Housing Need Adjustment Factor
Subtract the theoretical 2020 housing supply (Step 2) from the actual 2020 housing supply to get an
adjustment factor.
Lacey currently has 1,832 housing units affordable to a very low-income household less than the
theoretical equal-share distribution (Step 2)-low-
income range is 539 housing units (2,371 minus 1,832).
Step 4: Initial Housing 2020-2045 Need
Add the housing need adjustment (Step 3) to the same-share allocation (Step 1). Set any negative
allocations in Step 4 to zero. Set any low- or moderate-income housing (0 to 120% AMI) allocated to the
rural unincorporated County to zero.
Qbhf!75!pg!95
would be set to zero.
Step 5: Final 2020-2045 Housing Need
estimate of housing need. Step 5 reduces the allocations generated in Step 4 proportionally to match both
unit projections for each jurisdiction and the countywide housing need in each income
range identified by Commerce. An iterative process is used to
ensure that all rows and columns sum to the correct total.
After the negative allocations in Step 4 are set to zero, the total low-income housing allocation for all
jurisdictions is 159 units higher than the countywide need. The initial allocations are reduced to match the
housing totals (Table 2 and Table 3).
Table 22: Preferred Method Sample Calculation of the Very-Low-Income (30-50% AMI) Housing Need.
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
2020
Housing
Equal-Share Theoretical Adjustment Initial Final
Supply
Jurisdiction Housing Need 2020 Supply Factor Allocation Allocation
Bucoda Town 120 21 25 -96 Less Than 0 0
Lacey City 1,832 799 2,371 539 1,338 1,199
UGA 1,075 1,391 1,391 316 1,707 1,468
Olympia City 1,782 1,961 2,635 853 2,814 2,877
UGA 356 256 522 167 423 435
Rainier City 211 89 88 -123 Less than 0 0
UGA 13 4 5 -8 0 0
Tenino City 211 80 81 -130 Less than 0 0
UGA 1 1 1 -1 0 0
Tumwater City 1,099 1,036 1,138 39 1,075 1,002
UGA 120 390 124 4 394 307
Yelm City 247 1,164 356 109 1,273 1,090
UGA 37 22 53 16 39 30
Grand Mound UGA 52 48 43 -9 39 23
Rural 5,249 1,168 3,573 -1,677 Less than 0 0
Total 12,405 8,431 12,405 0 9,103* 8,431
Notes: *Sum of positive values.
Qbhf!76!pg!95
Notes: P: housing type is permitted; C: housing type is conditionally allowed. Information is included to support the
density category assigned to each zone. Consult jurisdiction code for specifics on which housing types are allowed.
The city of Rainier and town of Bucoda are not included in the interlocal agreement so are omitted from the TRPC
analysis. Per Dept. of Commerce guidance, manufactured homes are omitted since they should be permitted in all
zones. Capacity estimate excludes accessory dwelling unit assumptions. Capacity in this table excludes accessory
dwelling units.
Zone Capacity Density Category Select Housing Types
y
l
i
e
t
m
x
n
a
e
m
l
e
F
o
-
P
h
-m
e
t
l
4
n
r
g
U
a
w
o
n
t
pD
i
o
ST2AA
Bucoda
All Zones City N/A
Lacey
AG UGA 11 Low Density P P
AQUATC City 0 Nonresidential
AQUATC UGA 0 Nonresidential
C City 0 Nonresidential
CBD 4 City 44 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
CBD 5 City 110 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
CBD 6 City 55 Mid-rise Multifamily P
CBD 6 UGA 0 Mid-rise Multifamily P
CBD 7 City 12 Mid-rise Multifamily P
CCD City 144 Low-rise Multifamily P P
CO City 227 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
GC City 0 Nonresidential
HD City 1,598 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P
HD UGA 386 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P
HPBD-BC City 68 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
HPBD-C City 17 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
LD City 1,666 Moderate Density P P P P
LD UGA 4,933 Moderate Density P P P P
LHN City 31 Low Density P P
LI City 0 Nonresidential
LI UGA 0 Nonresidential
LI-C City 0 Nonresidential
MD City 1,338 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
MD UGA 906 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
ME UGA 0 Nonresidential
MGSA UGA 3,166 Moderate Density P P P
MHDC City 525 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
Qbhf!77!pg!95
Zone Capacity Density Category Select Housing Types
y
l
i
e
t
m
x
n
a
e
m
l
e
F
o
-
P
h-m
e
t
l
4
n
r
g
U
a
w
o
n
t
pD
i
o
ST2AA
MHDC UGA 710 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
MMDC City 73 Moderate Density P P P P P
MMDC UGA 172 Moderate Density P P P P P
NATURL City 1 Low Density P P
NC City 0 Nonresidential P
NC UGA 0 Nonresidential P
OS-I City 1 Nonresidential
OS-I UGA 0 Nonresidential
OSI-P City 0 Nonresidential
OSI-P UGA 0 Nonresidential
OSI-S City 0 Nonresidential
OSI-S UGA 0 Nonresidential
SHORES City 3 Low Density P P P P
SMU City 0 Nonresidential
URBCON City 3 Low Density P P
V(U)C City 178 Moderate Density P P P P P
V(U)C UGA 547 Moderate Density P P P P P
WD City 1,332 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
Olympia
AS City 0 Nonresidential
CAP City 0 Nonresidential
COSC UGA 31 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
CSH City 0 Nonresidential P P P P P
DB City 1,442 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
GC City 168 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
HDC-1 City 3 Moderate Density P P P P P
HDC-2 City 4 Moderate Density P P P P P
HDC-3 City 37 Moderate Density P P P P
HDC-4 City 3,019 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
I City 0 Nonresidential
LI-C City 0 Nonresidential
LI-C UGA 0 Nonresidential
MHP City 0 Moderate Density P P P P
MR-10-18 City 117 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
MR-7-13 UGA 0 Moderate Density P P P P P
MS City 217 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
NR City 2 Moderate Density P P P P P
Qbhf!78!pg!95
Zone Capacity Density Category Select Housing Types
y
l
i
e
t
m
x
n
a
e
m
l
e
F
o
-
P
h-m
e
t
l
4
n
r
g
U
a
w
o
n
t
pD
i
o
ST2AA
NR UGA 10 Moderate Density P P P P P
NV City 410 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
PO/RM City 688 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
PUD City 83 Mid-rise Multifamily C C C C C
R-1/5 City 4 Low Density P P P P
R-1/5 UGA 39 Low Density P P P P
R-4 City 16 Low Density P P P P
R-4 UGA 154 Low Density P P P
R-4-8 City 3,758 Moderate Density P P P P
R-4-8 UGA 1,553 Moderate Density P P P
R-4CB City 445 Low Density P P P
R-6-12 City 1,141 Moderate Density P P P P
R-6-12 UGA 51 Moderate Density P P P P
RLI City 464 Low Density P P P P P
RLI UGA 133 Low Density P P P P P
RM-18 City 945 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
RM-18 UGA 837 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
RM-24 City 999 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
RM-H City 0 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
RMU City 23 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
UR City 187 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
UV City 271 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
UW City 778 Mid-rise Multifamily P
UWH City 604 Mid-rise Multifamily P P
Rainier
All Zones City N/A
NC UGA 0 Low Density
RRR1/5 UGA 108 Low Density P P P
Tenino
C-1 City 2 Low-rise Multifamily C C
C-2 City 2 Low-rise Multifamily C C
C-3 City 26 Low-rise Multifamily C C C
I City 0 Nonresidential
MF City 8 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P C
P/SP City 0 Nonresidential
PO City 1 Moderate Density P C
Qbhf!79!pg!95
Zone Capacity Density Category Select Housing Types
y
l
i
e
t
m
x
n
a
e
m
l
e
F
o
-
P
h-m
e
t
l
4
n
r
g
U
a
w
o
n
t
pD
i
o
ST2AA
RRR1/5 UGA 27 Low Density P P P
SF City 346 Moderate Density P C
SF-D City 28 Moderate Density P P C
SF-ES City 69 Low Density P C
WT City 115 Low Density P C
Tumwater
ARI City 0 Nonresidential
BD City 666 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
CBC City 742 Mid-rise Multifamily P
CS City 0 Nonresidential
GB City 0 Nonresidential P
GB UGA 0 Nonresidential P
GC City 1,344 Mid-rise Multifamily P
GC UGA 0 Mid-rise Multifamily P
HC City 0 Mid-rise Multifamily P
HI City 0 Nonresidential
HI UGA 0 Nonresidential
LI City 0 Nonresidential
LI UGA -1 Nonresidential
MFH City 356 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P
MFM City 822 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P
MFM UGA 615 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P P
MHP City 46 Moderate Density P
MU City 17 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P
MU UGA 1 Low-rise Multifamily P P P P
NC City 0 Low Density P P P
NC UGA 0 Low Density
OS City 3 Nonresidential P
OS UGA 0 Nonresidential P
R/SR City 465 Low Density P P P
R/SR UGA 53 Low Density P P
SFL City 2,413 Moderate Density P P P
SFL UGA 1,923 Low Density P P
SFM City 1,836 Moderate Density P P P P
SFM UGA 440 Moderate Density P P P P
TC-C City 0 Nonresidential
TC-MU City 7 Mid-rise Multifamily P
Qbhf!7:!pg!95
Zone Capacity Density Category Select Housing Types
y
l
i
e
t
m
x
n
a
e
m
l
e
F
o
-
P
h-m
e
t
l
4
n
r
g
U
a
w
o
n
t
pD
i
o
ST2AA
TC-PO City 0 Nonresidential
TC-R City 33 Mid-rise Multifamily P
Yelm
AC UGA 2 Low Density P
C-1 City 91 Mid-rise Multifamily C P
C-2 City 58 Mid-rise Multifamily C P
C-3 City 15 Mid-rise Multifamily C P
CBD City 99 Mid-rise Multifamily P C P
I City 0 Nonresidential P
LI UGA 0 Nonresidential
Multiple housing types/densities
3,776 Low-rise Multifamily
likely in planned community.
MPC City
Capacity split into two categories
2,000 Moderate Density
for the land capacity analysis.
OS/ID City 0 Nonresidential
R-16 City 390 Mid-rise Multifamily P P P P P
R-4 City 928 Moderate Density P P P P P
R-6 City 906 Moderate Density P P P P P
Single-family, townhome, and
243 Low Density
ADUs currently permitted. Joint
RR1/5 UGA 250 Moderate Density
plan allows for higher densities
250 Low-rise Multifamily
after annexation.
Grand Mound
AC UGA 120 Moderate Density P P P P P
LI UGA 0 Nonresidential
PID UGA 0 Nonresidential
R3-6/1 UGA 239 Moderate Density P P P P P
R4-16/1 UGA 47 Moderate Density P P P P P
County
HC 0 Nonresidential
LTA 359 Low Density P P
LTF 1 Nonresidential P
MEI 0 Nonresidential
MGSA 724 Low Density P P
MR 0 Nonresidential
NA 0 Nonresidential
NC 0 Nonresidential
PP 0 Nonresidential
Qbhf!81!pg!95
Zone Capacity Density Category Select Housing Types
y
l
i
e
t
m
x
n
a
e
m
l
e
F
o
-
P
h-m
e
t
l
4
n
r
g
U
a
w
o
n
t
pD
i
o
ST2AA
R 1/10 209 Low Density P P
R 1/20 374 Low Density P P
RCC 1 Nonresidential
RL1/1 836 Low Density P P P
RL1/2 347 Low Density P P P
RL2/1 588 Low Density P P P
RR1/5 257 Low Density P P P
RRI 0 Nonresidential
RRR1/5 13,817 Low Density P P P
UR 1/5 235 Low Density P P
Qbhf!82!pg!95
H OUSING
The objective of the housing chapter is to provide for a variety of affordable and market rate
housing choices through the creation of efficient neighborhoods that have mixed densities,
mixed housing styles, and mixed housing types.
The Housing Element is the guiding document the City of Yelm will use to plan future housing
needs. This plan evaluates the existing housing availability, predicts the housing needs through
2045, and establishes goals and policies to accommodate the upcoming housing demand.
In 2021, the Washington State Legislature added several new requirements to the Growth
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Management Act, adopted in House Bill 1220 and 1337, that requires jurisdictions to
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
and accommodate housing that is
Formatted: Font: Bold
Current Challenges:
Yelm is a military-based community of 10,205 people with unique housing needs and
challenges, which stem from its military personnel economy and demographics. Yelm
faces an exponential growth projection, which indicates a need for higher density and
additional housing units including an increase in available rental units to balance the supply and
demand of housing stock as the city grows.
Housing costs in Yelm continue to rise and are not attainable for a steadily growing
population. Strategies need to be created to address the temporary and permanent housing
gaps in the city. Key findings from the Yelm Housing Needs Assessment are as follows:
Formatted: Underline
1. Growing population:
limits by 2045, and 7,504 additional units are projected to meet the needs of anticipated
growth.
Formatted: Underline
2. Existing Housing Stock: The housing stock is comprised primarily of single-family
detached homes. 77.5 percent of homes in Yelm are single family detached. Apartment
buildings with 20+ units are the next most prevalent, at 6.2%. The existing housing stock
does not include enough rental units for renters with an annual income of less than
$75,000.
3. Cost Burdened Households: Approximately 33 percent of households in Yelm are
severely cost-burdened. Those residents fall in the lower end of the income spectrum,
and they are typically renters, rather than homeowners. Cost-burdened residents can
face difficult choices between prioritizing whether money is spent on housing and other
household needs, or on food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, in addition to
housing instability.
4. Affordability vs. Availability: Analysis of the housing prices, values, and supply indicate
on Median Household Income data, there has been increased purchasing power in Yelm
compared to the Thurston County region, which is likely influenced by the number of
military servicemember households.
Qbhf!83!pg!95
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Not Highlight
5. Homeowner Income vs. Renter Income: According to the City of Yelm Housing Needs
Formatted: No underline
Assessment, conducted in 2021, the median household income for homeowners in Yelm
was$92,516 comparedto just$48,634 for renters.The rising cost of rent, with low
Formatted: No underline, Not Highlight
vacancy rates, has created a larger demand than supply for renters making the average
Formatted: No underline, Not Highlight
household income.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Normal,Nobullets or numbering
6. Household Size:
Thurston County region. In Yelm, 56% of households are comprised of three or more
people, compared to 38% statewide. Conversely, only 17% of households in Yelm are
one-person households. Given the data on non-family households and occupants per
room discussed previously, the infrastructure needs if the share of school-aged
residents continues to increase. Yelm has a larger percentage of very young families
(families with one or more children under the age of 6). With more than double the
County percentage of children under 6, young families typically face a burden of having
a one-income household or high childcare costs in addition to housing expenses.
Formatted: No underline
7. Long Commute Times:The workforce in Yelm faces long commute times and geographic
challenges related to employment opportunities. A very small number of residents
(10.1%) live and work inside the city; the remainder of the workforce commutes into or
out of the city for work on a daily basis. The school district is the largest employer within
city limits, and most of the faculty and staff live outside of the district due to housing
issues.
Total Households and Median Income:
Thurston Regional Planning Council estimates there were 3,469 households in Yelm in 2023
with a median household income of $88,279. The Housing Element is required to provide
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Not Highlight
adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
community, including documenting barriers and actions needed to achieve housing availability.
(Goal 6)
Qbhf!84!pg!95
H OUSING T YPES C ALLED OUT IN HB 1220, AND T HURSTON C OUNTY I NCOME T HRESHOLDS
Percent of Thurston Equivalent 2023
Housing Type
Area Median Income* Household Income*
Extremely Low Income Less than 30% Less than $30,750
Very Low Income 30 to 50% $30,750 to $51,250
Low Income 50 to 80% $51,250 to $82,000
Moderate Income 80 to 120% $82,000 to $102,500
Subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people
who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes
Permanent supportive housing admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical
for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental
history, criminal history, and personal behaviors.
Temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless
or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic
Emergency housing health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families.
Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an
occupancy agreement.
Facilities that provide a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are
currently homeless Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a
Emergency shelter
lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day
and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations.
N OTE: H OUSING TYPES ARE DEFINED IN RCW 36.70A.030. *I NCOME THRESHOLDS ARE BASED ON HUD ESTIMATES FOR
A FAMILY OF FOUR.
Qbhf!85!pg!95
Formatted: Font: Bold
Current Housing Inventory and Projected Need:
Formatted: Normal
As required by new legislation, an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing
needs was completed by TRPC in March 2025. The 2020 census identified 3,456 housing units
and TRPC predicts another 7,504 housing units will be needed by 2045.
Housing Units
2020 2045 2020-2045
Census TRPC Projection Projected Need
Yelm City 3,456 10,960 7,504
UGA 515 659 144
Yelm faces a shortage of housing are units that are affordable to residents with an income of
80% or less of the area median income, according to the City of Yelm Housing Needs
Assessment completed in 2023. The below table demonstrates the current low-income housing
supply and the future need.
Low-Income Supply vs. Future Low-Income Needs Housing Units
Formatted: Font: Bold
Current Low-Income Housing Supply 2,093
Future Low-Income Housing Needed 5,170
Qbhf!86!pg!95
Formatted: Font: Bold
Housing Need Allocation by Income:
Formatted: Font: Bold
The housing need allocation projects the number of units that are needed by 2045, including
low, very low, and extremely low-income households; and emergency housing, emergency
shelters, and permanent supportive housing.
Formatted: Normal
Housing Units Beds
Income Level (Percent of Area Median Income)
0-30%
Emergency
Total PSH Non-PSH 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% 100-120% Remainder
Housing
Yelm City 7,504 557 1,373 1,090 2,085 518757 1,125 150
UGA 144 10 25 30 0 041 38 3
Total7,648 567 1,398 1,120 2,085 518798 1,163 153
Analysis based on jurisdiction boundaries as of September 1, 2023.
Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.
Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent:Left: 0.13", Hanging:
0.13", Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at:
0.5"
LandCapacity Analysis:
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
It is required for all cities to identify thecapacity of land for housing including, but not limited
to, government-assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-
income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care
facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters and permanent supportive housing.
Income Zone Categories Serving These Housing Aggregate Housing Total Surplus or
Level Needs Need Need Capacity Deficit
0-30% PSH 567
0-30% Other 1,398
Low-rise Multifamily
30-50% 1,120
Mid-rise Multifamily
50-80% ADUs 2,085 5,170 2,775 -2,395
80-100% Moderate Density 518 1,316 5,610 4,295
The analysis conducted by TRPC found insufficient capacity for the number of housing units that
are needed. The land capacity analysis does not fully account for future zoning designations of
property located in the UGA, or the 1,250 acres designated as Master Planned Community.
While the current capacity shows a deficit, the future capacity is highly dependent on
annexation and the master plan the City approves. The Master Plan Community must consider
land capacity for housing, including housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-
Qbhf!87!pg!95
income housing. The currently zoned to have one residential unit per five acres
but a large portion of the UGA will be designated residential, with a minimum required density
ranging from3-16 units per acre once annexed.
The deficit, found in the land capacity analysis, will also be addressed through the policies listed
in goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10.
The total capacity in each zone category is summarized below. This provides the total capacity
that could accommodate housing in each income level. The analysis shows that current zoning
is much more favorable for the type of housing that serve people who make80-120% AMI than
the types of housing that serve 0-80% AMI.
Moderate
ADUs Midrise Multifamily Lowrise Multifamily Density Low Density
0-80% AMI 0-80% AMI 0-80% AMI 0-80% AMI 80-120% AMI >120% AMI Total
Yelm and UGA 120 0 2,655 0 5,610 745 9,130
Formatted: Font: Bold
Racial Disparagement and Anti-Displacement:
The city was required to conduct a Housing Displacement Risk Analysis, which was prepared by
Uncommon Bridges. The analysis found the most prominent risk in Yelm to be physical
displacement, which is the result of eviction, acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of
property, or the expiration of covenants on rent, or income-restricted housing.
Along with physical displacement, the risk for economic displacement is also prevalent with
33% of households in Yelm being cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on
housing related expenses, and 33% of households considered to be low, very low, or extremely
low income. The analysis found a 0% vacancy rate for rental units that are affordable to low-
income residents. Yelm is experiencing significant growth in population diversity with a 196%
growth rate between 2010 and 2023. As the City develops policy, it is important to evaluate the
following criteria:
1. Does this policy encourage the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing
such as manufactured home parks and other existing affordable units?
2. Does this policy incentivize or reduce barriers to developing diverse housing types
including smaller homes?
Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +
3. Does this policy incentivize and support the development of affordable and deeply
Numbering Style: 1, 2,3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
affordable housing?
Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted Table
POPULATION BY RACE AND HISPANIC
ORIGIN
2020
Total Population 10,617
Population by Population by
Ethnicity Number Percentage
Qbhf!88!pg!95
White/Non-Hispanic7,141 67.26%
Person of Color 3,476 32.74%
Two or More Races* 1436 13.53%
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 1,275 12.01%
Other Race*394 3.71%
Asian* 387 3.65%
Black/African American* 360 3.39%
Native Hawaiian & Pacific Islander* 240 2.26%
American Indian & Alaska Native* 206 1.94%
Goal 1: Encourage Plan for and accommodate a variety of housing types, densities and a and
densities to provide housing that is affordable to all income levels range of affordable housing
within Yelm and its Urban Growth Area.
Policy 1.1 :1.1 Allow a variety of housing types within the residential and mixed- use
designations to promote a range of housing alternatives within the community. This may
include but not be limited to: government assisted housing, housing for low-income families,
manufactured housing, multi-family housing, and group or foster homes.
Policy 1.2 Allow accessory dwelling units in all residential land use categories subject to
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 8pt, Italic
development standards and design criteria.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 1.2:1.3 Encourage opportunities for a range of housing costs to enable housing for
all segments of the population, including low income, very low income, extremely
low income and those in need of supportive housing or emergency shelters.
(formerly 1.3).
Policy 1.4 1.3: Encourage the provision of adequate affordable building sites through
appropriate zoning, infrastructure, and other development regulations.
Policy 1.4:1.5 Review development regulations to ensure that a range of housing types
is are available throughout Yelm.
Policy 1.5:1.6 Review development regulations to ensure residents can safely walk
throughout Yelm.
Policy 1.6:1.7 Monitor the need for special needs housing and increase opportunities for
such housing.
Policy 1.7 :1.8 Consider density increaseOffer Density incentives to promote a variety of
housing types, mixed uses, range of housing costs, affordability, and increased
special needs housing
.Policy 1.8: Increase density near employment locations.
Formatted: Normal
Qbhf!89!pg!95
Goal 2: Meet the county wide planning policy to ensure a fair share of affordable housing.
Formatted:Indent:Left:0.2",Hanging:0.8"
Policy 2.1: 2.1 Encourage a variety of housing types in the residential designations to
assure choice, opportunity, and availability of a fair share of affordable housing
throughout Yelm, its UGA, and adjacent areas of Thurston County.
Policy 2.2: 2.2 Participate with other jurisdictions and Thurston County in a regional
process to monitor Fair Share Affordable Housing targets within the County.
Formatted: Heading 3
Policy 2.3: Increase housing choices to support all ranges of lifestyles, household incomes,
abilities, and ages. Encourage a range of housing types and costs that are
Formatted: Font color: Auto
populations, particularly for low, moderate and fixed-income families.
Policy 2.4: Accommodate low and moderate-income housing throughout each jurisdiction
rather than isolated in certain areas.
Formatted: Normal,Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Goal 3Conserve, protect, and improve the existing housing stock and neighborhoods.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 3.1: 3.1 Maintain up-to-date development regulations for building, housing,
mechanical, and other design standards.
Policy 3.2:3.2 Require owners of unsafe dwelling units to correct significant problems
code and consider funding assistance for low-income owners or incentive
programs to reduce displacement risks. Require owners of unsafe dwelling units
to correct significant problems and encourage the maintenance of existing
structures consistent with the standards of the neighborhood.(formerly 3.2)
Policy 3.3:3.3 Support rehabilitation efforts for substandard housing and develop
assistance programs to reduce displacement risks. (formerly 3.3)Support
rehabilitation efforts for substandard housing.
Policy 3.4:3.4 Encourage and facilitate economic development to provide increased
economic opportunity for existing residents, so more people can work near their
home. (Formerly 3.4)Encourage and facilitate local economic development as an
important element of improving housing conditions by providing economic
opportunity.
Policy: 3.5:y 3.5 Encourage and provide funding for local community groups, churches, and
businesses to provide voluntary assistance with maintaining existing housing for
the elderly, low income households, and those with special housing needs.
(formerly 3.5)
Encourage local community groups, churches, and businesses to provide voluntary assistance
with maintain existing structures for the elderly, low income, and those with
special needs.Policy 3.6: Preserve and protect the existing manufactured
home community.
Qbhf!8:!pg!95
Formatted: Normal
Policy 3.7: Support private ownership of mobile home communities and private rental units
by local, family-owned operations with on-site management.
Goal 4Promote energy efficient housing to reduce the overall costs of home ownership.
Policy 4.1: 4.1 Support programs that make existing structures more energy efficient.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 4.2: 4.2 Periodically review the energy efficiency development regulations to
ensure that they are up-to-date.
Policy 4.3: 4.3 Promote residential subdivision designs that maximize solar heating
opportunities.
Goal 5: Provide sufficient housing for low- and moderate-income households within each
jurisdiction.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 5.1 5.1: Add other innovative housing types (such as cottage style) to the
permitted uses where appropriate Provide sufficient housing for low- and
moderate-income households.
Policy 5.2 Provide tenants and landlords information about housing rights and
responsibilities.
Policy 5.2 5.3: Incentivize developers to set aside a percentage of multifamily
housing units for low- and moderate-income buyers and renters.
Policy 5.3 :5.4 Support efforts to provide funding for shared-equity policies via
community land trust or down-payment assistance models to make buying
housing of all types affordable.
Policy 5.4: Preserve and protect the existing manufactured home community.
Policy 5.6: Develop policy the limits long-term housing being used for transient rentals.
Formatted: Normal
Policy 5.7: Develop policy that focuses on transient lodging quarters for low to moderate
Formatted: Font color: Auto
income individuals and service members
Policy 5.8: Expedite permitting for low- and moderate-income housing units to incentivize
Formatted: Font color: Auto
developers
Policy 5.9: Reduce transportation impact fees for multifamily developments near frequent
transit service routes.
Policy 5.10: Offer developers density and/or height incentives for desired unit types.
Policy 5.11: Establish a multifamily tax exemption program
Policy 5.12: Define income-restricted housing as a different use from other forms of housing
in the zoning code.
Policy 5.13: Explore barriers and policies that can increase access to housing for formally
incarcerated individuals.
Policy 5.14: Monitor the need for special housing and increase opportunities for such
housing.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy 5.15: Permit longer-term (30 days to 6-months) transient lodging in residential
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
districts.
Qbhf!91!pg!95
Formatted: Normal
Formatted:Fontcolor:Text1
Goal 6: Establish or support programs focused on affordable housing
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Policy 6.1: Embrace Community Development Block Grants, Section 108 loans, and other
Formatted: Normal,Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
federal resources for affordable housing.
Policy 6.2: Partner with local organizations where possible, to incentivize and assist mobile Formatted: Font color: Auto
park owners with improving their properties and support upgraded utilities and
Formatted: Normal
infrastructure for these properties.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy6.3: Supportthe private ownership of mobile home communities and private rentals
by local, family-owned operations with on-site management, and disincentivize
corporate owners from buying homes in the community.
Policy 6.4: Partner with local organizations to provide a program to assist residents with
applications and explain housing benefits and other housing assistance
Formatted: Font color: Auto
programs.
Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
Policy 6.5: Provide tenants and landlords information about housing rights and
responsibilities.
Policy 6.6: Encourage local community groups, churches, and businesses to provide
voluntary assistance with maintaining existing structures for the elderly, low-
Formatted: Font color: Auto
income, and those with special needs.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy 6.7: Work with the Thurston County Regional Housing Council to consider funding
sources for a regional response to homelessness and affordable housing, and
coordinate with existing funding programs.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy 6.8: Develop partnerships with low-income housing developers, Housing Authority of
Thurston County, and other organizations that provide support for low-income,
Formatted: Font color: Auto
workforce, senior housing, and other populations with unique housing needs.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy 6.9: Conduct education and outreach around city programs that support affordable
housing.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy 6.10: Encourage the Housing Authority of Thurston County to take greater advantage
Formatted: Normal
of state and federal housing grants and tax incentives.
Goal 76 Provide sufficient service-enriched housing for homeless and high-risk populations.
Policy7.1:6.1Allow shelters, group homes, transitional housing, and permanent housing
with social services in development regulations in locations where these facilities
have access to transit, parks, and other amenities.
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 7.2: Allow emergency housing in all zones.
Formatted: Normal,Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1"
Goal 87 Encourage housing density and diversity in neighborhoods to add vibrancy and increase
equitable access to opportunity.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 87.1 Review and amend residential development regulations to provide opportunities
for the mix and density of housing needed to meet the needs of changing
demographics, provide affordable housing, use land wisely, and support nearby
transit and businesses (formerly 7.1). Recommendation from Displacement
Qbhf!92!pg!95
AnalysisReview and amend residential development regulations to provide
opportunity for the mix and density of housing needed to meet the needs of
changing demographics, use land wisely, and support nearby transit and
businesses.
Policy 87.2 Allow densification by providing for accessory dwelling units, small houses on
small lots, attached housing types or appropriately scaled multifamily buildings,
cottage housing, and village cohousing developments in development regulations.
Goal 98Encourage the construction, weatherization and operation of homes to boost energy
efficiency.
Policy 9.1:8.1 Prioritize home weatherization funds to preserve affordable housing.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 9.2: 8.2 Support regional efforts to engage landlords and property managers in
energy efficiency efforts.
Policy 9.3: 8.3 Support the efforts of local financial institutions to facilitate affordable
financing of energy upgrades.
Policy 9.4: 8.4 Support regional efforts to conduct energy audits of large power
consumers to i
Rating System.
Goal 109: Increase housing affordable to all income brackets in urban corridors and centers to
meet the needs of a changing population. (Recommendation from Housing Displacement
Analysis)Increase housing amid urban corridors and centers to meet the needs of a changing
population.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 10.1 :9.1 Review regulations that stymie or prevent housing development near or
within urban corridors and centers.
Policy 10.2 :9.2 -
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 10.3:9.3 Identify vacant or underdeveloped lots for housing development,
prioritizing affordable housing and ensure existing households are not displaced.
Identify priority areas ripe for housing development that will meet multiple goals.
Policy 10.4:9.4 Examine ways to encourage smaller, affordable housing units through the
fee structure, especially in centers, corridors or adjacent to neighborhood service
hubs.
Formatted: Strikethrough
Policy E:9.5 Reduce impact fees for those projects located where there is less impact.
Policy 10.5:9.6 Use tax exemptions, such as Special Valuation, or other financing tools to
make projects financially feasible.
Formatted: Heading 3, Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Policy 10.6: Identify opportunities to aggregate properties where housing density is needed to
achieve community goals and make multifamily projects feasible to build and
finance.
Formatted: Heading 3
Policy 10.7: Permit live-work structures throughout the commercial zones, remove the
requirement for Mixed-Use Development for live-work structures, and reduce or
Formatted: Font color: Auto
eliminate density requirement in existing structures.
Qbhf!93!pg!95
Policy 10.8: Allow more housing types in commercial zones.
Formatted:Indent:Left:0",Firstline:0"
Formatted: Font color: Text 2
Goal 11: Encourage the construction of ADUs as a more affordable option to traditional Formatted: Normal
housing
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Text 1
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Policy 11.1: Allow up to two accessory dwelling units in all residential land use categories
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Text 1
subject to standard development standards and design criteria.
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Policy 11.2:Createand promotean educational program, partnering with local organizations
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Text 1
where possible, to explain the long-term investment opportunity of ADUs and the
Formatted: Font color: Auto
financial plan required to pursue building an ADU.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
Policy 11.3: Permit accessory dwelling units on existing nonconforming residential lots within Formatted: Font color: Auto
the commercial zones.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.8"
Formatted: Normal
Accessory Dwellings
Adopted Potential ADU
Formatted: Normal,Nobullets or numbering
For LCA
Jurisdiction Forecast Lots
Formatted: Normal,Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
City 9 100 185
Yelm
UGA 0 20 2
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Goal 12: Minimize displacement and ensure that low- and moderate-income residents and
special housing residents are not displaced by new development
Policy 12.1: Ensure housing options remain affordable amongst new developments by requiring
multifamily developments in certain overlay areas or zones to provide a certain percentage of
Formatted: Font color: Auto
affordable, market rate housing units.
Policy 12.2: Support aging-in-place services and goals that encourage development patterns
Formatted: Font color: Auto
that provide suitably scaled, daily needs services within walking distance of residential areas,
allowing a measure of independence for those who cannot or choose not to drive. Connect
homeowners with resources to adapt their homes to their needs as they age su
Single Family Housing Repair Loans & Grants program, and Rebuilding Together.
Policy 12.3: Support education programs on homeownership and partner with NeighborWorks
Center for Homeownership Education and Counseling, and the Washington State Home
Advantage Program to make this statewide resource more accessible at the local level.
Policy 12.4: Explore grant programs to support the effort to reduce homelessness. Programs
such as the Washington State Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG)
provide resources to fundhomeless crisis response systems to support communities in ending
homelessness.
Formatted: Normal
Policy 12.5: Adopt local tenant protections that require an increase to the notice time to 90-180
days before the effective date and place a cap on rent payment late fees.
Qbhf!94!pg!95
Table 5 - Residential Supply vs. Demand
Formatted: Font: Bold
Capacity for
Units required to accommodate
2010
Formatted: Font: Bold
additional Excess
2035 population
Dwelling
dwellings Formatted: Font: Bold
Units
Formatted: Font: Bold
Total2010 20352010 plus2035
Formatted: Font: Bold
Yelm & UGA 3,050 10,250 7,200 10,310 30%
Formatted: Font: Bold
Source: Buildable Lands Report 2014 for Thurston County, 2014, Thurston Regional Planning
Formatted: Font: Bold
Council.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Table 6 - Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units by Type
Formatted: Normal
Planning AreaTotal Single-FamilyMulti-Family
Formatted: Normal
City Center 2,720 1,775 945
Formatted: Normal
Master Planned
Formatted: Normal
5,900 3,890 2,010
Community
Formatted: Normal
Urban Growth Area 1,690 1,460 230
Formatted: Normal
Goal 13: Encourage allow more low- and moderate-income housing optionsSource: Buildable
Lands Report 2014 for Thurston County, 2014, Thurston Regional Planning Council.
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Policy 13.1: Reduce system development charges for low-income, affordable housing
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Policy 13.2: Review fees/regulations to identify housing cost reductions.
Formatted: Normal,Nobullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Goal 14: Add more permanent supportive housing
Formatted: Font: Bold
Policy 14.1: Define income-restricted housing as a different use from other forms of housing in
Formatted: Font: Bold
the zoning code.
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Policy 14.2: Explore barriers and policies that can increase access to housing for formally
Formatted: Normal,Nobullets or numbering
incarcerated individuals.
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Text 1
Policy 14.3: Monitor the need for special housing and increase opportunities for such housing.
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Policy 14.4: Review fees/regulations to identify housing cost reductions.
Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Formatted: Font color: Accent 1
Goal 15: Increase accessibility throughout transit corridors
Formatted: Font: Bold
Policy 15.1: Reduce parking requirements for residential uses, including for multifamily
Formatted: Font color: Auto
developments near frequent transit routes.
Formatted: Normal,Nobullets or numbering
Policy 15.2 Develop partnership with InterCity Transit to expand bus routes to additional areas
Formatted: Font color: Auto
of the city.
Policy 15.3: Lower transportation impact fees for multifamily developments near frequent
transit service routes.
Policy 15.4: Expand the multifamily tax exemption to make it available in all transit corridors.
Qbhf!95!pg!95