Lots of opinions on residential rezoning in Tacoma. How will they affect a final plan?
If Wednesday’s nearly three-and-a-half hour meeting among Tacoma’s Planning commissioners was any indication, the city’s refinements of its Home in Tacoma project won’t be swift or simple.
Plans for overhauling Tacoma’s land use regulations to encourage construction of more types of housing attracted hundreds of comments from the public, and now city planners are making their way through adjusting initial proposals based on that feedback.
The final recommendations to send to the City Council are now expected to come out of the commission’s meeting May 19.
A hybrid model appeared to be the direction the city’s Planning Commission is moving toward in trying to balance residents’ concerns with the city’s dire need for more housing and affordable options.
The main issues now come down to how much change will occur and how widespread any change will be when it comes to implementing two new land-use designations. Low-scale residential and mid-scale residential (near shopping and transit) would replace current single-family and multifamily-low density land-use designations, with two growth scenarios also proposed.
Messaging of the plan remains a priority after commissioners reviewed the comments, seeing a broad range of reaction from respondents.
“I think a lot of people don’t realize if you’ve been in your house for a decade or longer and your income hasn’t changed significantly, you probably couldn’t afford your house today,” said Planning Commission Chair Anna Petersen. “I know I couldn’t afford my house today. And that’s upsetting to me because that means my children won’t be able to afford to live in Tacoma.”
While Petersen and others on the commission defended the project’s goals, other members said they weren’t fully on board and favored a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach.
Embracing change, or not
At Wednesday’s meeting, members of the commission met with Elliott Barnett, senior planner for the City of Tacoma, Brian Boudet, the city’s planning manager, as well as Heidi Aggeler, representing the consulting group Root Policy Research of Denver, hired by the city to help analyze public feedback and help shape responses and recommendations to be sent to council.
The city obtained a grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce (Growth Management Services) for $100,000 to develop a Housing Action Plan, and hired Root Policy Research.
Barnett, at Wednesday’s meeting, gave an overview of the responses received by the city during the public comment period for Home in Tacoma.
“About the same number of people were very strongly in support or opposed to the project with a decent number of people kind of somewhere in the middle stating that they like certain aspects of the proposal but they don’t like others,” Barnett told the commission.
The Home in Tacoma project would overhaul the city’s current development rules to allow for different types of housing citywide and adjust zoning that has historically favored single-family housing in the majority of the city’s buildable land, with higher-density development only in select areas.
In this first phase of the project, which is part of Tacoma’s Affordable Housing Action Strategy, public feedback was sought on recommendations to expand “missing middle” housing opportunities with low-scale and mid-scale development and on the amount of density introduced using two different growth scenarios.
Missing middle includes housing options that in the past were not included under the traditional single-family residential zoning. These types generally fall between detached single-family homes and mid-rise multifamily units, for example small cottages, duplexes, triplexes and townhomes.
Low-scale in the project would include development smaller in size but more than just single family, including duplex, triplex, townhouses, cottage housing and shared housing. In some circumstances, fourplex, small multifamily and tiny/mobile homes also would be considered. Mid-scale would support larger multifamily housing in areas near transit and shopping. including multifamily, live-work and limited retail/office, in addition to the building types allowed in low-scale development.
Areas near centers, corridors and bus routes are proposed for mid-scale residential.
About 15,500 acres, roughly half of the city’s total area, could serve for missing middle growth, according to the project’s overview, with current land-use designation at 90% single-family and 10% multifamily (low-density).
In the two growth scenarios proposed, “Evolve” housing choice would offer low-scale residential at 75% and mid-scale residential at 25%, while the “Transform” housing choice would apply low-scale residential at 40% and mid-scale residential at 60%
According to the project’s overview: “Both scenarios include significant new housing options, with the most substantial increases in Scenario 2 (Transform).”
Aggeler on Wednesday offered reasons why the city should consider moving forward with change.
“If you just continue where you are now, you’re probably going to grow exactly like you have been growing, and missing middle products will continue to be limited, meaning that mostly homeownership affordability will continue to be very constrained,” Aggeler said. “The affordable rentals that have the ability to be produced through this proposal are the ones that are often ideal for families, accommodate families in higher opportunity areas.”
“A lot of times I think it’s hard for the public and for people to understand that this is not a choice between keeping things the same and a choice of the proposals, but it’s a choice of the city changing in one way versus the city changing in another way and just acknowledge that homes can be demolished right now and redeveloped into you know, more expensive single-family detached homes going to go forward.”
Some of the public response showed how much work is left to do in terms of messaging, some of the members noted.
“I read a comment that implied that multifamily housing ... brings in prostitution and drug use. I found that extremely upsetting,” Petersen said. “There were a lot of comments that said, ‘Hey, I’m totally for this but not in my neighborhood. Do it somewhere else.’”
Commissioner Chris Karnes said in reading all of the comments he noted a generational divide in perspective when it came to renters.
“I was taken aback at how much sort of distaste and animus … directed at renters, declaring them to be transient people,” Karnes said. “What I saw from public comment was there is a substantial generational disconnect between people who bought in the 20th century and those people who are buying now in 2020, one where we have such low supply that people are waiving all sorts of contingencies. They’re unable to save for a down payment. It’s a completely different world than for the people who bought into Tacoma in the 1990s versus today, and I think that we really need to take that into account, and we need to listen to the people who are struggling the most …”
Petersen noted that the harshest critics were viewing any change in extreme terms that didn’t mesh with the proposed scenarios.
“I think we have a real lack of education here,” Petersen said. “There’s a lot of fear. People think that if this passes … that we’re going to start bulldozing their houses. This is not a proposal to make single-family homes non-conforming or illegal. This is a proposal to say we are expanding choice and opportunity.”
Commissioner Andrew Strobel suggested showing information about how much more housing is projected to be needed to better illustrate the current shortage.
“Contextualizing why this is a crisis and what is happening in the city, I think will be important information because I really want to get beyond the, ‘Well, I just don’t want things to change’ conversation because change is happening,” Strobel said. “I would like to get into the more meaty subject of understanding those pressures and having the public understand what those pressures are.”
Others on the board expressed misgivings over moving too fast or making sweeping changes.
Vice Chair Jeff McInnis said: “We need to answer to affordable housing in this area. But I’m just convinced this is not the answer. You know, when I drive through my neck of the woods going from downtown to work to my house, which is North Tacoma, in that stretch I just find that the missing middle that we’ve referred to so many times is not so missing. It’s pretty prevalent throughout there.
“I think that what we really need to do ... we need to be looking neighborhood by neighborhood and we need to say, ‘What does each neighborhood need to lift it up to provide some great affordable housing,’ as opposed to kind of a blanket approach for the whole city,” he said.
“We heard some people in the public testimony...that have been in a home 50 years. When we begin to bring in tons and tons of concentrated multifamily, we’re not going to see that kind of longevity in our area,” he said. “When those people buy in they support businesses, they raise families, they build a community and I think that’s what we want.”
Commissioner Ryan Givens concurred with “basically doing the refinements at a neighborhood level.”
“I think there’s a lot of strength in doing that because then you can talk to the people, you can gain consensus. Then we can do context-sensitive zoning refinements.”
Other commissioners said they strongly supported seeing changes implemented citywide.
“If we do it neighborhood by neighborhood, I feel like what’s going to happen is the neighborhoods that have historically had to take the burden on to address these issues are going to be overburdened,” said Commissioner Alyssa Torrez. “Things are going to be pushed into the lower income areas or the areas where there will be less opposition.”
She added: “Equity is the biggest piece for me. I think doing it citywide is the best way to do that.”
“I do think we need a blanket approach,” Petersen said. “We can address neighborhood character when we talk about design criteria. Though I think that sometimes people’s idea of what the character of their neighborhood is might not be what their neighbor thinks.”
Results of outreach and feedback
According to the analysis by the city’s planning staf, about 75 people testified at the April 7 public hearing, and the city received about 500 written comments and about 300 map comments submitted on its online interactive page.
With the level of feedback, the report, which included all the responses, also provided a summary of opinions based on common themes found among the responses.
The report listed the most common reasons given from opponents:
▪ Opposition to moving away from exclusive single-family
▪ Not enough safeguards in place
▪ Could spur demolition
▪ Pace of change
▪ Could increase displacement
▪ Plan won’t produce affordable housing
▪ Will decrease ownership/spur rental housing
▪ Will only benefit developers
▪ Not enough public notice/engagement
▪ Too much, too fast
▪ Locate growth elsewhere, not in single family neighborhoods
▪ Parking and traffic concerns
▪ Transit service not adequate
▪ Infrastructure impacts
▪ Loss of character, quality of life, open space
Several neighborhoods were mentioned among respondents as not appropriate for mid-scale residential, according to the staff report:
▪ The North Slope
▪ Near 6th Avenue/Grant
▪ Strawberry Hill/McKinley District
▪ Areas of South Tacoma in the flight pattern of McChord AFB
▪ North Pearl Street near Point Defiance Park
▪ Proctor District
▪ Near UPS
▪ Northeast Tacoma
▪ Historic Districts
▪ Areas with historic structures
▪ Areas with regulated critical areas
▪ Any street that is too narrow, steep, or if there are traffic problems
Petersen on Wednesday bristled at people saying there had not been enough outreach and enumerated examples.
“Eighty-thousand postcards, 1,500 emails, public notices, public meetings. Yes, they were virtual because of the pandemic…. A lot of people were able to comment, a lot of people have been able to attend our meetings,” Petersen said.
“Right now, we have 55 attendees watching this meeting. We had 300 people two weeks ago. We are getting the word out.”
Groups offering “expressions of support or mostly support” for Home in Tacoma proposals included Associated Ministries, Community Transportation Advisory Group, Department of Commerce, Tacoma housing organizations, Puyallup Watershed Initiative, Sightline Institute, South End Neighborhood Council, Tacoma Permit Advisory Taskforce, Tacoma Pierce County Affordable Housing Consortium, Tacoma-Pierce County Association of Realtors, Habitat For Humanity and the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.
“Partial support, potential support or support for some components of the proposals” came from Historic Tacoma, New Tacoma Neighborhood Council, North End Neighborhood Council, and the North Slope Historic District.
The West Slope Neighborhood Council is listed among those opposing, and whose letter focused on environmental concerns.
“This proposal is a major negative change to Tacoma’s image and character. It is a shift to higher densities impacting long established single family neighborhoods. It is a degradation of the city’s urban environment, with an unnecessary and added costly burden on the existing infrastructure such as streets, water, sewer and power,” wrote Jane Evancho, chair, on behalf of the West Slope Neighborhood Coalition.
Members of the West End Neighborhood Council also expressed concerns.
“I ask that you delay this process for another year and educate the public with more information,” wrote Kim Vascik, vice chair of the West End Neighborhood Council.
History and preservation groups also weighed in with feedback among the public comments.
“Oddly, Tacoma’s historic districts are not even referenced as ‘sensitive areas’ in the proposal although there are vague references to protecting them,” Historic Tacoma board president Kathleen Brooker wrote. “The best way to protect historic districts to allow only low-scale residential development within them.”
“The LPC does not believe that exempting historic districts from zoning changes resulting from Home in Tacoma is appropriate. However, we do anticipate a marked increase in the number of requests for demolition permits in these areas,” wrote Kevin Bartoy, Tacoma Landmarks Preservation Commission chair.
Both groups agreed that any plan needed to prevent demolition of viable structures.
Nicholas Bond, currently involved in a case filed in Superior Court against the city and developers over the proposed Proctor III project, drew from topics highlighted in the lawsuit, including environmental impacts, in his household’s submitted comments.
“You are basically asking us to trust that the goals will be implemented in a way that is acceptable,” Bond wrote. “Given the City’s failures to effectively implement existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in the City’s Development Regulations (such as on the proposed Proctor III project), continued trust is not warranted here.”
Other respondents offered their full support, sometimes referencing where they used to live as a comparison.
“As a new resident who moved to this unique city in September, it makes me excited to imagine more affordable multi-family housing areas,” wrote Emily Albino. “Coming from Fort Worth, Texas where housing is overwhelmingly single family and very spread out, I can say that Tacoma’s approach is much more worthwhile. There is a huge benefit to making the city more walkable, affordable, and diverse. I hope to see this project to fruition.”
Some large cities showed up as examples of both the good and bad of rezoning.
Los Angeles, for example, was mentioned as both an example of how Tacoma should seek more housing to combat homelessness and how the plans would help. It was used by others to illustrate growth gone wrong and what the plans would ultimately lead to.
Some commission members offered examples from their previous time living in other cities, including Commissioner Strobel, who recommended offering data from other cities that didn’t address housing needs.
“I would love to see the data associated with what happens for those types of communities that don’t respond to any sort of housing demand or issues related to their housing supply,” he said.
“I worked in Santa Barbara. And the children of people in South Santa Barbara can’t afford to live in Santa Barbara. I don’t want Tacoma to be Santa Barbara,” he added.
Next steps
As the planners go back to the drawing board with the suggestions, consideration of recommendations are expected at the commission’s May 19 meeting.
By the end of Wednesday’s meeting, Barnett had a lengthy list of suggestions from the panel members to work through toward perhaps a hybrid model.
The suggestions called for more specific affordability details and tools, and various options for geographic designations with refinements to allowable mid-scale development, among other issues.
Barnett said the city would continue efforts to keep the public informed and engaged in the process.
“We are working now with our media and communications office on another round of engagement after the Planning Commission recommendations, just to let people know what the City Council is preparing to consider and to give them the information so they can comment directly to council,” Barnett told the commission.
The City Council is expected to take action sometime in either June or July.
That will launch a second phase of public discussion and analysis regarding zoning changes, design standards and other actions, with implementation either later this year or sometime next year, depending on how long the second phase takes.
“This change in zoning and allowing more flexibility is a tool,” Petersen said at Wednesday’s meeting. “It’s not the golden ticket. It’s not going to create a bunch of low-income housing. It’s going to help provide a tool to provide more housing.
“But if we don’t do this there will be no more low-income housing because I don’t know where you think it’s going to go.”
The full set of comments that were released as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting packet for April 21 is at bit.ly/32w80zo
This story was originally published April 25, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
