logo
How fast is Olympia growing? Residents raise concerns about rising middle housing

How fast is Olympia growing? Residents raise concerns about rising middle housing

Yahoo03-05-2025

The City of Olympia is continuing to take comments on a number of housing code amendments aimed at middle housing — more ADUs, duplexes and triplexes in more single-family neighborhoods.
However, some residents are raising concerns about code amendments that address the size of the city. The larger the city, the more units can be developed on a single lot.
Most code revisions address requirements set by House bills 1110 and 2321 which were passed by the state legislature.
HB 1110 was passed in 2023 and requires cities to allow middle housing in areas that typically have only single-family homes. Middle housing includes duplexes, triplexes, townhomes and more. The bill also limits how cities can regulate middle housing, lowers parking requirements and includes resources to streamline design review processes.
HB 2321 was passed in 2024 and addresses minimum residential density, exemptions for critical areas, creation of new lots through lot splitting, and encourages dense building near major transit stops.
According to city documents, Tier 1 cities have a population of 75,000 or more. Tier 2 cities have a population of 25,000 to 75,000. Olympia is a Tier 2 city currently, with a population of about 55,400, but by 2030, Olympia and its urban growth area are projected to meet the Tier 1 population threshold.
To avoid revising code once the city reaches 75,000 people, the city plans to meet Tier 1 requirements now. This means the number of units allowed on a lot will increase from two to four. Near major transit stops, or when at least two affordable housing units are provided, the number will increase from 4 to 6.
The city has heard from residents about the changes during public comment before the Planning Commission and in writing. So far, comments have only trickled in and none were completely in favor of all the amendments.
At the April 21 Planning Commission meeting, Bob Jacobs said the proposed policy amendments would have a very significant impact on the Governor Stevens historic neighborhood.
He said revising code to meet the standards of a Tier 1 city and allowing more units per lot retroactively is jumping the gun.
He said Olympia won't meet the Tier 1 population threshold of 75,000 by 2030 as predicted, unless the city moves forward with annexing its entire Urban Growth Area. Without doing that, he said it would take Olympia 20 years to reach 75,000 people.
Sandy Novack wrote to the city that she strongly objects to the housing code amendments. She said allowing up to six units per lot would allow the city to succeed 'in packing as many people as you can together.'
'Most of us, even the poor or middle would like to walk a short distance to see a forest or a tree or a bit of sky,' she said. 'People are happier and better adjusted when they can do that. I suggest affordable housing go up but have space around it that is not developed.'
She said if developers can't afford to build smaller, they should subsidize the building of smaller houses or build public housing. Novack also argued against upping the size of ADUs to 1,000 square feet.
Lorie Hewitt wrote to the city that her concerns are related to preserving the historic heritage and character of the South Capitol Neighborhood, while allowing some proportional increased density needed for housing.
Hewitt echoed Jacobs' concerns regarding making Olympia a Tier 1 city. She said there's no guarantee Olympia will actually be a Tier 1 city by 2030.
'I have lived here 40 years and seen many population projections come and go and not ever materialize,' she said.
Hewitt said she doesn't see the benefit of redefining the city limits by including the UGA.
'Why intentionally reduce the flexibility to design a program for a Tier 2 city and see how it works before jumping right into Tier 1 requirements from the State?' she said. 'Many regulations benefit from adjustments in a 5 year timeframe, which should not be overly onerous as far as staff time. Just review the regulations in 2030 and amend them, if needed.'
Hewitt said increasing unit density for neighborhoods within half a mile from a 'frequent transit route' would entirely encompass the South Capitol Neighborhood.
'Has anyone actually looked at our neighborhood lots?' she said. 'Fitting six units on them will certainly not allow for design standards that respect the historic nature of our streets and houses.'
Hewitt also raised concerns about selling individual units on a lot to other owners. She said if a development is approved on a parent lot, the amendments allow for the individual units to be sold independently of each other.
She asked what provisions are in place to make sure each of these units isn't bought and used primarily for business purposes.
'Unfortunately, when that happens it's likely they will frequently be left vacant due to absentee ownership,' Hewitt said. 'And when owners are present and properties are used for business purposes, parking can become an issue on congested SCN streets. The SCN already has a large share of houses whose owners are operating businesses and leave them vacant for most of the year.'
Transit stops
Near major transit stops, or when at least two affordable housing units are provided, the number will increase from 4 to 6. There aren't any major transit stops in Olympia under the state's definition. Instead, Olympia code is being proposed using 'frequent transit routes' for transit stops that have four or more stops per hour for 12 or more hours per day.
The geographical range for areas considered near frequent transit routes — the areas that could see the 4-to-6 unit increase — would increase to half a mile from the current quarter of a mile.
The city's amended codes would not require off-street parking as a condition of permitting middle housing within half a mile walking distance of a frequent transit route.
ADUs
Under the state regulations, cities can choose whether to count Accessory Dwelling Units in the Unit Lot Density allowed. The most allowed on one lot would be a six-plex or a six-plex and two ADUs.
Cities also can no longer adopt a size limit for ADUs that's less than 1,000 square feet. Olympia code will have to be updated to increase the maximum size from 850 square feet.
The city isn't allowed to impose setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry-door locations, aesthetic requirements or requirements for design review for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for the principal unit.
Code amendments also would allow ADUs to be converted from existing structures, including but not limited to detached garages, even if they violate current code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage.
Code also would be updated to keep building height maximums at 35 feet, but allow three stories instead of two, in residential zoning districts that allow 12 or fewer units per acre.
Joyce Phillips, long-range planning manager, said comments are being taken on the draft amendments until May 15. A public hearing could occur as soon as July or August, and the City Council is expected to make a decision by the end of the year.
To receive notice of public hearings or when the new draft is out, you can submit an email to middle@ci.olympia.wa.us and ask to become a party of record.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Begich joins U.S. House Republicans in voting to claw back public broadcasting money
Begich joins U.S. House Republicans in voting to claw back public broadcasting money

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Begich joins U.S. House Republicans in voting to claw back public broadcasting money

Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, speaks to the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. At background are Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak (left) and Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham (right). (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, joined congressional Republicans in a 214-212 vote Thursday to claw back $1.1 billion in previously approved federal funding for public broadcasting, including tens of millions of dollars intended for radio and TV stations in Alaska. The clawback, formally known as a rescission vote, was requested by President Donald Trump and does not take effect unless also approved by the U.S. Senate within 45 days. The rescission would be enormously significant for Alaska's public broadcasters, particularly those in rural Alaska. High Country News has reported that many of Alaska's rural public radio stations are heavily dependent upon funding from the federal government. A rescission would be even more significant than a budget cut, because it would instantly affect funding that has already been approved and included in local budgets. If Congress were to cut budgets going forward, stations might have at least some time to adapt. Stations on St. Paul Island, in Unalakleet, Sand Point and Talkeetna are among those that receive more than 70% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the federally funded agency targeted by Thursday's vote. Stations in Sitka, Ketchikan, Petersburg and Haines are among those that receive at least a third of their support from the CPB. At KUCB-FM in Unalaska, the station would instantly lose nearly half of its funding and would have to eliminate original programming. The same would take place at KYUK-FM in Bethel, which stands to lose almost 70% of its revenue. On June 6, Alaska Public Media published a listing of knock-on effects, including the loss of the only local reporters in many rural parts of the state. Even in the state's urban centers, the funding loss would have devastating effects. KNBA-FM in Anchorage could have to stop production of National Native News and Native America Calling, two nationally syndicated programs that broadcast Alaska Native and American Indian news. In Juneau, the loss of funding would affect Gavel Alaska, the public broadcasts that cover legislative hearings in the state Capitol and elsewhere. Begich, in a written statement, said the rescissions package is 'a necessary step for restoring fiscal responsibility in our nation.' During his election campaign last year, Alaska's lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives said reducing the national deficit was a priority. He recently voted for a bill that increases the national debt by an estimated $2.4 trillion. In Thursday's statement, Begich said that 'while rural communities have in the past been indirectly supported through state-sponsored media, we must acknowledge how far we have come in terms of connectivity since the birth of radio more than 120 years ago. Alaskan residents have embraced today's pervasive cellular, satellite, and wireline technologies, connecting rural communities to critical information and resources in rich and compelling ways. Importantly, however, emergency management funding from these budgets that is directed to rural communities has been preserved.' In addition to the impact on public broadcasters, the rescissions package eliminates billions of dollars in foreign aid. 'This rescissions package primarily targets ideologically-shaped foreign spending at USAID. Under both the Obama and Biden Administrations, USAID funding was misused to promote political and socially left policies abroad. This package helps refocus our support in ways that are consistent with America's core values, rather than promote the agendas of international bureaucracies and ideological NGOs,' Begich wrote. 'America has been built on principles of freedom of expression, self-determination, sovereignty, personal responsibility, and limited government. This package supports those values by rescinding $9.4 billion from programs that do not reflect the will of the taxpaying public,' his statement said. A poll commissioned by PBS earlier this year found that 65% of the public believes the public broadcaster is either adequately funded or underfunded. In the Senate, a simple majority vote will be needed to approve the rescissions package. Republicans occupy 53 seats in that chamber and Vice President J.D. Vance would cast any tiebreaking vote, meaning that four Republicans would have to oppose the funding reduction for it to fail. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has said she supports funding public broadcasting. U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, while critical of NPR, has supported public broadcasting, particularly in rural Alaska. Trump has said that the rescissions request is the first of several that the White House budget office plans to submit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

House appropriators OK rebukes to recent DOD scandals in budget bill
House appropriators OK rebukes to recent DOD scandals in budget bill

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

House appropriators OK rebukes to recent DOD scandals in budget bill

House Republican appropriators agreed Thursday to several checks on recent controversial Pentagon moves in their $832 billion defense budget plan for fiscal 2026, including a ban on using any money for military personnel to conduct law enforcement duties on U.S. soil. But the spending plan still drew significant criticism from Democratic lawmakers who objected to restrictions on abortion care for troops, insufficient funds to support Ukraine and missing budget justifications from the administration on how hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent. The funding bill — which heads to the full chamber for consideration later this summer — includes a 3.8% pay raise for troops in 2026 and plans to trim 45,000 civilian employees from the department's workforce in a cost-cutting move. Administration officials have billed it as the first $1 trillion defense budget, pairing the appropriations request with an expected $150 billion funding boost for military programs in the Republican-backed reconciliation package winding through Congress. Without that money, the defense budget would see no increase from fiscal 2025 levels. House panel pushes ahead $453 billion funding plan for VA next year In a statement Thursday, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., chairman of the appropriations committee's defense panel, praised the funding plan as 'investing significantly in modernization of the force, maintaining U.S. maritime and air dominance, fostering both innovation and the production capacity it relies upon, air and missile defense, and support for service members and their families.' But he also acknowledged Democratic complaints about incomplete funding requests from the administration, and said he hopes those information gaps will be filled in coming weeks. The committee approved the bill largely along party lines (only one Democrat, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, voted for it) after more than eight hours of debate and delays, with numerous Democratic amendments rejected by the GOP majority. But Republicans did go along with several provisions touching on recent department controversies. Language offered by Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., and approved by the committee would block the use of funds to skirt the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military personnel for civilian law enforcement. The provision came in response to the Trump administration's recent decision to deploy National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to help with immigration enforcement efforts, over the objections of city and state officials. Calvert and other Republicans backed the measure without offering any direct criticism of President Donald Trump's decision. The committee also approved a Democratic-led amendment to block defense officials from sharing classified information on unsecured networks, a measure aimed at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the privately-owned Signal app earlier this year to discuss overseas airstrikes with senior administration leaders. And the legislation calls for a full accounting of money spent on the Army' 250th anniversary celebrations, scheduled for this weekend. The event — which coincides with Trump's 79th birthday — has seen its size and scope balloon by tens of millions of dollars as White House officials have mandated a larger and larger celebration. Other Democratic-led proposals on restricting Trump's use of a Qatari plane as the new Air Force One, blocking the renaming of Navy ships and returning to previous policies allowing travel stipends to help pay for abortion-related care were all rejected. Republicans also included language in the final bill which would block any diversity and inclusion programming at the Defense Department and severely limit health care options for transgender troops or family members, both priorities of the administration. Earlier this week, Senate Republicans expressed stronger concerns about the missing budget information, but said they hope to move soon on their own version of the defense spending package. Both chambers will have to adopt their own drafts of the appropriations measures before negotiating a final budget compromise to be sent to the president to become law.

The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks
The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks

When money flowed more freely in television, public-service programming was seen as a means of giving back. From educational TV and supporting public broadcasting to cable operators providing C-SPAN, spaces existed where ratings weren't the yardstick — instead, this was TV intended to be good for you. On Thursday, Congress took a major step toward undermining all of that, as the House narrowly approved a rescission bill that would claw back $1.1 billion in funding to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which helps support PBS stations, in addition to cuts to other programs. The bill passed by the slimmest of margins, 214 to 212, with a few GOP legislators switching their votes to get it through. The funding was part of a larger $9.4 billion allocation that lawmakers had already approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Senate still has to weigh in on the matter, and has five weeks to decide. With PBS and NPR besieged by the political right, with C-SPAN's funding via cable and satellite fees strafed by cord cutting, higher-minded alternatives have been hit by hard times. The whole point of PBS and National Public Radio was that they would be unfettered by commercial demands, allowing them to offer programming — from children's programming like Mr. Rogers and 'Sesame Street,' devoid of toy commercials, to lower-key news, documentaries and public affairs — that didn't have to justify its existence on a balance sheet. Ditto for C-SPAN, which cable operators carried for a small licensing fee simply because of the perceived value in allowing subscribers to see what their elected representatives were doing and saying, unfiltered and unedited. Public broadcasting has found itself swept up in the Trump administration's war against the media, with the perception that any unflattering reporting about the president — whether from PBS' 'NewsHour' or 'Frontline' or NPR's 'All Things Considered' — reveals 'invidious' bias and a liberal agenda, to use FCC chairman Brendan Carr's favorite word. Conservatives have long argued that public broadcasting represents an unnecessary expense given the abundance of choices available to most consumers. But in its latest incarnation, 'Defund PBS' overtly translates into being less about fiscal responsibility than leveraging the government's underwriting role to silence otherwise-independent media voices by labeling them progressive propaganda. On the left, the response was unambiguous. The Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) condemned the House vote as 'a radical right-wing ideology that aims to destroy a non-partisan public service despite all evidence of its wide benefits.' The group quickly turned its attention to pleading with the Senate, which holds a GOP majority but has exhibited a bit more restraint than the House in prosecuting the MAGA agenda. The CEO of PBS, Paula Kerger, remained silent in the wake of Thursday's vote, but she has been lobbying intensively to save PBS, warning that Trump's push to defund public broadcasters would spell the end for a number of local stations, and the service they provide to their communities. In a recent interview with Katie Couric, Kerger contemplated the end of public funding for the network, which only relies on the government for a portion of its funds. 'I think we'll figure out a way, through digital, to make sure there is some PBS content,' she said. 'But there won't be anyone in the community creating local content. There won't be a place for people to come together.' Kerger was referring to the fact that the campaign against PBS and NPR disproportionally harms smaller and more rural communities that voted for Trump (even if many listeners and viewers didn't), which lack the same menu of local-media options as major markets. In a sense, Sesame Workshop — the entity behind 'Sesame Street' — has provided an unlikely poster child for the financial pressures on public TV, having undergone layoffs before losing its streaming deal with Warner Bros. Discovery's Max. Netflix has since stepped into the breach, joining with PBS Kids in providing access Elmo and his pals. As for C-SPAN, its challenges stem primarily from evolving technology, which has dramatically undercut the financial model upon which the network was founded in 1979. With viewers shifting to streaming and dropping cable and satellite subscriptions, the number of homes receiving C-SPAN has sharply dropped to a little over 50 million, meaning the nonprofit enterprise — which costs operators just $7.25 a month, a fraction of what they pay for channels like Fox News and CNN — is running at a significant deficit. One proposed solution would be for entities with streaming subscribers, like YouTube or Hulu's live-TV package, to carry C-SPAN. Indeed, YouTube's 8 to 10 million subscribers alone would provide enough income to offset most of the shortfall in its roughly $60 million annual operating expenses. Thus far, however, those companies have balked, prompting a rare bipartisan push in the Senate on C-SPAN's behalf, with Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Amy Klobuchar among those joining in a resolution calling upon streaming services to carry the network. 'For tens of millions of Americans who have cut the cord and get their content from streaming services, they should not be cut off from the civic content made available by C-SPAN,' the senators stated. It's a welcome development for C-SPAN CEO Sam Feist, who joined the network a little over a year ago from CNN. Feist noted that 'cord cutting' doesn't accurately characterize what's transpired — since old cable subscribers have generally moved to new delivery systems — meaning the case for carrying the network remains as simple as the public-service ideal that inspired its launch. 'We're the only network that provides what we provide, which is this unfiltered view of American government,' Feist told TheWrap, adding in regard to the streamers, 'It is good for the country for their customers to have access to our product.' The campaign regarding C-SPAN carriage has seemingly gained some momentum over the last year, with former Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty among those joining the aforementioned senators in taking up the cause. Wheeler called YouTube's decision not to carry C-SPAN 'baffling and anti-democratic,' writing in The Hill that the company is depriving viewers of 'an unfiltered window into the goings-on in Congress, the White House and other parts of the government.' As Sen. Ron Wyden told Tumulty, carrying the network would only cost YouTube about $6 million a year — 'crumbs,' he suggested, for a streamer that rakes in billions in ad revenue. YouTube has stated that its subscribers 'have not shown sufficient interest in adding C-SPAN to the YouTube TV lineup to justify the increased cost' to their monthly bills, although as Wyden noted, that would amount to a relative pittance of 87 cents a year per household. The two situations aren't completely analogous, especially with the fate of PBS and NPR having become embroiled in politics, as opposed to corporate stubbornness. More fundamentally, though, both situations speak to the question of civic responsibility, and whether the government and private interests acknowledge such obligations. Because even if C-SPAN and PBS reach smaller audiences in a fragmented world, certain things are worth keeping around not because everybody watches them, but rather for what they offer, symbolically as well as tangibly, thanks to the staid sobriety they provide by being available to the people that do. The post The Assault on Good-for-You TV: C-SPAN and PBS Teeter as Trump Attacks appeared first on TheWrap.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store