Good afternoon. Welcome to
Vancouver City Council. This is
Monday, April 6th, 2026. We
have two workshops this
afternoon. We'll talk about the
electric vehicle infrastructure
strategy and then move on into
the development activity. So we
have Stacey ready to rock and
roll. Hi.
>> Hello. Hello. There we go.
Great. Thank you for having us.
Thank you mayor and council. My
name is Stacey Dalgaard and.
>> You can turn on your mic.
There you go. Thank you.
>> There we go.
>> Okay, great.
>> Thank you. I'm with the
city's climate program in the
city manager's office, and I am
joined by my colleague, Laurel
priest from the city's
transportation planning team to
present an update on our
efforts to develop a strategy
for expanding electric vehicle
charging infrastructure in
Vancouver. We have a brief
update for you today. We're
going to stick to a few
highlights from the planning
process and where we're headed
next, but we welcome your
questions on the strategy and
materials provided. Overall,
there's a lot more in the
materials than we'll have on
our slides today. The full
strategy is expected to be
finalized later this month.
>> All right. Thanks, Stacey.
So yeah, once again, I'm Laurel
Priest. I'm a transportation
planner within the community
development department. So it's
nice to see you all. Thanks for
having us again. The electric
vehicle infrastructure planning
was identified within the
Climate Action Framework as a
key early action to reach our
community wide carbon
neutrality goals by 2040. On
road vehicles are Vancouver's
single largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions, and
shifting the vehicles that are
on the road today to low and no
carbon fuels is a critical
short term strategy to meet our
emissions goals. The Washington
State Transportation
Electrification Strategy also
identifies EV charging as a
priority action to propel that
shift to EVs statewide. And we
are working on the electric
vehicle infrastructure.
Planning work is happening
alongside all the work that
transportation planning and
land use planning and other
city efforts are ongoing to
promote more transportation
options. And that work is
ongoing and directed by our
transportation system plan and
comprehensive plan updates. And
to explain, the visual on this
slide is a a pie chart that
shows community greenhouse gas
emissions. This is from 2023
and shows 50% of emissions come
from transportation and travel,
37% of which is from on road
vehicles. Other major areas of
greenhouse gas emissions in the
city are from buildings and
energy, which include
residential, commercial and
industrial energy, as well as
other emissions. We'll go to
the next slide. Great. So the
strategy work has been underway
throughout 2025 on the citywide
infrastructure work that Stacey
and I have been doing. We first
presented to Council on this
topic last June when we were in
the middle of our community
engagement phase, and since
then, we've progressed on all
three of the project objectives,
which are listed here, kind of
from left to right, which
included determining the
appropriate role for the city
in, in, in. Moving forward,
electric vehicle adoption,
defining community priorities
and understanding target areas
for intervention, and then also
defining the actions that the
city can take to advance these
goals. So now finally, at the
end of the strategy development,
we are kind of weaving all of
these pieces together, and
we'll have a final document for
you soon. The timeline on this
slide describes the phases and
objectives of the project, and
we're at the end of the
implementation planning phase.
I'll hand it off to Stacey.
>> Thank you. So just to
highlight some of what we heard
from our community engagement
activities last summer, we
conducted community engagement,
really with this focus to
identify the priorities around
EV infrastructure, as well as
how to ensure an equitable
transition toward electric
transportation options more
broadly. We partnered with
three community non-profits,
Community in Motion, Vietnamese
Community of Clark County and
Odyssey World International
Educational Services, or Auis
to conduct that outreach
together. And we engaged more
than 400 people in various
tabling activities and online
surveys. In partnering with
these groups, we were able to
reach a much more
representative sample of the
community than our online
survey alone really saw that
difference between those those
two tools that we use to
connect with folks. And we
identified some key takeaways
that go beyond EV charging
stations themselves when it
comes to citing charging
infrastructure. Our nonprofit
partners recommended balancing
investments, both to fill
equity gaps as well as to
continue to propel EV adoption
by drivers that are on the cusp
of a new vehicle purchase. To
weight those things in balance,
we heard strong desires for
charging infrastructure near
where people live and apartment
buildings from folks who
identified as renters, and then
a preference for charging where
people shop, visit and work by
folks who are homeowners, which
tracks with how we understand
people's access to charging at
home. This balance is reflected
that balance between those sort
of different user types and
interests within the community
is reflected in the EV Charging
Opportunity Areas map that was
provided in your materials,
which highlights in pink those
areas that are most likely to
help achieve both goals as
we've defined it, and we're
happy to get into that more in
the discussion with you if
you'd like. We also heard loud
and clear that installing
charging stations is not enough
on its own. Community education
and incentives and rebates to
help with vehicle purchases
stood out as top priorities
from those community events.
That's what people ranked as
their highest choice across a
variety of different options to
advance equitable
transportation, electrification,
followed by micro-mobility
options and some events,
particularly with youth. More
youth were really saw
micro-mobility higher, like
e-bikes and scooters, as people
talked about gaps in the
transportation network, bus
stops that are far away or
infrequent pickups,
micromobility and car share
these models where you can
reserve a car that's available
and for running your errands,
but without the responsibility
or commitment to owning it full
time, we're often seen as
opportunities to address
service gaps and affordability
challenges. Community community
members that we spoke with
expressed a strong desire for
more and more types of mobility
options, particularly options
that support elders, low income
households and disabled
community members. Really, when
we kind of said, what would you
like more e-bikes or car share
or more charging, people said
everything. So there was a real
desire for more options that we
felt and heard in these
conversations specifically, and
based on people's open ended
responses, we noted that a lot
of these priorities were
frequently rooted in values
around environmental health and
social impact. We heard people
talking about clean air,
reducing fossil fuel use,
protecting future generations,
creating a sense of shared
benefit, and making
transportation easier for
families, elders, and neighbors.
So those are some of the things
that we heard come through. And
we also want to acknowledge
that this work that we did with
our nonprofit partners was in a
cohort that was also supported
by our friends at Clark Public
Utilities and the Clean Cities
Coalition. So that was a
collaborative effort across
multiple organizations to kind
of bring that cohort together,
to have this conversation in
the community last year. Okay,
checking our time, building on
these community priorities and
recommendations from our
consulting team on the strategy.
Overall, we put together a
draft set of strategies and
actions to help promote an
equitable transition to
electric mobility. This list
was provided as attachment C in
your materials. At its highest
level. We have the three main
sort of buckets and categories
for those on the screen here.
And as we go through this as at
an overview level, we want to
recognize that since we started
this planning process really
over a year ago now, the
political and economic contents
context influencing what tools
we have at our disposal to put
these to invest in
infrastructure, infrastructure,
or, you know, for people to
purchase new vehicles has
shifted significantly. And it's
even more important in this
climate for us to be clear
about what the city has the
ability to influence and be
clear with our community
members as well, what actions
we can implement within our
current staffing structure and
funding resources. So you'll
see in the the list of actions
that were provided that we
noted, which ones fit in our
current programs and which ones
would require further
prioritization. So the primary
focus of this planning effort
was really centered around how
to expand public charging
infrastructure. So that's our
number one up here and
highlighting the role of the
city, both in making public
investments as well as enabling
and activating the private
sector as well. And so within
this area, a couple pages here,
excuse me while I find myself.
We want to highlight that. You
know, there is a mix of
activities here, ranging from
things that the city can lead
directly as well as areas. What
can we do as our next steps to
enable and activate private
sector development of EV
charging, and as well as
promoting policies and programs
to improve affordability and
access to charging. So that's
what we're finding in in this
section. And we can dig into
that more with you based on
your specific questions today.
But the early actions where
we're taking our first step in
the next in 2026 and 2027 are
focused around a city led
public EV charging pilot
program. For on the public side.
We'll be looking at will be
auditing our existing policies
to better understand kind of
what is the collection of
permitting processes and
policies that surround EV
infrastructure, so we can give
a better picture of that for
private development and better
understand where those
opportunities and barriers are
looking at developing some kind
of a toolkit later this year to
make that clearer for private
development, as well as
promoting and advocating for
actions that are too big for
the city to take on directly.
We're trying to relay that up
to state agencies and where we
can kind of relay that on
around incentives,
opportunities and things like
that, that we may not be able
to lead directly, but we could
co-promote and advocate for for
our community based on what we
heard in the second bucket,
based on what we heard from
community, that infrastructure
alone is insufficient to meet
our goals. We've also proposed
a series of actions to build a
supportive environment and make
EVs and electric mobility more
accessible. Some of the early
actions in this area that we're
moving forward on as the EV
pilot, the charging pilot comes
online, we'll be able to take
advantage of those new chargers
for outreach and demonstrations
with the public and community
organizations to get more
people familiar with the
technology and what's there.
We're advocating for, again,
those and looking for
opportunities to promote state
incentives and continuing to
try to have conversations where
possible around car share
partnership opportunities with
folks who are interested in
moving that forward. And the
sort of third main bucket here,
based on national best
practices, we've also outlined
steps to build capacity
organizationally and
collaborate beyond the city
limits with our regional
partners. And we are looking to
coordinate with other Southwest
Washington jurisdictions
through Regional Transportation
Coalition Commission and as
well as at the county. And
we've been having those
conversations and reviewing
this list of strategies with
them as well. And we'll also be
looking to leverage the Climate
Action Framework Update this
year to further prioritize
these actions and try to define
targets around EV charging.
Just to give you an overview of
what the pilot itself looks
like, this is one of the first
areas that we have been moving
forward. We'll have three
locations of publicly available
EV charging that you can see on
these two maps that are on the
slide from right to left, we'll
have two level two charging
units along Main Street. We'll
have two level two charging
units and two DC fast charging
units at Marchel LUP center.
I'll just make the distinction
between these level two and DC
fast charging. Level two is
where people typically spend
about 2 to 4 hours charging in
a public setting, whereas DC
fast charging is a larger is a
higher power level, and it can
typically fully charge a
vehicle in 30 minutes to an
hour. So that's sort of the,
the difference in terms of
dwell time or how much time
people will be spending at the
Chargers. And then also at
Firstenburg Community Center,
we will have two level two
charging units and one DC fast
charging unit for a total of
six of the level two, the
slower, slightly slower version,
and three of the faster DC fast
charging within our pilot. So
startup costs for the pilot,
including the equipment and
construction, will be funded by
state and utility grants. And
really our primary goal of
starting small and exploring
these different locations is to
assess the potential to operate
these chargers in a cost
neutral way, where the revenue
from the chargers can really
continue to fund the operation
and maintenance of those
chargers. And so we are really
focused as a team and with
across department work group
around setting metrics and sort
of defining and implementation
plan for these that will allow
us to assess how this looks
from a long term operational
standpoint for public charging.
And at the end of the grant
period for chargers that are
grant funded, they are required
to be operational for a minimum
of five years. And along that
way, we'll be asking ourselves
questions around, you know,
what the that cost neutral
aspect looks like, but also
asking questions about what the
larger private market is doing
and trying to understand our
role in operating these
alongside the way that things
will continue to shift. So at
the end of that grant period,
the city will we will have a
choice and we will make a
determination of whether to
retain the charging stations,
sell them or lease them in some
kind of public private
partnership, potentially remove
them if they are, you know, not
a viable asset, but hopefully
see them. We've developed an
implementation approach and a
program plan that makes these
something that really can be
operated at a cost neutral way
and in a successful way that
that way.
>> Thanks, ETC. And a lot of
that work where we were looking
at metrics and evaluation of,
of the feasibility of these in
the long term. The pilot
program was this work that we
did sort of at the left hand
side where we did the pilot
program development, which was
an internal working group that
helped us figure out what the
path forward would look like
for the pilot and identifying
funding streams, as well as,
right, how we might implement
it. And, and, and if it's not
working out, then what we what
the exit strategy might look
like. But so this slide shows a
timeline of our actions this
year and into and through 2027.
We're polishing up the strategy
document and getting started on
the public charging pilot
program as well. And then later
this year, we'll be exploring
what strategies could be
effective in enabling the
private development of EV
charging infrastructure in the
city. As as we know, with this
pilot program, we can only take
on a very small slice of the
market. And to meet climate
goals, we really do need to
leverage both the public and
the private sector to
accelerate EV adoption,
especially in the just current
economic situation. And we'll
be looking at how we can remove
barriers to EV charging
installation at existing
multi-family homes and
workplaces within the private
sector, and figure out how we
can encourage that adoption, as
well as figure out what what,
what are the headwinds and what
are the obstacles that people
that are interested in EV
charging development. But I'm
not sure where to start and
where they're running into
those issues. Right. And with
that, we welcome your, your
questions and comments on the
strategies we provided in the
materials or other thoughts
about the the strategy
development at large.
>> Councilors questions.
Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, mayor, and thank
you for the presentation. I'm
glad to see this moving forward.
So two things. Appendix B. I
would really appreciate if it
could be read released with
more clear explanation of what
everything means on there. I
talked about existing charging
stations and it has a plus
symbol next to them, but there
are no plus symbols on the map.
Green is not explained, so if
that could be reissued, I'd
really appreciate that. I'm
going to go back to a theme
that I've been saying for a
very long time, and want to
just continue to repeat this.
So what you're talking about is
convenience charging. And in
developing, let me start there.
This is convenience charging.
And in developing this, I'm
assuming you worked with Clark
Public Utilities to ensure that
that there is need for more
capacity in the Central Park
Central Park neighborhood
versus someplace else in the
city.
>> I guess. Could you be more
specific with your your
question? We have been working
with Clark Public Utilities,
but I.
>> Because they're their
headquarters, has a lot of
public charging stations that
aren't necessarily that far
from the Marchel center. So I'm
wanting to make sure that we
are deploying where we need to
deploy and not creating excess
capacity where we already have
capacity. So. Confirmation from
the PD that their chargers are
being utilized to an extent
that that we need to increase
capacity in the Central Park
neighborhood.
>> They do see a lot of usage
on their chargers. I have
confirmed that we have had
multiple conversations about
that. So the chargers there are
very well used with that area
being so close to I-5. I do
think that there is more demand
that can be tapped into in that
area, especially with the park
and the visitation that Marchel
gets. So we sort of even when
you visit Marchel observed
multiple EV vehicles parked in
in the parking lot. So there is
opportunity there just in the
user base. And it is also to
some degree, reflective of
where we have the opportunity
to introduce charging as well
at our facilities that are have
eyes on the ground and folks
there regularly to, to observe
those and, and that are
visiting. Okay. And where
funding was also awarded
through those grants too.
>> I'd love to have that more
clearly outlined. Where, where
is that? Where is the
assumptions about where the
demand is coming from there?
Okay, second, I want to talk
about the necessity charging,
which also bleeds into
convenience charging, but
really around necessity
charging. And, and this is the
point that I keep hitting is
from my own experience, 90 plus
percent of the charging that I
do can be accomplished with 110
volt outlet. And I don't want
us to get so focused on
expensive charging
infrastructure and lose sight
of the fact that most people
need really, really inexpensive
charging infrastructure.
Granted, that assumes their
vehicle has a. A working level
one charger, but I really don't
want us to lose fact try lose.
Track of that great potential
for meeting that necessity.
Charging. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other
counselor? Counselor Paulson go
ahead.
>> Thank you mayor. One of the
ways I'd love to see the city
lead when it comes to EV
charging infrastructure is
around what I'll call friction
of transaction. So the majority
of the EV charging
infrastructure that exists in
the world today requires you to
have an app in order to use it.
But if I have an internal
combustion engine, I can just
pay with the tap of a credit
card or Apple Pay, and you
should be able to charge an EV
in just as frictionless a way.
So you shouldn't have to
download an app in order to use
the charging station. So if
there's a way that we can
facilitate this pilot in the
more frictionless way, that
would be fantastic. I think way
to lead within the community.
And let's just let's charge app
free. Thank you.
>> Counselor.
>> Thank you mayor. And when
you get these grants as far as
where they go on the, you have
to do the indexes in order for
the state to say, this is the
prime place for you to put
these. And that's kind of where
you're getting a lot of your
equity out of that.
>> Yeah. There are a number of
ranking factors depending on
the grant program of how
they're waiting and then
awarding the grants. Does that
answer your question?
>> And that's awesome. Secondly,
the Chargers that were at the.
>> Building.
>> Do they work anymore?
>> There might be somebody in
the room who would speak
specifically, I think.
>> Let me see if.
>> I know they were.
>> Cut at one point, I think
that they were removed. I won't.
But they're they are in
conversation. So I don't think
they're physically there right
now because of the history with
them. And when they were
brought into the city, I should
defer more to the specifics.
But there is conversation about
what is the next iteration and
plan for those.
>> Awesome. No wrong answer
here. Yeah. And lastly, you
know, if you're going to do a
single family home, if you're
going to do something in the
middle and it has a garage, a
50 amp plug in, a construction
in code would probably go a
long way to getting level two.
Chargers proliferated in the
city of Vancouver. Just a
thought, and it's way cheaper
if you do it at construction
versus doing a retrofit.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. I was glad to
hear about the opportunities or
the efforts to look at the
public private partnership. I
think we should really explore
and expand on that. The other
area I heard that I fully
support is looking into at
multifamily developments, and
wasn't sure if you looked into
any upcoming check for any EV
building codes at the state
level that may be coming down
the pipeline or what they're
thinking at that level. Three
things that I wanted to bring
up is knowing exactly the
metrics that would determine
whether the pilot is successful
or not. And with that, some
questions about utilization
rates. So at what utilization
rate does a charger become cost
neutral or profitable. And some
financial modeling with this.
So that has to do with, you
know, what is the full life
cycle of cost per charging
station when we start thinking
about that? And then lastly is
how will success for equity be
measured since we're these are
one of the, it sounds like this
effort's really trying to do
three things. And that's build
a charging infrastructure and
address some of the equity gaps
and accelerate the EV adoption.
So just kind of narrowing in on
the accountability and how that
could be a little diluted with
trying to do all those three.
So thinking about those, those
especially for equity, is that
like percent coverage in
priority zones? And, you know,
taking into account the
utilization rate and so forth.
So those are some of the things
that I had on the top of my
mind here. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
Councilor Harless, did you have
any questions?
>> Mayor? She's not on.
>> Oh, I thought she was remote.
Quick point. You have a new
visitor's center at Clark
County Historical Museum, which
is a couple blocks north of
your main Street location. You
might consider putting in
something there. So if people
are coming in, they can plug in
and then go to the visitor's
center. Yes.
>> So when you do get it
installed, this is a pass
through. So really of a third
party vendor that's charging
for the electricity that's
going in the car. Correct. It's
not the city of Vancouver
that's going to be operating
all of these.
>> So the plan for the pilot
for these, this first set is to
help us understand what that
combination of factors looks
like. There are we actually
just our work group had a
workshop this afternoon with
the technical advisor, who's
kind of educating us on all the
layers and components of those
systems. So we are the city
will own the Chargers. They'll
be on city property. We will
contract out maintenance and
operations of them to some
level. And that's what we're
working on sort of defining
right now so that when we go
out for procurement, we we have
a clear ask for the different
components. We need to run this
so that it's not us on a every
day monitoring it, that we're
trying to sort of leverage
multiple types of vendors to,
to do that. But there's a
payment system we would be
tracking and we would be
setting the rates for that. So
that is something to highlight
is we will be coming back in
the fall in order to be able to
charge fees for the charging
stations. For those charging
sessions, we'll need to pass an
ordinance to charge those fees.
So that's the next time you'll
see us really back here talking
about the EV charging pilot
will be around that next step.
>> When you have two grants
that are paying for these,
correct?
>> Yeah, we have a couple
different grants. They're some
of them are still in their
final contracting phase. So
we'll leave it open ended at
the moment until we can make
those formal announcements.
That should be coming soon. But
yes, we have we have a few
different grants that goes for
them.
>> Directly to my point, I
wouldn't be too bent over how
much you're going to cost
recover back, because this
program is essentially paid for
and you have a third party pass
through. This is not something
where the city of Vancouver is
really going to have any money
coming out unless something
happens to the units themselves.
So I'm just saying, I
personally me, I wouldn't be
too bent over that.
>> Well, in terms of the
comments around a cost model,
that is actually something
we've already worked on
developing to get us to the
point of considering doing the
pilot. So we put together a
cost model. It has a lot of
assumptions embedded in it, and
that's one of our hopes for the
pilot to clear up some of those
assumptions and give us some
real numbers on usage and
revenue so that we could
project further out beyond the
time period that the grants
actually cover, because there
will be a period where those
will need replacements, they'll
need maintenance contracts and
things like that that go beyond
the grant funding.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> Couple follow up points.
First, Councilmember Perez's
points about the model, and
that's also what I was getting
at in some of my comments, is I
really want to understand what
is that those determinations of
success. Second thing to
comments that Councilmember
Paulson made, I appreciate his
talk about being able to go and
tap and go. Also making sure
that we're picking the right
vendors. So I visit a, a
visited a Columbia Gorge town,
and they were very proud of
their EV infrastructure. They
didn't realize that the company
that they chose required you to
open an account with a initial
deposit. So I think it was like
a $20 deposit that I had to pay
ahead. I was not going to use
that much. And I don't know
where else that company exists.
And so also making sure that
we're we're being very aware of
what that cost recovery is for
whoever we get as a partner.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
Let's go ahead and transition
over. Patrick. Let's go ahead
and talk about development
activity.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Good afternoon,
mayor city Council. I am
Patrick Quinton. I am the
director of Economic Prosperity
and Housing. And I'm joined by.
>> Chad Aitken, director of
community Development. Nice to
be with you.
>> And we are here today to
cover a lot of ground, but
basically, I think this is now
the second year in a row. We
want to do a recap of
development activity over the
past year in 2025, and talk
about it from a variety of
perspectives. So our agenda
today is Chad's going to start
off and walk through the the
permit activity. And you
actually see a lot of those
reports every month. But he'll
walk through that both
commercial, industrial, but
also on the residential side.
Within that, he'll talk a
little bit about MFTE activity
as well. And then actually the
agenda is one bullet to reverse
all. Then talk about what we
see as the kind of market
conditions that are causing the
ongoing residential slowdown.
And then we'll talk about our
progress on affordable housing
production. And then we'll
finish it off with a a kind of
both a recap of the housing
actions that we have been
taking now for a number of
years and what we have planned,
but also what the implications
are of the ongoing market
conditions in terms of what
we're likely to see in future
development, but also what it
might mean for for policy
potential policy changes. And
then obviously, we'll have
plenty of time for discussion.
So with that, I'll turn it over
to Chad.
>> All right. Thanks. This.
Sorry.
>> No.
>> You run. Okay. I just pushed
this slide shows the total
valuation of commercial and
industrial new construction
going back to 2019. The blue is
in is commercial. The orange is
industrial. I just wanted to
point it out, point out a
couple of things on this slide.
You'll notice a couple of peaks
and valleys. The big dip in
2021 probably doesn't need much
explanation. On the commercial
side, the peaks in 2019, 20,
2022, and 23 are explained by
Evergreen and Vancouver school
bond construction activity and
then some waterfront projects.
So we had some spikes then.
Most of those have wound down
by now. New office construction
has been fairly light as
employers wrestle with the
right balance between in-person
work and allowing employees to
work from home. The two spikes
you see in industrial
valuations were from large
warehouse and distribution
centers, which have also now
wound down as the regional
market has absorbed new
projects. While the number of
new permits issued per year has
been relatively constant for
the past few years, there has
been a gradual decrease in the
total valuation of projects.
This can be seen as an
indicator that the size and
complexity of projects is also
decreasing. So we're seeing the
projects we're seeing generally
tend to be smaller than we've
seen in previous years. This is
a slide that shows the
residential issued building
permits going back to 2019.
Blue indicates the multi-family
units, and the orange
represents the new single
family homes. The Green line
represents the production goal.
It's about 2500 units per year,
which includes the demand going
forward to meet our our
population expected population
under the comp plan, as well as
to make up for what we see as a
current deficit in in housing.
The purple line shows the
historic average number of
units, which is about 1550 per
year. From the peak in 2021.
Residential permit numbers have
declined steadily to a new low
last year. In fact, new units
permitted in 2025 was 51% below
the historic six year average,
which was predicted because the
number of permits received in
the previous year was also very
low. 2024 was our low point,
with just about 214 units
submitted for approval. We
believe there will be a slight
increase this year because the
number of units submitted for
approval last year was about
760. That's still not getting
us to where we need to be.
Approximately 2000 housing
units need to be built each
year in order to meet the
expected population growth. One
way to visualize that is to
picture basically a waterfront
development being built every
year throughout the city.
That's that's about the number
of units that we need to see
being built out there. This
next slide shows the
multifamily tax exemption
activity, the request, and also
the number of projects for the
past 11 years. The subheading
here really says it all. The
MFTE pipeline, which is enabled
every large multifamily
development in downtown and the
waterfront since it started has
essentially dried up. The main
takeaway from this slide is
that the MFTE program, which
used to provide just enough
financial benefit to make large
projects pencil, is no longer
sufficient to overcome other
conditions, such as cost of
construction and other factors
that Patrick will touch on. The
only only one multifamily tax
MFTE project was received last
year, and although there was a
surge in requests in 2023, you
can see up there. That happened
when developers were trying to
lock in to new requirements
that were coming online. Those
new requirements have mostly
been rolled back, but still,
there are only three
multifamily exemption projects
currently in construction. Some
of those MFTE requests are
approvals are expiring, which
means that those projects
likely won't be moving forward.
To underscore this point, for
the first time in recent memory,
there isn't a single large
apartment or mixed use project
that's in the permitting
process for the downtown or the
waterfront. This slide shows
residential units under
construction, so this is sort
of a rolling. Tally by quarter
of projects that are under
construction because it takes
18, 24 months or more to build
large projects. Projects are
showing up sort of in multiple
quarters. On this slide, the
top gray line is the housing
production goal. The orange
line shows the six year
historic average of units under
construction, which is about
1700, because developments can
take anywhere. Oh, I already
said that. Sorry. As you can
see, there's already been a
fairly steady, steady decrease
in projects under construction
since the pandemic, when
interest rates and cost of
labor and construction
materials increased
dramatically. A final note on
this slide is that the white
space under the gray horizontal
line represents the shortage of
housing units going forward,
which will make it harder to
meet our housing goal in 2020.
By 2020, excuse me, 2045
Patrick.
>> Okay, so oops, sorry.
>> I want to spend a little
time. We could there's a lot of
different data points that we
could bring on the
macroeconomic conditions that
are impacting development.
We've chosen three different
slides that are coming up. So
the first one tracks
multifamily vacancy rates in
Vancouver since 2019. Vacancy
rates are it's an aggregate
number of, of, you know, the
number of residential units you
have and how many are vacant
versus occupied. So they
generally reflect supply. So
what you see in terms of the
orange line moving up and down
as new supply comes online, you
have a surge in vacancy and
then it goes down as units get
occupied. So when you look at
the graph here, you see the
surge in vacancy vacancy rates
in 2324. That's a result of the
production that you saw in
Chad's graphs in 2021 and 22.
Those units came online. It
took a while for the market to
absorb those. And then they
brought down vacancy to to
where you see it is today.
What's important about that is
that we like to see vacancy in
the Green Zone. Developers like
to see vacancy in the pink or
red zone. And so while vacancy
rates still sit above that red
zone and the green zone, that's
working against new development,
meaning developers have less
confidence that when they bring
new units online, that they're
going to be able to lease up
the project in a timely manner.
All projects require lease up.
But the longer it takes, that's
that's more kind of financial
burden that a project has. So
we'd like to see the, the, the
vacancy rates come down so that
we can, we can encourage more
development. We know that the
demand is, is there over long
periods of time, but right now
we're not seeing it. And that's
holding back developers. I will
say, just for the point of
clarifying the. What's to the
right of the blue line is
projected vacancy. This data
source is CoStar, which is a
commercial real estate data
source. They are projecting
slower population growth in the
short run than we are
projecting in our comp plan.
Our comp plan is more of a long
term look. So. So CoStar
doesn't believe that we're
going to have as much near-term
demand for units. So that's why
they're showing vacancy rates
staying up there. If costar is
wrong then vacancy rates will
decline. And so so some of this
is going to play out in the
next few years and see how
population growth matches with
with what either we're
projecting or costars
projecting. The second data
point, which is the hardest
slide to present here. And I
just want to acknowledge this
going into it is what we're
seeing in terms of growth in
rent. So this slide is the
title is negative inflation
adjusted rent growth. And it's
showing not real rent. It's
showing inflation adjusted rent.
Meaning if you adjust the rent
increase, if rents going up
slower than inflation, then you
have negative rent growth. So
basically what we've been we've
been showing here between 2019
and 2027 is that is that we
have real rent growth up until
about 2021. And then over time,
rents have not been able to
keep pace with inflation. Some
of that is once again inflation
going up. And so costs going up.
And when we talk about costs
for real estate it's cost of
construction. The cost to to
operate and maintain buildings.
And so those costs insurance
been going up for developers.
They have not been able to
increase rents at the same pace
that those costs have been
going up. Once again, as long
as this trend continues and
costars, this costar date again
suggests it will continue for
at least another year. Where
once again, that's going to put
put pressure on development
economics and will likely kind
of slow the pace of, of, of new
development. I just want to say
for the record, it doesn't mean
that rents aren't going up. It
just means that inflation might
be going up faster than that.
And then the last one is a
slide that we've showed you
before and we've updated it. So
this is tracks the both income
growth in in our region.
According to both Portland,
Seattle and then nationally.
And also the growth in, in
construction costs. So we are
still sitting in a dynamic of
construction costs continue to
grow at a faster rate than
income. So the two forces
working against rent increases
are one, we have we have this
vacancy number, right. They're
not able to to fill units
quickly enough. And so that
that suppresses rents. And then
we just don't have income
growth that is allowing for
rent increases as well,
particularly given the cost
structure that our developers
have. This was true. We showed
this slide last year. This was
true last year. And you can see
the lines actually are slowly
starting to merge. And we we
actually today just saw data
that Geraldine Boyle has been
aggregating from her own
construction bids. And we're
seeing construction bids come
in at, at actually really
reasonable rates now in many
cases below our budget. So, so
it could be that construction
costs are finally easing. And
we may see these these, these
lines begin to converge, which
would be good. Certainly a good
a positive change for us. The
only other thing to point out
on this slide is just we have a
different set of construction
cost dynamics than much of the
country. So the, the graph
there shows the, the, the blue
and orange lines, which are
Portland and Seattle, making a
noticeable increase over
national construction costs.
That's that's the result of, of,
of regional factors that make
it more expensive to build here
than in other parts of the
country. So now I'm going to
shift into the affordable
housing side of the development
picture. Once again, this is a
graph that you have seen many
times. This shows our
affordable housing production
from 2019 through 2025. It
compares actual production
compared to our goal, which is
750 units a year. That's 750
when Chad talks about 2500
units per year is our overall
goal. 750 of that is for
affordable units. We fall short
every every year of this. The
the issue, as you all know, is
not a lack of capacity. It's
not a lack of demand. It's a
lack of resources. We do not
have enough public subsidy to
bump that number up higher. And
my next slide is going to
accentuate that. But but but
our blue bar here, our
production of about 500, excuse
me, about 350 to 300 units a
year is largely driven by our
own resources. That's the max
that we can actually we can
actually help produce in a in a
given year. So the next slide,
I believe our city manager has
seen this slide before. We
asked him to share it with the
governor when he was meeting
with him. This is a map that
shows the distribution of state
housing awards in the years
2020 and 2025. This is really
we have data behind this. So I
can tell you the data behind it,
but it really is meant to show
the significant concentration
of housing awards within the
Puget Sound area, but also the
concentration in other
communities across the state
that are much smaller than than
our region. And so the data
behind this is that we are one
of two counties that where we
receive about half of what we
should receive relative to
population. So we've received
we basically have had one
project receive funding over
the past two cycles. We got the
tax credits in one year and the
funding in the second year. So
and I should have done a better
job explaining the Blue is
Housing Fund awards. Those are
direct grants in the projects.
The red is National Housing
Trust Fund awards, which also
go into that pot. There aren't
that many of those. And then
the green spots are tax credit
awards. And so we've we have
basically received one project
funding over the past two
cycles. I know the mayor and
others were heavily involved in
our last the last funding round,
and we had six projects that
requested funding and one
received funding. So if this
picture doesn't change, we will
not increase our affordable
housing production locally. So.
So the implications of all this
before we get into the work
that we are doing, because I
think there's a lot for us to,
to, to highlight is that once
again, housing deficit will
continue to grow the market
economics are not going to
change overnight. I think
there's positive news in the
Permin activity that that Chad
has been sharing. So we would
expect it to. And already
through March, I think we're
trending higher on on
multifamily units than we did
last year. So, so, but the
deficit will still be growing
development. The, the market
forces that are impacting
development will continue to be
there. Plus we continue to have
unpredictable shocks to the
system, unpredictable cost
variables. We had timber prices
a few years ago. We now have
gas prices. So as long as these
unpredictable shocks happen, we
will continue to have
developers say, maybe not this
year. What we are seeing
because of the relative cost of
different projects, is that the
market dynamics currently favor
lower density multifamily
projects. What that means in
actual projects, that means
projects that are three story
walk up projects, projects that
don't require a podium in many
cases don't require elevators.
All of those projects add extra
cost per unit. So if projects
can, can, can come in at a
lower cost per unit, developers
are figuring out ways to make
those work. But the five story
podium projects are the hardest
projects to pull off right now.
And so we're not likely to see
many of those for the for the
time being, for us to achieve
our affordability goals and our
density goals either either,
you know, and or, and or
density goals will require us
to make greater Cyndie
investment for the reasons I
just mentioned. So, so to the
extent that we have places
where we want to see dense
development, five over one
development that's going to
require those don't pencil
right now MFTE, as Chad
mentioned, is not enough. And
so those are require greater
investment. And then as I just
showed you, to the extent that
we want to bump up our housing
production on affordable units,
we will need to put more money
into those deals. And then the
last piece, which is a whole
nother topic for budget
conversations, is that this
continues to put pressure on
revenues to the city since
since they development
generates property tax revenue,
generates sales tax revenue,
other revenues, utility taxes,
all these other revenue sources
are all driven by new
development. So that's going to
continue to put downward
pressure on those revenue
sources. Now the good news. And
I first want to start by we
included in your packet the
housing report. So this is the
annual report that's put out by
our affordable housing team.
It's not it's not just for our
department. It's meant to
encompass everything that's
going on in the city on on the
housing front. But Samantha
Whitley, who's our housing
programs manager and her team
puts together, but it includes
a lot of accomplishments from
from our colleagues. So we
included that. So you have a
pretty detailed report on that.
And then we also included and
Chad recently, I think was
shared in one of one of the
week, the Friday reports, his
own report on Permin activity
as well, the community
development report. So you have
that as well. And then we also
included the status report on
our housing action plan. So the
housing Action plan is really
this living document that we
maintain. We meet like twice a
month. There's a there's a
cross-department team. And
every year we set, we pick
items on here and we work those
items. And, and this is a
status report on that. There's
65 items on here. This is a
serious list. It's not we're
not just filling paper. We're
trying to, to check off as many
of these things as we can. And
we obviously add new things to
it. So, so this is the detail
behind this single slide, but
some of the highlights, the top
ones you were part of. So we
changed the MFTE, as Chad
mentioned, so that we can
delayed the payment of fee and
loop payments. And we also
waived application fees. We
also implemented deferral of
Sdcs as well as impact fees, so
that they're paid at the time
right around certificate of
occupancy. So that saves costs
to developers. We reduced
development review times within
a particular part of our
development review cycle. We
implemented a single stairwell
code. I'll let Chad talk about
that as well. As we increased
the exemption from the State
Environmental Protection Act
requirements for for larger
multi-family projects. So that
saves time and expense on
projects. And then truly the
biggest housing action that the
city can take is coming to you
in a few months, which is the
comprehensive plan, which will
obviously overhaul land use in
the city and open up
significant amounts of the city
to new housing production.
Given the housing economics
that we're seeing, it is likely
that smaller scale housing
production in in up zoned areas
of the city will drive housing
growth for the next few years,
while the market for bigger
multi-family projects catches
up. So what the comp plan is
doing is actually really
significant, particularly given
the current market conditions
that we're in. But I know Chad
has some talking points around
some of these comp plan and
other things. So I'll turn it
to Chad for a second.
>> Just fill in some color
commentary here on on the
single stairwell code. That is,
that has been a feature of most
building codes in this nation
since the 1970s, where you have
two requirement for two
stairwells in apartment
buildings. Recently, some
jurisdictions have been trying
to come up with a way that adds
a lot of cost, at least 200,000
per project per project. We've
been working with our fire
marshal and and their
department to come up with an
alternative, which is a single
stairwell in the middle of an
apartment building instead of
two on the ends to serve up to
49 units and four stories. So
that has been approved by our
building official and the fire
marshal. So it is available.
That can significantly reduce
costs for small scale apartment
projects. A companion piece to
that that we've been working
through, also with the same
folks in Fire and Building is
the. Sorry, six storey wooden
construction right now that's
capped at four storeys. Above
that, you have to go to steel
and in concrete. Seattle and
Tacoma have allowed six story
wood frame structures for for a
period of time. There are some
conditions that have to exist
in order to permit this. Either.
Pressurized stairwells or or
fire rated construction in
different zones in the building.
Our fire marshal has explored
the. The studies found that
there really is no evidence to
show that that it would not be
safe. And so this is now
allowed as an alternative to
the steel and concrete
construction for six stories or
less. Wanted to touch on the
CPA exemption for 200 units.
That's already on the books.
One of the proposals in our
development code update is a
companion to the comprehensive
plan will be to allow apartment
projects that are 200 units or
fewer to be processed under a
type one land use approval.
That's a that's our fastest
land use process can be 28 days
after it's found to be complete.
There's no public notice.
There's no appeal period. So
that's all of those things. Add
time to a project. It would be
a big change for Vancouver, but
it's something that we think
Vancouver is ready for, and
we'll be proposing that as part
of the Comprehensive Plan
Development Code. Those were
the two things I wanted to
touch on.
>> And the removal of parking
minimums, obviously, from as
part of the comp plan is really
we know the actual cost of
parking per that adds per unit.
So. So that alone. And there's
many parts of the city where
there is relief from, from,
from parking minimums. So
projects are already benefiting
from that. But spreading that
further in the city will save a
lot of cost. So lastly, just
want to leave you with these
are more they should have been
framed more as questions, but
discussion topics. And we can
obviously discuss other topics
as well. But, but just this is
kind of how we think about what,
what, what's, what's out,
what's out there for us that we
can do, particularly on the
affordable side to keep
production moving forward. And
so the top bullet is
encompasses, you know, kind of
everything we just talked about,
which is we really need to keep
the focus on housing action
internally on staff side. That
means like we really do
coordinate with each other.
Right now, we're in a very
extensive conversation about
impact fees and sdcs each of
the different divisions within
public works are looking at
what should our sdcs and impact
fees be. And they rightfully
should be doing that. But then
now we're bringing it in. What
is that going to do to housing
costs? Right? That's what we
mean when we talk about the
housing action plan is let's
make sure that we're all
working together towards a
common goal. So that's that's
fees and costs that's processed.
You know, that's, that's, you
know, timelines, right? Let's,
and let's, let's not make it
more difficult to build housing,
particularly in the middle of
this, of this crisis that we're
in. The next four really are
kind of how do we move projects
forward? So, you know, should,
should we think about how we
value land differently? Should
we think about making land
available for not just
affordable projects, but for
workforce projects? I think
there's categories of
affordability that we could
serve if we made use of our
land. And, and, and kind of
relieved more of the, the
burden on the project of paying
for that land. Do we want to
maintain the density
expectations that we have for
our strategic sites? That's a
big question. But as long as
sites that we put out for
development require a certain
number of units, those projects
won't likely move forward. And
I know that there's questions
about, you know, these are
sites we can hold forever,
whatever. But those are there
certainly are calls from folks
in the development community.
Hey, I could, we could move
forward on projects if we
didn't have to meet certain
density requirements. And then
I mentioned this earlier, it is
likely that if we want some of
our affordable housing projects
that are in the pipeline to
move forward in the absence of
the state and other public
funding, we probably will have
to increase the amount that we
put in per unit for the from
the affordable housing fund in
particular. So we are drafting
right now for your
consideration, changes to the
Affordable Housing Fund
administrative plan that would
bring that to you, as well as
some other changes. Absent that,
we you know, there's gaps that
won't be filled for years on
some of these projects. And
then we've been asked for a
long time to help solve a
particular problem within the
affordable housing community.
That is, how do they fund
pre-development costs. And a
lot of communities have
pre-development loan funds that
get paid back when projects
move forward. We've always
tried to maintain our dollars
for actual construction, but if
projects are stalled moving
forward because of this, then
maybe it's a role that we can
play and we can maybe use the
dollar amounts in these loans
are smaller than than some of
the other loan funds that that
are out there. And we could
maybe fund that with funds that
we have available. So so that's
another idea that we would
consider and obviously would
come to you as a proposal. So
those are some of the, the
options that, that, that we're
looking at right now. We're
certainly open to other ideas
and we're always looking to the
development community to help
us think through how to solve
these, the situation we're in.
So with that. We have some time
for questions and feedback and
anything else.
>> Go back one slide. Thank you.
Okay, councilors. Okay.
Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. Lots of
information. The fact is that
we're doing a lot, but the
market still isn't penciling.
And so when we look at the
actions here, perhaps now it's
time to think that not all
actions are equal in their
impact. And so what are those
top actions that are really
driving the needle right now.
And so I would like to see what
those are, as opposed to just
treating every action the same,
which they're not. So which,
which actions or which things
are enough to change the supply,
affordability and preservation
outcomes. Under the existing
bad market conditions. So
shifting from an activity
tracking to an outcome tracking
I think is going to be
important. Thank you for
sharing that. Clark County
doesn't receive that
proportional amount of state
funding. I wasn't aware of that.
I think it's also important to
distinguish those high impact
interventions that you have
from exploratory ones, because
it gets mixed up. So that's
those are some of my thoughts.
And as I process my thoughts a
little bit more, I'll go ahead
and defer to my other
colleagues.
>> Thank you councilor.
Councilor Stober go ahead.
>> Thank you. Thank you both
for presenting here tonight.
Obviously, this is critical
importance and and needs to
receive a lot of attention. And
if we've got nothing else
happening in housing, this is a
good place for us to be
spending a lot more time
thinking about. You presented a
lot of of charts and graphs
today. They are, for the most
part, being presented as local
snapshots. What's happening in
Vancouver? Maybe what's
happening in in Clark County. I
think it would be very helpful
for us to see this in context
of what's happening in the
metro area, what's happening
statewide and what's happening
nationally, and being able to
overlay those different data
sets to see where things are
off, if things are off, or over
the past ten years, really,
we've done nothing more than
just follow national trends,
which I'm not. I'm not saying
that that's true. I'm just
saying we need to understand.
We really need to understand to
what extent have all these
different market interactions,
interventions that we've done,
have they really made a
difference or all we do is
riding a wave? I'm also
interested in us trying to
identify jurisdictions that
aren't stuck right now. And for
us to be able to benchmark
against what are what are
interventions. You know, what,
what are things that
potentially are holding us back
that we may be able to be able
to take advantage of? The the
last area is. So I come from a,
an area adjacent to where
Council Member Hanson came from,
and that is in energy,
specifically in energy
efficiency. And interestingly
enough, ratepayer dollars, the
dollars that we give a utility
for our services in many ways
are treated more with more
respect. Than taxpayer dollars.
So in that environment, I had
to run a program where I had to
produce a logic model. I had to
say, this is what I believe
will happen if I do this. And
it seems like this is an area.
Housing is an area where being
explicit about our logic model,
being explicit about our theory
of change really would be
helpful for us to be tracking.
And I think a lot of this
exists. It just doesn't it
hasn't been brought into a
focused format. And. And also
one of the things that was
required of the work I was
doing is every year I had to go
submit my work to an evaluator,
and somebody on the outside
came in and said, yes, you're
doing what your logic model
says or no, you're not. And you
need to make changes. And that
kept me honest in in the work.
And I would suggest that we
need to, to be thinking in
similar ways of, of what's,
what's our logic model? What
are these assumptions we're
making? What are the market
interventions we're going to do
in order to reach that end goal
of increased housing production,
and then submit our work and
have somebody on the outside on
a regular basis. I don't know
if that's annually, but but on
a regular basis, coming in and
pointing out where there are
weaknesses in the. In the. In
the model that we're pursuing.
And then I look forward to the
next discussion on this, being
able to see some of this
national data and statewide
data, better data laid on. I
think there are I have my own
theory that there are deep
seated assumptions that we have
that aren't necessarily
producing what we think they
are. So thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you. Mayor. I agree
with Councilor Schlomas comment
about context. And I think that
context matters. And I think
that when we we see aberrations
between national trends,
regional trends and local
trends, those are areas where
we can understand the efficacy
of our efforts or find
opportunities for additional
efforts to take. And speaking
to that, but also honoring your
bullet points there. Although
they weren't framed as question,
I'll treat them as such.
Looking at bullet point one.
Absolutely. Yes, I read that as
efficiency and making it easier.
I have a specific question. And
then a suggestion. So one of
the things that would fit into
that category would be
something we've talked about
for a while, and I'd like to
know where we stand on it,
which is the idea of
pre-approved Adu plans that
could be constructed without
having to go through the
permitting process. Other
jurisdictions have had those in
place for some time. We've
talked about doing that. I know
that's not necessarily going to
generate huge numbers of
housing units, but we're in an
environment where every little
bit counts right now, and I'd
like to know where we where we
are with that.
>> It's on our housing plan.
>> Yeah. Yes. We think that is
a great idea. Portland's done
it. Other jurisdictions have
done it. It's on our housing
action plan. And so it'll be
one of those items that we'll
be following up on.
>> And I think more broadly,
and I know Rebecca is online
here too, but one of the
priority areas of our housing
action team for this year is to
is to once the comp plans in
place to think through, okay,
what's the middle housing
toolkit that we need to make
available so that we can
actually, we can encourage, we
can lower the barriers for, for
whether it's individual
homeowners or small scale
developers to take advantage of
the, the new opportunity
developed there. So I think
pre-approved plans is, is one
of those things. And there's
other things that we're, we're
trying to identify that we can
make available so that we can
unlock development as quickly
as possible.
>> So one of the things that I
take away from your earlier
presentations is a sense of
urgency, because we are
under-producing and we are
seeing troubling market
dynamics, but I'm not seeing a
sense of urgency in terms of
taking actions on. That's one
illustrative example. But there
could be other things that are
in our housing action plan. And
I agree with Councilmember
Perez comment about doing
things that are actually going
to result in outcomes, rather
than just doing things because
it feels good to do things. And
so at the very least, speaking
very specifically about that,
but in a broader context of
what's in the housing action
plan, knowing what how we're
prioritizing things and
establishing timelines on them
so that each time we have this
conversation, myself or others
aren't having to ask the
question like this and hear the
same answer over again, which
is it's in our housing action
plan, but there's really no
meaningful update. And it's
been something we've been
talking about for a while. And
so something a little bit more
concrete than that would be
helpful. In addition to that,
there was talk about unlocking
potential within the city with
the zoning changes that are
going to come with the comp
plan, and that those are
probably going to be some of
our high opportunity housing
production areas for the
foreseeable future. Assuming
that the development
environment remains the same.
And so to the extent that
that's true, understanding very
specifically in this bullet
point, what are some areas of
opportunity that could help
stimulate that in terms of
creating efficiencies, lowering
costs, improving timelines,
improving regulations? Not a
huge fan of sports metaphors,
but this is an apt one. This
would be the Gretzky comment
about skate, where the puck is
going, not where the puck is,
right? So we know where we are.
We know what we've done in the
current environment. We have an
idea what the environment is
likely to change, given what
we're doing with our code. Are
we changing our policies to
stimulate? That should be a
question that we're asking. And
if there's opportunities there
acting on them. I think on
bullet point number two,
absolutely. You know, if
there's things that we can do
from a valuation standpoint
that helps projects pencils, we
should be doing that. I'm not
eager to lower density
expectations at the moment. We
are in the forever business.
And so a little bit of time now
for a greater bang for the buck
in the not too distant future,
I think is worth waiting a
little bit, but open to
conversation. If there is an
alternative view or a sense of
urgency that I'm not picking up
on specifically on that one, I
really wouldn't want to give up
hundreds of units to build now
where we could wait a few years
and get those those units,
because we need those units.
You know, Patrick, what I heard
you say, as far as investments
from affordable housing, is
each project is going to
require bigger investments,
which translates for me as
fewer units for the money that
we're investing, which is
troublesome because we have a
significant gap in affordable
production and that's not going
to help. And so I think we also
need to look at not just local
investment, but what are ways
that we can multiply those
local dollars in an environment
where there are increasingly
scarce matching funds and other
things, but how can we be
creative? How can we can make
our market more compelling to
decision makers in Olympia and
in Washington, DC when it comes
to grants and other things? If
we are if we're not, if we're
punching below our weight to
your chart earlier in the state
of Washington, why and what can
we do to to get on par with the
rest of the state? And then I
think it's worth talking more
about that loan fund,
especially if it's something
other jurisdictions that are
doing. And if that is a
significant impediment to
keeping projects from moving
forward at the present time.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yes, councilor.
>> Thank you. Mayor. We had
somebody came and present
presented before us maybe a
year or two ago. I can't
remember his name, but.
>> Mike Wilkerson.
>> Thank you. That's the name.
You know, he gave a great
presentation I thought about
six months ago, and he
basically went through how the
three counties to the south of
us are still decreasing in in
population while we're still
increasing. And for the
Portland metro region, we're
really carrying it. So I
thought that was rather
interesting. Maybe it'd be good
to have him come back. Talk a
little bit about what's going
on on the other side of
development and what's going to
make their Proformas pencil.
Also, when I take a look at 536
units shy, and if the Vancouver
Housing Authority is going at
about $500,000 a door, and
multiply that by 536, it's
about $268 million. Our
affordable housing levy brings
in about $10 million a year,
for a total of $110 million
going over ten years. That's a
significant investment that
needs to happen in our
affordable housing. So that's
why I think to my colleagues,
what they've brought up before
getting the data as far as
what's going to help bring that
private equity in and want to
invest in Vancouver is a
priority. Also, I really like
what you've done so far. I
think you guys are doing
everything you have in your
toolkit. And really what I'm
seeing out there is the middle.
The middle is taking off and
where can you get that? At a,
you know, half an acre, one
acre. How many units can you
get in there? I that's where
I'm seeing things take off and
you can see it on Broadway. You
can see it in those pocket
parcels. Thank you mayor.
>> Thank you. Yeah. Yes,
councilor. Go ahead.
>> Just to finish my thoughts
here, Patrick, you said that
when the comprehensive
management plan is done and
ready, that will really see
things pick up. And my question
to you is, if we have the same
market conditions and it
doesn't pick up like we hope
for, what is our plan B? And
then the second thing has to do
a little bit with, you know,
given our current economics,
what would what is working,
which housing types are still
penciling out and which ones
don't? And going back to that
strategy of plan B, so if high
interest rates, we still have
high interest rates, flat rents
and high construction costs
persist, you know, what is our
backup plan? And are we
prepared to scale public or
nonprofit led development? Are
we still relying on private
market recovery? So just a
couple of things to consider.
And I do agree with the middle
housing, ensuring that we can
focus on that, especially for
our workforce housing needs.
>> Yeah, I think we're on that.
What development is penciling?
I mean, that's what we were
talking about is the smaller
scale development where you you
know, you mean some projects
under $500,000 a door. But but
you're right, that's where a
lot of the bigger projects come
in. If we can get more projects
around 300 to 350,000 in this
market, the projects that are
achieving that are smaller
scale, they're stripping out a
lot of the cost that comes with
having a podium or elevators or
those things. So so that's,
that's why I'm making kind of
hopeful statement about the
comp plan because it will
unlock more of that type of
development than, than the
larger scale development.
>> So but.
>> But yes, we will come back
with more about kind of how
else we're going to try and
unlock that.
>> Patrick. I was looking at
the second bullet on the
valuation of city land. Have we
considered the city land trust
for those affordable projects?
We have it going on in the
Heights with the owner home
ownership piece, but have we
considered it with Vancouver
Housing Authority on affordable
projects they're working on?
>> Yeah, I think I mean, I
think there's a whole variety
of ways we can look at
valuation, but it's so, so like
the project next door is, you
know, 100% affordable at, at,
at a deeply affordable that we
basically contributed the land
to that project, right? So if
we're willing to do that, we
could contribute it into a land
trust. And then that project
would be owned by Community
Land Trust, or it could be like
this model. So, so it's really
just are we willing to
contribute land into affordable
housing projects? And right now
that one, I think passed this
kind of internal filter as it's
deeply affordable, 100%
affordable. So that meets the
test. But if a project is 80%,
am I so not as deeply
affordable? What are we willing
to do there? There's plenty of
documentation about both the
need and the, the lack of how
the development economics in
those projects don't work
either. So sure. So it's really
kind of where are we willing to
use our land to solve for the
gaps in funding on projects
besides the ones that are, that
have the deepest affordability
and there aren't other subsidy
sources for workforce housing
projects right now. So they
don't have the benefit of
housing trust fund money or
even our affordable housing
fund money. Right? So, so
that's the that's where that
question leads is what's the
type of projects that we're
willing to do that on? But yeah,
it could easily go into a land
trust if that's how we want it
to be, but that would mean us
contributing the land into the
land trust.
>> I would be interested in
talking to Vancouver Housing
Authority. They have an 8586
year old reputation of building
some great stuff, leveraging
funds together. I'd be
interested in working with them
and sitting down and talking
about what land we have, and
how could we use it to build
those affordable projects.
They're with us every month
asking for little parcels here
and there, so that might be an
opportunity. Okay. All right,
counselor, last minute.
>> Yeah. So I want to hit this
list as well. So I think point
number one is where I was
speaking to that logic model.
Let's, let's put it all out on
paper, very much open to
revisiting and 80% Ami for
Portland metro area is 100% Ami
for Vancouver, meaning people
in Vancouver make less money
than people in the metro area
as a whole. And so I am open to
talking about 80% projects. As
like my colleague said, I'm not
interested in lowering density
expectations right now. I. I
want to know where we find
these extra funds to invest in
affordable housing. Obviously,
we need to, but I don't know
where we find them. And looking
at pre-development, I think
that's that's also a great
thing. And then. What was the
last point you made, mayor.
>> About Vancouver Housing
Authority?
>> Yes.
>> Leveraging community.
>> So now this is also where I
get radical is if there. I'm
willing to also talk about
things in in the UGA personally.
Okay. For instance. Habitat is
trying to buy the, the mobile
home park in Hazel Dell with a
lot of development potential on
that land. And I'm willing to
talk about how can we be a
partner with that? Because I
think that helps us if that if
that can occur. So willing to
be creative from that
standpoint as well. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you. So when
will we see you next? In three
months. Four months. What's up?
>> I will come back whenever.
If you want us to come back in
three months, we're happy to do
that.
>> Yes. Let's go ahead and plan
it. You heard lots of different
comments and see if we can
follow up on any of that. We'll
see you this summer. Summer.
Okay.
>> Maybe we'll wait till the
comp plan adopted.
>> After June 4th. Right. Okay.
Thank you so very much. Thank
you. Councilor, into executive
session concerning potential
litigation. According to r c w
42 .3. 110I triple. I will be
in there at 6:00 and come out
at 630 in time for our regular
council meeting. Please take
care of anything you need to
and we'll see you in 4.5
minutes.