Mercer Island planners begin study session on omnibus ordinance to make interim housing and permitting rules permanent

Mercer Island planning staff on July 23 opened a study session on a council‑approved scope of work to draft an omnibus ordinance that would make permanent a set of interim regulations the city adopted to comply with recent Washington state housing and permitting laws. Principal Planner Adam Zack told the Planning Commission the draft will bundle amendments across the development code to address overlapping interim changes and to ensure state compliance.

Zack said the scope of work was approved by the City Council on July 15 and “plans for up to 5 planning commission meetings to take a look at this ordinance and get your input, and complete the legislative review,” with a public hearing planned for September and the goal of completing the commission’s review by October so the council can consider permanent regulations before year‑end. “This will be your first study session on a proposed omnibus ordinance related to permanent regulations for housing production and permit streamlining,” he said.

Why it matters: the Washington Legislature in recent years enacted multiple bills that require local code changes; Mercer Island has used interim ordinances to comply but needs permanent code text to avoid repeated renewals and to align local procedures with new state deadlines and definitions. Zack listed seven topic areas the omnibus will address: HB 1220 (affordable and emergency housing), SB 6015 (residential parking), HB 1293 (clear and objective design standards), SB 5290 (permit review timelines), HB 1998 (co‑living housing), treatment of design review following the council’s decision to dissolve the design commission, and implementing the city’s recent comprehensive plan changes (interim ordinance 24 C 18).

Key details covered in the session: - Emergency and transitional housing (HB 1220): Staff said the interim ordinance amended local definitions to incorporate the state definitions of “emergency housing,” “transitional housing” and “permanent supportive housing,” but added Commerce guidance requires review of local spacing requirements and permitting processes. Zack summarized: the code currently sets a 1,000‑foot spacing between social‑service transitional housing developments and a 600‑foot spacing from places children congregate; Commerce’s guidance asks the city to re‑examine those rules in light of health and safety standards. - Parking (SB 6015): the bill restricts what cities may require for new residential development, including that garages/carports cannot be required, tandem spaces may count (1 space per 20 linear feet), maximum parking stall size generally may not exceed 8 by 20 feet, grass pavers can be used, and parking may not be required where tree retention would otherwise render the project infeasible. Staff said interim rules adopted earlier will be folded into the omnibus. - Permit timelines (SB 5290): the law sets “shot‑clock” permit review deadlines tied to whether public notice or public hearings are required (Zack summarized 65 days for basic land‑use reviews without public notice, 100 days for reviews that require notice, and 170 days for reviews requiring a public hearing) and requires the city to track and report compliance; if the city exceeds statutory deadlines it may owe a refund or discount of permit fees. - Co‑living (HB 1998): staff said Mercer Island has not yet adopted interim regulations for co‑living; the bill requires cities to allow co‑living in mixed‑use and multifamily zones, limits parking requirements (no parking mandates within ½ mile of major transit and no greater than 0.25 spaces per sleeping unit), and requires review processes not be more restrictive than for other residential uses. Zack explained the draft will add a new section to address co‑living rules before the end of the year. - Design review (HB 1293 and local action): HB 1293 requires local design standards be “clear and objective” and permits only a single public meeting for design review; staff said the city’s interim ordinance removed the prior mandatory study session step and the council voted in June to dissolve the local design commission and reassign quasi‑judicial design review to the hearing examiner, so the code must be updated for consistency.

Commissioners asked for clarifications on the practical effects of the laws — whether market demand will replace certain local mandates (Vice Chair Gibson asked whether single‑family homes will still typically include garages even if the city cannot require them) — and on staff’s schedule to publish code drafts (Zack said a draft will be released for public review on Aug. 11 and the planning commission will brief the draft Sept. 10, hold a public hearing Sept. 24, and possibly deliberate into October before forwarding a recommendation to the council for readings in November). Chair Dan Thompson and several commissioners pressed staff to keep the omnibus focused on items necessary for statutory compliance and to separate higher‑interest topics (middle housing, ADUs and unit‑lot subdivisions) into a separate project with greater public outreach.

Staff also told commissioners the city is an appellant in a timely comprehensive‑plan appeal before the Growth Management Hearings Board; a hearing occurred June 30 and staff said they expect a board decision on Aug. 5 that could require follow‑up amendments. Zack told the commission the appeal addressed “step housing” and other affordable‑housing compliance matters that overlap with the omnibus work.

What’s next: staff said the draft omnibus package will be posted Aug. 11 for a 30‑day comment period; the commission will review the draft in September with a public hearing scheduled Sept. 24, and if necessary continue deliberations into October so a recommendation can reach the City Council in time for a November first reading. The commission did not take a final vote on the omnibus ordinance at the July 23 meeting; the session was a study briefing and direction‑gathering step.