Pierce County council adopts broad development‑code package; hotly contested provisions on temporary housing and design rules fail in amendments

Pierce County Council on June 10 adopted a large substitute ordinance implementing amendments to multiple titles of the county code to carry out the 2024 comprehensive plan update, changing zoning categories and development standards across the unincorporated county.

The ordinance, O2025‑516S, amends impact fee rules, building and construction codes, the zoning code, conservation program cross references, design standards and the County Zoning Atlas. The bill followed a committee due‑pass recommendation and included 10 council amendments debated on the floor.

Mr. Mike Krueger, senior planning staff, introduced the package as a broad set of implementing regulations that “would adopt various amendments to Pierce County development regulations, including impact fee code, building and fire codes, our county sign code, our conservation programs, design standards and guidelines, and implement zoning,” and said the work responds to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130) and the county’s 2024 comprehensive plan update.

Key changes in the adopted ordinance include: - Impact fee changes and an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) fee structure that sets fees for ADUs at 50% of the principal unit fee in certain cases. - A construction code exemption for temporary structures up to 120 square feet within a temporary housing community, with no building permit required for those small structures. - Revisions to zoning classifications to introduce new middle‑housing and suburban residential categories, update residential density and dimension standards in urban growth areas, and eliminate a “rural bonus density.” - Provisions to authorize EV charging infrastructure, allow medical services as an accessory use to civic uses countywide, and modify procedures for rezonings and conditional uses. - Numerous design‑standard provisions for “middle housing” (small‑scale multiunit housing types) intended to shape form and street presence.

Council members offered a series of targeted amendments; several were approved while others failed in close votes.

Temporary housing communities was a major focus of the floor debate. Multiple amendments would have restricted how the county handles temporary housing communities: one sought to limit the duration a temporary housing community could occupy a given site to three years; another would have prohibited tent encampments as an allowable housing type within the temporary housing community rules. Council member Herrera sponsored the 3‑year limit amendment and argued it aligned with practices in other jurisdictions; council member Denson opposed time limits and said the county needs flexibility to meet the variety of needs among people experiencing homelessness. The council rejected the three‑year cap by a 4–3 vote and also rejected a proposed ban on tents after extended public testimony and debate. As a result, the adopted code allows temporary housing communities under the new rules without the specific 3‑year cap and does not categorically ban tent‑type structures.

Design standards for middle housing drew vigorous public testimony from builders and housing advocates. Developers and the Master Builders Association of Pierce County warned that very prescriptive design rules (for porch dimensions, façade treatment, glazing and garage placement) would raise costs and complicate meeting state energy code limits for small homes. Several council members proposed converting hard “shall” requirements to discretionary “should” language; those amendments were not adopted, and the council ultimately declined to relax the new design standards in the vote.

Council members offered differing views on density. Some members urged upzoning near transit and major corridors to meet regional housing targets and to curb sprawl; others argued the county lacks the transit infrastructure and market to realize high minimum densities in some suburban corridors and urged more flexibility to enable immediate housing production. Multiple amendments to reduce minimum density levels in corridor and town center zones were considered but not adopted.

Public comment was extensive on this ordinance. Speakers included local builders and a Master Builders Association representative urging more flexibility on design standards; housing advocates and county staff supporting the package as the legal implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan; and community members weighing in on temporary housing and neighborhood impacts.

The council adopted O2025‑516S, as substituted, by a 4–3 vote. The adopted ordinance includes the amendments that received majority support on the floor and preserves a regulatory path for temporary housing communities and for middle‑housing design standards as written in the substitute.

Why this matters: The ordinance implements the county’s 2024 comprehensive plan periodic update and will shape where and how the county grows—affecting zoning, allowable housing types, minimum densities near corridors, impact fees, and the county’s approach to temporary housing. The defeated amendments show council division on balancing urgent housing production with neighborhood impacts and on how prescriptive design rules should be.

Looking ahead: Implementation will require administrative rulemaking, design of permit review processes and possible future budget decisions for programs tied to the plan. The council and executive will likely return to specific regulatory or incentive measures in coming months to address housing production, design flexibility, and siting criteria for temporary housing communities.