Council briefed on state "middle housing" requirements; staff recommends phased adoption of minimum standards

City staff briefed the Council on state legislation that requires cities to update development standards to accommodate additional housing types and higher residential densities; staff recommended a phased approach that meets minimum state requirements now and leaves optimization and broader public engagement for a follow‑up phase.

Senior planner Scott (last name in staff packet) opened the briefing by listing the state bills that drive the changes and the limited timeline for compliance. “This legislation is time sensitive. Most of the legislation is due, for cities to amend by, the middle of the year. So we have about 6 months to get this done,” the planner said.

Key elements staff outlined

- HB 1110 (and substitute language): sets new density allowances and a requirement to permit a range of middle‑housing types across residential zones, with specific thresholds (four units per lot or up to six units under certain conditions) and a list of housing typologies. Staff noted the state also provides a model code but recommended tailoring code changes to local conditions rather than adopting the model code verbatim.

- HB 1337: updates accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules; municipalities must adjust height, location and parking rules to comply.

- SB 6015: relaxes certain residential parking standards (including allowing tandem parking and other alternatives) and requires municipalities to address nonconforming parking situations.

- HB 1293 and HB 1998: affect local design review rules and co‑living / residential suite regulations, respectively; the latter requires jurisdictions to allow residential suites by right where six units or more are permitted.

Staff recommendation and rationale

Given statutory deadlines and scope, staff recommended adopting the minimum state standards now and reserving deeper “optimization”—for example, incentives, inclusionary policy reconsideration, and more tailored design standards—for a future phase of work with more intensive public engagement. Scott told council the approach would allow the city to meet the legal deadline while buying time to study citywide effects, including inclusionary requirements and multiunit development policy.

Council questions and direction

Council members asked clarifying questions about how the state thresholds apply, where the city could be allowed to exempt areas (e.g., critical areas), and the timing of future work. Councilor Pam Sweet asked about the affordability thresholds and staff said the state’s affordability numbers in the bills are generally 60 percent of area median income for rentals and 80 percent for homeownership when the statute references deeper affordability. Councilors emphasized the need to manage public expectations and asked staff to be clear about what elements are mandatory versus those open to local policy choices.

Deputy Mayor Nora Arnold and others emphasized public engagement, but several councilors—including Councilor Lisa Falcone and Councilor Pam Sweet—favored the phased approach to meet the mid‑year compliance deadline while planning more thorough outreach later. “I agree with the phased approach, and we should continue the conversation,” Falcone said.

Inclusionary policy and follow‑up

Staff flagged the city’s inclusionary housing requirement as an area for closer review given the broadening of multifamily development citywide; the planning commission had previously recommended consideration of a pilot (Pioneer) provision. City staff suggested possible temporary or phased options to avoid unintended consequences as the code changes roll forward.

What’s next

Staff proposed a schedule that would return to council with draft amendments in spring and recommended outreach tied to the compliance schedule, using existing project web pages and mailing lists to inform the public. No adoption vote took place; council generally agreed staff should proceed with a minimum‑standards compliance package and bring back additional analysis and public engagement options.

Ending note

Councilors asked staff to be explicit in outreach about the limits to local discretion under state law, and to use the phased approach to gather public input for future optimization work.