Kenmore council trims step-housing rules, drops community-meeting recommendation and narrows shelter certification

Kenmore City Council on Tuesday moved to remove a recommendation that any residential project over 100 units hold a community meeting and to narrow proposed certification requirements for indoor emergency shelters and emergency housing, following a public hearing and more than an hour of deliberation.

Supporters of the changes — led by Council member Riley Culver — argued that placing meeting and certification requirements in the municipal code risks creating extra burdens that could discourage housing providers from building step housing, a form of transitional and permanent supportive housing that state law now requires cities to accommodate. Culver said the community-meeting recommendation ‘‘could become a cost of entry’’ and urged the city to host outreach instead: "Let's put the legwork on the city to host these events and do that education and outreach, not make it a requirement that deters providers," he said.

The council’s action came after a staff presentation from Assistant City Manager Debbie Bent, who summarized the draft amendments to Kenmore Municipal Code titles 18 (zoning) and 19 (land use procedures). Bent said the draft aligns the city code with recently enacted state law by adding definitions for step housing, allowing permanent supportive and transitional housing in residential zones where dwelling units or hotels are allowed, clarifying administrative approval pathways (Type 1 and Type 2 processes), and inserting new certification language for emergency housing and shelters that staff had included to reflect state requirements.

Members who opposed removing the recommendation said community meetings foster transparency and give neighbors an opportunity to ask questions. Council member Marshall said in debate that public meetings are not only notice but also a chance for genuine participation: "We want to welcome the public. We might learn something that can be good ideas," Marshall said. Council member Lutzes and Deputy Mayor Sassen urged the council to keep outreach options available but not to impose additional code-based barriers on step housing.

Council member Culver’s motion to strike the footnote recommending a community meeting (footnote 7) passed 6–1. Culver later moved to strike KMC 18.770.070a — the section establishing a set of certification and notification requirements for indoor emergency shelters — arguing it should not be a code requirement; Deputy Mayor Sassen offered a narrower amendment to remove specific sub-items (3, 4 and 6b) of that section. The narrower amendment passed, and the final motion to modify the certification language carried 6–1.

Public commenters who spoke during the hearing urged quick adoption of step housing and cautioned against adding unnecessary hurdles. "Prioritize and approve step housing," Juliana Pooley told the council, urging the removal of barriers and extra hoops. Tracy Banashinsky, who said she supports step housing, asked that the council strike both the certification requirement and the recommended large-project community meeting, calling them "unnecessary administrative work for step housing providers."

What changed: The council removed the draft code’s community-meeting recommendation for projects over 100 units and narrowed the certification disclosures required for indoor emergency housing and shelters by excising certain notification and meeting sub-requirements. Debbie Bent told the council the step committee’s earlier recommendations had been developed before the most recent state law and that staff was including the certification language to be consistent with state requirements passed in April.

Next steps: Staff said the amendments are substantive enough to require an additional public hearing on a revised draft; staff indicated they expect that second hearing and subsequent council consideration in mid-July. No ordinance was adopted Tuesday; the council’s actions modify the draft heading back to staff for revision.

Votes at a glance: The motion to strike the community-meeting footnote passed 6–1 (yes: O'Kane, Lutzes, Admon, Culver, Sassen, Herbig; no: Marshall). The amendment narrowing certification requirements and the final motion to adopt that narrower approach also passed by 6–1.