The city council reviewed updates to the Comprehensive Plan and development code designed to accommodate mandated population growth by adjusting zoning for higher density, such as allowing four to six units per residential lot. The discussion also covered state legislative impacts on housing development, including policies surrounding impact fees, urban growth area (UGA) annexation standards, and property taxes for dense housing types. Additionally, officials highlighted long-term strategies to manage traffic and capital facilities while promoting walkable "10-minute neighborhoods" through ground-floor commercial space requirements and revised building heights.
Building_development
City Council Workshops · Apr 13, 2026 · 25:59–26:23 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: capital facilities UGA affordable housing comprehensive plan zoning density annexation building permits traffic impact infrastructure
What was said
24:53 >> And if I can add again Aaron Landy, council member just so you're aware our police department and police leadership is reaching out to the sheriff's office as well as other of our regional partners to make sure we're all on the same page and maybe revisit what page we're on but trying to once again come back with one voice because as the message we heard was there was lack of clarity about what exactly Southwest Washington wanted and so that conversation is now going to continue to get back on the same page so we can make that regional ask next year. >> On the housing side, one of the pieces of legislation that we moved forward this year was the annexation conversation and what are the development standards in the city and then what are the development standards in the associated urban growth areas.
25:52 We were you know essentially I wouldn't call our legislation heavy-handed but it was pretty direct in saying that the county will do what we do from a development standard in the UGA. Not surprisingly from other counties statewide and the county association there's concerns over some fiscal impacts and desire to have date certain annexations which ultimately something I don't think we could support so it was a good conversation starter much like our lodging tax bill it was there's a lot more work to do and more work to do over in this interim. There were some other kind of significant housing policy items that were passed specifically House Bill 2266 which makes it very difficult to not allow shelters in your jurisdictions. I don't think there's any significant impacts to the way the city currently operates it
26:52 wasn't targeted at us. There were some we do use operating agreements and there was some language around that that we kind of had to like work on and make sure we continue to kind of have the good neighbor agreements that actually help make these facilities move forward. But beyond that I think that's something that makes sense from a regional perspective. And then we did a lot of work on 6026 and a lot of the work we did was just to make sure that the legislature didn't upset the awful cart of the tens of thousands of hours your staff had already done on our comp plan update.
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 25:59–26:23 capital facilities, UGA, affordable housing, comprehensive plan, zoning, density, annexation, building permits, traffic impact, infrastructure
at are the development standards in the associated urban growth areas. We were you know essentially I wouldn't call our legislation heavy-handed but it was pretty direct in saying that the county will do what we do from a development standard in the UGA. Not surprisingly from other counties statewide and the county association there's concerns over some fiscal impacts and desire to have date certain annexations which ultimately something I don't think we could support so it was a good conversati