Summary of Middle Housing Policy Recommendations

As an element of SSHA3P’s Middle Housing Grant, BERK Consulting delivered policy and program recommendations to increase middle housing production, address racially disparate impacts in housing outcomes, and provide displacement options for consideration. Below is a summary of common policy and program recommendations across the grant participating cities. Common policy and program recommendations are those recommended to at least 4 of the 5 cities.

Find the full report on policy recommendations here.

Community Engagement

  1. Conduct community engagement with communities of color experiencing housing disparities to reveal specific barriers to housing affordability experienced by these groups. Policy and strategy updates should prioritize the needs and solutions expressed by this disproportionately impacted community for implementation.

Policy Language

Improve existing policy language to clarify the policy intent, align policy language to current municipal planning standards, and ensure the benefits and burdens of the policy are equitably distributed.

Using language that accurately describes the policy intent and is respectful of all community members helps ensure that policy implementation is aligned to its intent. Subjective terms create confusion for interpretation and implementation and can undermine the public’s faith in government and introduce uncertainty that creates barriers to development. In addition, historically subjective and normative terms such as “quality” have been used across the United States to prevent housing development associated with people of color and contributes to segregation and exclusion that has multigenerational impacts.

  1. Define subjective terms, such as “character” or “quality” or use alternative language that is specific and accurate to the policy intent.
    • For example, this recommendation for one participating middle housing grant city: “Language that focuses on encouraging certain colors, textures, or architectural features, as opposed to scale or character, could help Milton communicate a desired aesthetic without being exclusionary of middle and larger scale multifamily housing.”
  2. Revise policy language that is exclusionary of housing types other than of single family units, such as “preserve existing residential character” or “blend in with surrounding developments.”
    • Before: “Maintain the City’s small-town character and protect existing single family neighborhoods.”
    • After: “Allow and encourage development of middle housing and accessory dwelling units in low density neighborhoods. Honor the City’s history by encouraging adaptive reuse of existing buildings and through placemaking and public art.”
  3. Avoid the use of “single-family” to describe anything other than a single-family housing unit. Consider using “low density housing” or “house-scale development” instead of “single-family neighborhood”
  4. Balance policies encouraging preservation of existing affordable units with language encouraging infill and new development
    • Before: “Encourage the maintenance and preservation of existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods.”
    • After: “Encourage public and private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of housing.”
  5. Include language about planning for people with all levels of income
    • Example adopted from Pierce County’s Countywide Planning Policies: “Plan to meet affordable and moderate-income housing needs goal by utilizing a range of strategies that result in the preservation of existing housing and the production of new, affordable and moderate income housing that is safe and healthy.”

Development Incentives

  1. Utilize development regulations to incentivize affordable housing development
  2. Review impact fees and consider waiving or reducing them for some housing types, such as affordable housing
    • Pierce County offers impact fee waivers for affordable housing: PCC 18A.65.040
    • The City of Kirkland offers impact fee waivers for affordable housing and exempts ADUs from impact fees: KMC 27.04.050
    • Find more examples from MRSC

Development Regulations

  1. Implement an inclusionary zoning ordinance to require new subdivision plats over a designated number of units to include income-qualified affordable homeownership housing
  2. Increase the number of lots that can be administratively approved in a new short subdivision
  3. Revise SEPA threshold exemptions in accordance with new state law
  4. Consider adjusting minimum lot sizes. Specifically, ensure there are not larger minimums for duplexes and other multi-unit buildings.
  5. Review frontage improvement requirements and consider adding a fee-in-lieu option
  6. Review height limits for potential flexibility

Support and Facilitate Development

  1. Dedicate surplus or underutilized land for affordable housing production
  2. Connect property owners with lenders and stock designs for middle housing and ADUs

Homeownership

  1. Offer down payment assistance
  2. Develop homeownership education programs and/or connect residents to existing programs

Learn more about models for affordable homeownership:

Anti-Displacement

  1. Require tenant relocation assistance
  2. Provide just cause evictions protections
  3. Pass a notice of intent to sell ordinance
  4. Inform tenants when income-restricted housing becomes at risk of being converted to market-rate status
  5. Provide need-based rehabilitation assistance or connect residents to state or local resources
  6. Provide information on Pierce County’s property tax assistance program for low-income seniors and people with disabilities
Back to Middle Housing Findings