Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) is the comprehensive land use planning framework for counties and cities in Washington. The GMA establishes land use designation and environmental protection requirements for all Washington counties and cities. The GMA also establishes a significantly wider array of planning duties for 28 counties, and the cities within those counties, that are obligated to satisfy all planning requirements of the GMA. These jurisdictions are sometimes said to be fully planning under the GMA.
Comprehensive Plans. The GMA directs fully planning jurisdictions to adopt internally consistent comprehensive land use plans. Comprehensive plans are implemented through locally adopted development regulations, and both the plans and the local regulations are subject to review and revision requirements prescribed in the GMA. When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider various goals set forth in statute.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) must establish a program of technical and financial assistance to encourage and facilitate cities and counties to adopt and implement comprehensive plans.
Mandatory Housing Element. Comprehensive plans must include a housing element that ensures the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods. The housing element must include the following:
Planning Actions to Increase Residential Building Capacity. Fully planning cities are encouraged to take an array of specified planning actions to increase residential building capacity which include, for example:
In general, ordinances and other nonproject actions taken to implement these specified planning actions, if adopted by April 1, 2023, are not subject to administrative or judicial appeal under SEPA or legal challenge under the GMA.
Common Interest Communities. A common interest community (CIC) is a form of real estate in which each unit owner or homeowner has an exclusive interest in a unit or lot and a shared or undivided interest in common area property. In Washington, several statutes govern residential CICs, such as condominiums and homeowners' associations (HOA). Generally these groups can regulate or limit the use of property by its members.
Density Requirements. A fully planning city with a population of at least 25,000, must provide by ordinance and incorporate into its development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls, authorization for the development of additional units per lot on all lots zoned predominately for residential use, unless the lot is designated with critical areas or their buffers.
A city with a population of at least 25,000 but less than 75,000 must include authorization for at least:
A city with a population of at least 75,000, or any city located within a contiguous urban growth area with a city population above 200,000, must include authorization for at least:
To qualify for the additional units the applicant must commit to renting the required number of units as affordable housing. The units must be maintained as affordable for a term of at least 50 years, and record a covenant or deed restriction that ensures the continuing affordability and address criteria and policies to maintain public benefit if the property is converted to a use other than which continues to provide for permanent affordable low-income housing. The square footage of the units dedicated as affordable must be equal to the average square footage of the market rate units on the same lot.
Middle Housing Requirements. Any combination of middle housing types must be allowed to achieve the unit density required. Middle housing is defined as buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family homes and contain two or more attached, stacked, or clustered homes including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing.
Any city subject to the middle housing requirements:
Cities may be exempt from the parking provisions if the city or county makes a determination, supported by empirical evidence and best practices in a study that is prepared by a credentialed transportation or land use planning expert, that the lack of minimum parking requirements in a defined area would make on-street parking infeasible or unsafe for the authorized units.
The density and middle housing requirements take effect the latter of six months after the city's next required comprehensive plan update, or 12 months after the Office of Financial Management determines a city has reached the population threshold.
Cities may apply for an extension: to timelines established; or for areas at risk of displacement as determined by the antidisplacement analysis. The city must create a plan for implementing antidiplacement policies by their next comprehensive plan implementation progress report. Any extensions of the timelines established may only be applied to specific areas where a city can demonstrate water, sewer, or stormwater services lack capacity to accommodate the density required, and the city has:
The extension of timelines remains in effect until the earliest of:
A city granted an extension of timeliness for a specific area must allow development if the developer commits to providing the necessary water, sewer, or stormwater infrastructure.
A city that adopts the density and missing middle requirements is deemed to be in compliance with the mandatory GMA element of making adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community until June 30, 2032.
Department of Commerce. Commerce must develop and publish model middle housing ordinances within six months after the act takes effect. The model ordinances supersede, preempt, and invalidate local development regulations that fail to allow middle housing within the time frames provided until the city takes action to adopt density and middle housing regulations.
Commerce must establish a process for cities to seek approval of required local actions, and may approve actions for cities that have adopted development regulations that are substantially similar to the density and missing middle requirements. The department must view favorably plans and regulations that authorize an overall increase in density throughout the city in units allowed per single-family lot that is at least 75 percent of the overall single-family density throughout the city in units allowed per lot required under the Act. Any local actions approved by Commerce are exempt from appeals under the GMA and SEPA.
Commerce must develop guidance to assist cities on items to include in a parking study and provide technical assistance prioritized based on cities demonstrating the greatest need.
Common Interest Communities. Governing documents and declarations of CICs, including those such as condominiums and HOAs, within cities subject to the middle housing and density requirements created after the act takes effect may not prohibit construction, development, or use of the additional housing units.
The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: Stakeholders agree that to address the housing crisis we need to have housing supply. There are cities that are moving in this direction but we are not moving fast enough. Home is where we find safety, shelter, and refuge, it is a basic need. We are not building at a pace to keep up with the demand. We need to do something drastic or we will not meet the goal to build one million houses by 2040. Many people fear change and think that this will create high rise buildings in their neighborhood but it does not, it will build very modest density that blends into communities. Commerce is working on a tool kit to help cities and provide standards to share. What we have been doing hasn’t been working, this is one piece of a larger policy platform. Under the bill, single family housing can remain. It doesn’t require multiunit housing but allows for the option.
Employers are struggling to attract and retain workers due to the lack of affordable housing near the workplace. We are in a wave of faculty retirement, and places where housing is more affordable is attracting more of these workers instead. By 2040, King County Affordable Housing Committee estimates a need to add 244,000 affordable housing units. Job growth and housing growth must work symbiotically. The ability to afford a home needs to be widespread and missing middle housing is an opportunity to move renters to owners. Older adults rely on unpaid family care givers and missing middle housing will help family members support a loved one as they age in place so they have the care they need while not spending down the assets they need for medical care. These housing types already exist but many cities have changed zoning since the 1950s to exclude this type of housing that can only be established with objective design and development standards. This bill is a good bill about community, equity and inclusion.
Mapped urban and low density development from 2001 to 2013 shows we have lost a lot of farmland. If we do not change, we will lose more farms that bring resilience to the food system. The current status quo zoning covers the majority of our residential land and only allows one type of home, a single detached house on a big lot. We need to bring more housing to already developed areas and middle housing is a way to do that. Protection of industrial lands is essential to the movement of goods in the region. Increasing middle housing will reduce the pressure to develop natural lands. Studies show that missing middle housing is associated to lower climate impact. The closer people live to where they work, the less they need to drive, which reduces emissions. This addresses housing shortage while placing the least burden on transportation systems.
CON: This bill is a one size fits all approach that does not take into consideration local needs. Smaller counties are expected to grow at the same rate as King county. This bill does not align with cities responsibility to provide water to its residences. There is concern about limits on parking because many of our residents are professional drivers who depend on their cars for their livelihood. There needs to be a local needs analysis for parking as an option in the bill.
OTHER: Willing to work on a statewide approach but this needs to be a combined effort. The primary concern is the one size fits all approach and inconsistency with other regulations that cities are subject to. The bill requires cities plan for and address utility issues but we don’t own utilities for the city and so the city does not have the ability to do that. Inadequate infrastructure makes our ability to increase density limited and impractical. There should be tiering or flexibility added to this bill. Cities should have ability to identify locations that are most appropriate for this type of development without displacing other renting options. The language speaking to communities who have done something substantially similar needs to be refined.
Adding three units to a lot is expensive and won't keep preservation of the existing units. Adding units would strain the existing infrastructure and those costs should not be passed on to other owners so the bill should ensure that only the lot being developed bears the cost of the development. This bill may interrupt and complicate ongoing city efforts to allow and encourage middle housing. Transportation should be added to the bill as a public utility. The existing bill does not address the impact within community associations. Please consider maximizing transit oriented development, data informed parking policy approach and funding for municipal infrastructure.