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.
Counties that fully plan under the GMA must designate urban growth areas (UGAs), within which urban growth must be encouraged and outside of which growth may occur only if it is not urban in nature. Each city in a county must be included in a UGA. Fully planning jurisdictions must include within their UGAs sufficient areas and densities to accommodate projected urban growth for the succeeding 20-year period.
The GMA also 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. Fully planning counties and cities must review and, if necessary, revise their comprehensive plans every 10 years to ensure they comply with the GMA.
Middle Housing Minimum Density Requirements.
No later than six months after its next required comprehensive plan update, fully planning cities meeting population requirements must allow for the development of a minimum number of units on all residential lots as follows:
Cities must allow at least six types of middle housing and may allow accessory dwelling units to achieve the minimum density requirements. Middle housing is defined as buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses and contain two or more attached, stacked, or clustered homes including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing.
Project Permit Process.
Before developing land, a developer must obtain permits from the local government allowing the development. These permits can include land use permits, environmental permits, building permits, and others, and are known as project permits. When a county or city planning under the GMA is reviewing a project, its comprehensive plan and development regulations must serve as the basis for the project permit review.
Cities required to comply with the middle housing minimum density requirements must include in their development regulations a process for an applicant to seek review and approval of an administrative lot split, which may be combined with concurrent review of a residential building permit for new single-family or middle housing. The application process may only require an administrative decision through which the application is reviewed and approved or denied by the planning director or other designee without a pre-decision public hearing.
A new buildable lot and residential building permit must be approved and is not subject to administrative appeal if:
The newly created lot must meet any locally adopted minimum density requirements. A city may not impose a limit on the number of dwelling units allowed on the parent lot or newly created lot that is less than the number of dwelling units allowed by the underlying zoning of the parent lot prior to the lot split.
Any construction on the newly created lot is subject to all existing state and local laws, including the State Building Code, unless otherwise specified. Lots that are not buildable according to locally adopted developments regulations, including, but not limited to, critical areas, shorelines, stormwater, setbacks, impervious surface areas, and building coverage standards, are not eligible for a lot split.
Parent lots and newly created lots approved must have a lot split survey recorded with the county assessor with a notation that future lot splits are not allowed on the lot. If a lot split results in a lot of a size that would allow for further land division, the lot may be divided under other land subdivision processes.
Ordinances adopted to comply with lot splitting requirements are not subject to administrative or judicial appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act. Cities are immune from any liability, loss, or other damage suffered by another that is related to the city’s approval of a lot split, including if the lot split creates a lot that is later determined to not be buildable.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) must develop implementation guidance for cities.
A city with a comprehensive plan update due in 2027 must comply with the lot splitting requirements in that update. All other cities must comply with the requirements within two years of the effective date of the bill.
(In support) Lot splitting is integral to increasing the supply of housing within the confines of urban growth areas and the GMA. Stakeholders worked together this interim to address concerns with the implementation of lot splitting. The bill only applies to cities subject to middle housing requirements and does not create density beyond what is required for middle housing. The bill only requires a city to approve a lot split if there are adequate water and sewer services and it complies with setback and access requirements. Lot splitting provides options for homeowners to allow a parent or child to build their own home nearby. The people who will live on these new lots may be people who are underhoused. Lot splitting will create affordable homeownership opportunities.
(Opposed) Lot splitting would allow property owners to sell their backyards while preempting critical area regulations. It sets the stage for dangerous consequences. California is battling devastating wildfires fueled by wind and steep slopes. This bill risks bringing similar dangers to Washington. The state is still recovering from the recent bomb cyclone with gale force winds similar to those in Los Angeles. These disasters highlight the vulnerabilities of places like Mercer Island, where steep slopes, high population density, and limited water supply create significant risks.
(Other) Containing lot splits within the existing short plat framework will not make economic sense for many landowners. To make lot splits feasible: the water and sewer requirements need to be removed, permit costs need to be reduced, lot splits need to be separate from the building permit process, and cities should be required to report back to the Legislature on how many splits were completed. Lot splits should be exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. Cities need guidance from Commerce and additional time to implement the bill's requirements. Removing public participation eliminates a key step in verification of critical area findings, and lots with critical areas should not be eligible for a lot split. The bill should not exempt lot splitting from the Land Use Petition Act because it protects the rights of all parties. It is not clear whether cities would be able to impose things like tree retention ordinances, concurrency requirements, or safe routes to schools.
(In support) This bill is an important continuation of the efforts the Legislature has taken in recent years to increase middle housing. Lengthy approval processes, including the typically sequential planning and building approval process, can mean increased costs, which deters new housing development. This bill is a new and improved version of a bill from last session that specifically addresses critical areas and water availability. It is more limited than last year's bill and only applies to cities that are subject to the middle housing law. The bill would help increase the supply of entry-level middle housing and single family homes at a time when the housing markets across the state are in desperate need of these options. The average 6,000 square foot piece of raw land costs about $287,000. If you could split that land in half or fourths, more families could afford to purchase or rent a unit that is on that land. This bill enables smart use of limited and valuable land with the urban growth area, and would allow for full implementation of the missing middle housing legislation that the Legislature recently passed. Developing underutilized land is a great opportunity for communities to increase density and reduce urban sprawl, especially in cities where developable land is scarce or cost prohibitive. The State of Oregon had a middle housing land division bill that allowed for one lot to be turned into four townhouse lots, and it has been good for neighbors and homeowners. The bill should be amended to clarify that it allows for lot splitting, even if it is not being applied for simultaneously with the building permit.
(Opposed) This bill threatens our environment and does not help us achieve affordable housing targets. It would allow property owners to sell their backyards while preempting critical area regulations. There are significant environmental and geological vulnerabilities in places like Mercer Island, where steep slopes, high population density, and limited water supply create significant risks. This bill overrides local rules designed to protect lives and property while preventing reckless development in critical areas. The bill should be amended to allow the planning director to determine if areas are buildable.
(Other) The bill should include an implementation date for cities based on when Commerce issues guidance and when funding is available rather than based on the enactment of the bill so that cities are not left scrambling with limited staff and budgets. Cities need flexibility and financial support to implement the changes effectively without compromising local governance. There may be additional support with some technical changes and if grant funding to cities is retained. There is an existing subdivision process that allows the splitting of a residential lot into two. Some of the policies in this bill may be helpful to expedite the process but are not necessary to accomplish that goal. It is important to ensure that there are appropriate consumer protections for the people who would buy the resulting lot, and ensure that the land is buildable and meets environmental criteria.
(In support) Representative Andrew Barkis, prime sponsor; Ryan Donohue, Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King and Kittitas Counties; Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute; Denise Rodriguez, Washington Homeownership Resource Center; Scott Hazlegrove, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties; Morgan Irwin, Association of Washington Business; Charlotte Kayne-Amoureux; and Andrea Smiley, Building Industry Association of Washington.
(In support) Alex Hur, Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties; Andrea Smiley, Building Industry Association of Washington; Justin Wood; Alex Harrington, NAIOP Washington State; Bill Clarke, Washington Realtors; and Blake Baldwin, Hayden Homes.
Ruby Holland; Bill Clarke, WA Realtors; and McKenzie Darr, NAIOPWA .