Requires cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act to modify setback, height limit, and gross floor area requirements for specified types of developments.
Modifies off-street parking and affordable housing unit size requirements.
Development Regulations and the Growth Management Act.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) is the comprehensive land use planning framework for counties and cities in Washington. Currently, 28 counties, and the cities within those counties, fully plan under the GMA. The GMA directs these counties and cities to adopt internally consistent comprehensive land use plans, which must be reviewed and, if necessary, revised every 10 years. These counties and cities also must adopt development regulations to implement their comprehensive plans, which include a variety of land use regulations such as zoning and subdivision ordinances; environmental procedures; design review and off-street parking requirements; and bulk, density coverage, and setback limitations.
Passive House.
Passive house is a voluntary standard for energy efficiency in buildings, which typically requires little energy for heating or cooling. Certified passive house projects currently meet the requirements of the State Energy Code.
Limitations on Off-Street Parking Requirements.
Cities and counties generally have broad authority to regulate parking in their jurisdictions. Those counties and cities planning under the GMA are subject to certain limitations on establishing minimum residential parking requirements for certain types of housing, including, but not limited to:
Development Regulations and the Growth Management Act.
For cities and counties planning under the GMA, retrofits of existing buildings to be used for residential housing, new construction, or the retrofit of existing buildings meeting passive house requirements must:
The following must also be allowed by planning cities and counties:
In each of the foregoing instances, cities and counties are not prohibited from applying the requirements of the State Building Code and there is no requirement that a city or county allow a setback of less than 36 inches between residential dwelling units.
Facade Modulation and Setbacks.
Cities and counties planning under the GMA may not require facade modulation or upper-level setbacks as a condition of permitting the following residential projects: (1) affordable housing; (2) new construction meeting passive house requirements; (3) the retrofit of existing buildings meeting passive house requirements; (4) conversions of existing buildings to housing or mixed-use developments, that includes housing; (5) modular construction; and (6) mass timber construction. Definitions are provided for several of these terms.
Parking Requirements.
Cities and counties planning under the GMA may not require off-street parking as a condition for permitting affordable housing, new construction or the retrofit of existing buildings meeting passive house requirements, modular construction, or mass timber construction. However, off-street parking may be required if:
Affordable Unit Sizes.
Subject to specified exceptions, planning cities and counties may not require affordable housing units for low-income or very low-income households to exceed specified size requirements based on the unit configuration. If a project's average market rate unit size is smaller than the size requirements for low or very low-income affordable housing units, the city must allow affordable housing units to be of a comparable size to the market rate units.
Implementation.
Cities and counties that plan under the GMA must implement the foregoing requirements by the sooner of six months safter their next periodic comprehensive plan update or six months after their next implementation progress report.
(In support) This bill was developed through conversations with architects, developers, and builders, as an incentive to help the development of affordable housing. These policies make it easier to renovate existing homes and allow for increased energy efficiency. Specifically, passive house is recognized and supported throughout North America and globally, and this bill removes several barriers to passive house in our state. As part of the efficiency of these homes, they have thicker walls and this bill's flexibility in development regulations is important for making passive house achievable statewide. These changes would hopefully allow people to spend less on utility bills, improve air quality, and make homes more fire resistant.
The portion concerning elevators is intended to allow smaller elevators in single-stair residential buildings that typically wouldn't have an elevator. These are important reforms needed to expand housing availability. The installation of smaller elevators would allow these buildings to have increased accessibility, including possibly putting accessible units above ground-floor levels. Individuals using a wheelchair or with other mobility issues may have additional housing options opened up to them.
Additionally, requiring facade modulation and upper-level setbacks increases construction costs and negatively impacts building performance, and the parking requirement modification in the bill is very important.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) Without comment on the underlying policy, L&I requests a technical amendment to provide that L&I adopts the described elevator standards instead of the State Building Code Council, since L&I has adopted elevator standards as directed by law since the 1960s.
As a general matter, counties believe development regulations should be developed through local processes with community based decision making, and several sections of this bill run contrary to that principle. A large concern is also the prohibition on counties from requiring off-street parking. Rural roads aren't designed to accommodate street parking, do not have sidewalks, and sometimes even shoulders, so we're concerned this prohibition creates safety issues in future housing developments in these parts of counties. Unincorporated areas should be removed from this section. There are also concerns about potential increased fire risks in new construction from the new setback requirement changes. It'd be important to clarify if the setbacks are land use setbacks and not building code setbacks.
The implementation timeline is also not including the Puget Sound, unless a different implementation date is chosen, because they've already completed their periodic update.
(In support) This bill has several good reforms, including the provision to give builders full design flexibility on façade modulation and upper-level setbacks. Cities commonly require both for multifamily buildings, but they make construction more expensive and reduce the capacity for housing. In some cases, it makes it impractical to build at all. An affordable housing developer in Seattle recently built Washington's largest mass timber apartment building, but it never would have been built if it had to conform with typical requirements for façade modulation and upper-level setbacks. This bill is a good step forward in helping architects do their job in designing high performance buildings and saving owners energy costs.
Passive house buildings use 60 to 70 percent less energy for heating and cooling which has positive implications for our electrical grid. Passive house walls and roofs are thicker as they contain more insulation making it so putting insulation on the outside of the building is often the only feasible approach. This is currently not allowed, but the bill would address this. Setbacks and square footage caps are currently measured and penalize passive house buildings by reducing usable floor area.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) There is concern about the fiscal impact to local governments. Section 11 will require counties to incorporate the new standards prior to their next comprehensive plan update. Typically changes like this would be incorporated into development regulations on a regular schedule. The requirement creates additional costs and administrative burden on county planning departments. Funding should be provided to cover the extra cost to county planning departments.
There are also concerns about section 10 requiring L&I to adopt the global standard related to elevators. That standard is not used in North America. L&I would have costs of $3 million to stand up a new system and for additional training and staff.
(In support) Representative Davina Duerr, prime sponsor; Rob Harrison, Passive House Seattle; Julie Blazek, AIAWA (American Institute of Architects WA Council); Bryce Yadon, Futurewise; Stephen Smith, Center for Building in North America; and Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute.
(In support) Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute; Julie Blazek, HKP Architects; and Rob Harrison, Policy Lead, Passive House Cascadia.