HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2023 YPC Agenda Packet
DEPARTMENTOF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Joan Davenport, AICP, Director
Planning Division
Joseph Calhoun, Manager
nd
129 North Second Street, 2Floor, Yakima, WA 98901
ask.planning@yakimawa.govwww.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/ypc/
CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION
Yakima City Hall Council Chambers
nd
Street, Yakima, WA 98901
129 N 2
May 24, 2023
3:00 p.m. –5:00 p.m.
YPC MEMBERS:
Chair Jacob Liddicoat, Vice-Chair Lisa Wallace, Leanne Hughes-Mickel,
Robert McCormick, Mary Place, Colleda Monick, and Frieda Stephens
City Council Liaison: Soneya Lund
CITY PLANNING STAFF:
Joan Davenport (Community Development Director),Lisa Maxey (Admin Assistant)
Joseph Calhoun (Planning Manager), Eric Crowell (Senior Planner), Eva Rivera (Planning
Technician), Irene Linos (Temp. Department- Assistant I)
AGENDA
I.Call to Order
II.Roll Call
III.Staff Announcements
IV.Approval of Meeting Minutes of May 10, 2023
V.2023 Legislative Update – HB 1110 and HB 1337
VI.Public Comment
VII.Other Business
VIII.Adjourn
Next Meeting: June 14, 2023
The meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website.
Visit the Yakima Planning Commission webpage for more information, including agenda packets and minutes.
City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) HearingMinutes
City Council Chambers
May 10, 2022
Call to Order
Chair Liddicoatcalled the meeting to order at 3:01p.m.
Roll Call
YPC MembersPresent:Chair Jacob Liddicoat, Lisa Wallace, Robert McCormick, Mary
Place,Colleda Monick, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Frieda Stephens
YPC Members Absent:None
Staff Present:Joseph Calhoun; Planning Manager;Eva Rivera, Planning
Technician
Staff Announcements–Planning Manager Calhoun announced the following:
Senior Planner oral board istomorrow, May 11.
Assistant Planner starts in July.
April 12, 2023,Meeting Minutes–It was motioned by Commissioner Wallaceand seconded by
Commissioner Placeto approve the meeting minutes of April 12, 2023,as presented. The motion
carried unanimously.
Public Hearing –City Planning –2023 Text Amendments–Calhounpresented a staff report
onTXT#001-23& SEPA#004-23regarding YMC titles14, 15,and 16. The staff report
recommended approval of the text amendments.No public comments were received prior to the
drafting of the staff report. Chair Liddicoat opened the public comment portion of the hearing.
Seeing there were no public comments ChairLiddicoat closed the public comment portion of the
hearing. Commissioner Place questioned shortening the comment period and Calhoun answered
it was similar to other jurisdictions.
Chair Liddicoat entertained a motion onto CommissionerMonick. Commissioner Monickmoved
the Planning Commission draft findings of fact and forward the recommendation to the Yakima
City Council based on the testimony and the evidence presented inthis afternoon’s hearing.
Commissioner McCormickseconded. The motion passed unanimously.
2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docketing-Calhoun provided a timeline for the 2023
th
CPA process. One application was submitted for a property at 11 N 35Ave, south of River Road
and East of ChesterleyPark. This property has a future land use designation of mixed residential
and zoned multifamily R-3 the proposal is to change the futureland use designation to commercial
mixed-use and the zoning to general commercial. Chair Liddicoat suggested asking nearby
property owners if they’d like to be added to the application. Calhoun agreed to review the code
to see if the Commission can include them.
Dwelling Units Report–Calhoun presented the Commission with a dwelling unit report starting
from the year 2018 thru April 2023 which states that 2,433 dwelling units have been permitted.
Thatis 38% of our 2040 goal in a six-year period.Chair Liddicoat asked if there was a way to see
a report with owner built versus developer built by excluding permits with LLC’s. Calhoun
answered he would have to see how the data is laid out and how in-depth that information is
provided.Chair Liddicoat asked about the ADU Preapproved plans. Calhoun answered there is a
new purchasing manager and he is hoping some movement will be made.
Public Comment–None
-1-
Other Business–Commissioner Place asked if legal can give a report aboutthe new legislation
regarding R-1 zoning being allowed 4 dwelling units.Calhoun answered the Department of
Commerce is working on model legislation for local jurisdictions. He also said something hasto
be in placesix months after our Comp Plan update is due which is in 2026.
Adjourn–A motion to adjourn to May 24, 2023,was passed with aunanimous vote. The meeting
adjourned at approximately 3:27pm.
Chair Liddicoat Date
This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Eva Rivera, Planning Technician.
-2-
IPVTF!CJMM!SFQPSU
F3TIC!2221
Bt!Qbttfe!Mfhjtmbuvsf
Ujumf;An act relating to creating more homes for Washington by increasing middle housing in
areas traditionally dedicated to single-family detached housing.
Csjfg!Eftdsjqujpo; Increasing middle housing in areas traditionally dedicated to single-family
detached housing.
Tqpotpst;House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives
Bateman, Barkis, Reed, Taylor, Riccelli, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Peterson, Duerr, Lekanoff,
Alvarado, Street, Ryu, Ramel, Cortes, Doglio, Macri, Mena, Gregerson, Thai, Bergquist,
Farivar, Wylie, Stonier, Pollet, Santos, Fosse and Ormsby).
Csjfg!Ijtupsz;
Dpnnjuuff!Bdujwjuz;
Housing: 1/17/23, 2/7/23 \[DPS\];
Appropriations: 2/21/23, 2/24/23 \[DP2S(w/o sub HOUS)\].
Gmpps!Bdujwjuz;
Passed House: 3/6/23, 75-21.
Senate Amended.
Passed Senate: 4/11/23, 35-14.
House Concurred.
Passed House: 4/18/23, 79-18.
Passed Legislature.
Csjfg!Tvnnbsz!pg!Fohspttfe!Tfdpoe!Tvctujuvuf!Cjmm
•Requires certain cities planning under the Growth Management Act to
authorize minimum development densities in residential zones and
include specific provisions related to middle housing in their
development regulations.
•Requires the Department of Commerce to provide technical assistance to
cities in implementing the requirements, to develop model middle
Uijt!bobmztjt!xbt!qsfqbsfe!cz!opo.qbsujtbo!mfhjtmbujwf!tubgg!gps!uif!vtf!pg!mfhjtmbujwf
nfncfst!jo!uifjs!efmjcfsbujpot/!Uijt!bobmztjt!jt!opu!qbsu!pg!uif!mfhjtmbujpo!ops!epft!ju
dpotujuvuf!b!tubufnfou!pg!mfhjtmbujwf!joufou/
House Bill Report-1 -E2SHB 1110
housing ordinances, and to establish a process for cities to seek approval
of alternative local actions.
IPVTF!DPNNJUUFF!PO!IPVTJOH
Nbkpsjuz!Sfqpsu;!The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.
Signed by 9 members:Representatives Peterson, Chair; Alvarado, Vice Chair; Leavitt,
Vice Chair; Barkis, Bateman, Chopp, Low, Reed and Taylor.
Njopsjuz!Sfqpsu;!Without recommendation.Signed by 3 members:Representatives
Klicker, Ranking Minority Member; Connors, Assistant Ranking Minority Member;
Hutchins.
Tubgg;Serena Dolly (786-7150).
IPVTF!DPNNJUUFF!PO!BQQSPQSJBUJPOT
Nbkpsjuz!Sfqpsu;!The second substitute bill be substituted therefor and the second
substitute bill do pass and do not pass the substitute bill by Committee on Housing.Signed
by 25 members:Representatives Ormsby, Chair; Bergquist, Vice Chair; Gregerson, Vice
Chair; Macri, Vice Chair; Stokesbary, Ranking Minority Member; Chambers, Assistant
Ranking Minority Member; Corry, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Berg, Chopp,
Couture, Davis, Fitzgibbon, Harris, Lekanoff, Pollet, Riccelli, Ryu, Sandlin, Senn,
Simmons, Slatter, Springer, Steele, Stonier and Tharinger.
Njopsjuz!Sfqpsu;!Do not pass.Signed by 4 members:Representatives Chandler, Dye,
Rude and Schmick.
Njopsjuz!Sfqpsu;!Without recommendation.Signed by 1 member:Representative
Connors.
Tubgg;Jackie Wheeler (786-7125).
Cbdlhspvoe;
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.
House Bill Report-2 -E2SHB 1110
Counties that fully plan under the GMA are required to designate urban growth areas
(UGAs) within their boundaries sufficient to accommodate a planned 20-year population
projection range provided by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Each city
located within a planning county must be included within a UGA. Urban growth must be
encouraged within the UGAs, and only growth that is not urban in nature can occur outside
of the UGAs. Each UGA must permit urban densities and include greenbelt and open space
areas.
Comprehensive Plans.
The GMA directs fully planning jurisdictions to adopt internally consistent, comprehensive
land use plans that are generalized, coordinated land use policy statements of the governing
body. When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider
various goals set forth in statute and include mandatory elements such as housing and a
capital facilities plan. Comprehensive plans are implemented through locally adopted
development regulations, and both the plans and the local regulations must be reviewed and
revised every 10 years.
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:
•an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the
number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, as provided by
Commerce;
•a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing;
•identification of sufficient capacity of land for various housing;
•adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the
community;
•identification of local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts,
displacement, and exclusion of housing;
•identification and implementation of policies and regulations to address and begin to
undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion of housing;
•identification of neighborhoods that may be at higher risk of displacement from
market forces; and
•establishment of antidisplacement policies.
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. Specified planning actions include:
House Bill Report-3 -E2SHB 1110
•authorizing middle housing types on parcels in one or more zoning districts that
permit single-family residences unless unfeasible to do so;
•authorizing cluster zoning or lot size averaging in all zoning districts that permit
single-family residences;
•adopting increases in categorical exemptions to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) for residential or mixed-use development;
•adopting a form-based code in one or more zoning districts that permit residential
uses;
•authorizing a duplex on each corner lot within all zoning districts that permit single-
family residences;
•authorizing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in one or more zoning districts in which
they are currently prohibited;
•adopting ordinances authorizing administrative review of preliminary plats; and
•allowing off-street parking to compensate for a lack of on-street parking when private
roads are utilized or a parking demand study shows that less parking is required.
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. Generally these groups can regulate or limit
the use of property by its members.
A restrictive covenant or deed is a restriction or limitation of the use of the property that
runs with the land.
Tvnnbsz!pg!Fohspttfe!Tfdpoe!Tvctujuvuf!Cjmm;
Density Requirements.
A fully planning city meeting the population criteria, based on 2020 OFM population data,
must provide by ordinance, and incorporate into its development regulations, zoning
regulations, and other official controls, authorization for the development of a minimum
number of units on all lots zoned predominately for residential use by six months after the
city's next required comprehensive plan update. A city not meeting the population
threshold must comply with the density and middle housing requirements by 12 months
after its next comprehensive plan implementation progress report after a determination by
OFM that the city has reached the population threshold.
Unless zoning permitting higher densities or intensities applies, a fully planning city with a
population of at least 25,000 but less than 75,000 must include authorization for at least:
House Bill Report-4 -E2SHB 1110
•two units per lot;
•four units per lot within 0.25 miles walking distance of a major transit stop; and
•four units per lot if at least one unit is affordable housing.
Unless zoning permitting higher densities or intensities applies, a fully planning city with a
population of at least 75,00 must include authorization for at least:
•four units per lot;
•six units per lot within 0.25 miles walking distance of a major transit stop; and
•six units per lot if at least two units are affordable housing.
Unless zoning permitting higher densities or intensities applies, a fully planning city with a
population less than 25,000, within a contiguous UGA with the largest city in a county with
a population of more than 275,000, must include authorization for the development of at
least two units per lot.
A major transit stop includes a stop on a high-capacity transportation system, commuter rail
stops, stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, and stops on bus rapid transit routes.
To qualify as affordable housing, the unit must be maintained as affordable for at least 50
years and record a covenant or deed restriction that ensures continued affordability. The
affordable units also must be comparable in size and number of bedrooms as other units and
be generally distributed throughout the development. A city with an affordable housing
incentive program may vary from these affordable housing requirements and require any
development to provide affordable housing, either onsite or through an in-lieu payment.
The density requirements do not apply to:
•lots designated with critical areas or their buffers
•watershed serving a reservoir for potable water if that watershed is listed as impaired
or threatened under the federal Clean Water Act; or
•lots that have been designated urban separators by countywide planning policies.
Alternative Density Requirement.
A city subject to the density requirements may choose to implement the density
requirements for at least 75 percent of lots in the city that are primarily dedicated to single-
family detached housing units. Unless identified as at higher risk of displacement, the 75
percent of lots allowing the minimum density requirements must include any areas:
•for which the exclusion would further racially disparate impacts or result in zoning
with a discriminatory effect;
•within 0.5 miles walking distance of a major transit stop; or
•historically covered by a covenant or deed restriction excluding racial minorities from
owning property or living in the area, as known to the city at the time of each
comprehensive plan update.
The 25 percent of lots for which the minimum density requirements are not authorized must
House Bill Report-5 -E2SHB 1110
include:
•any areas for which Commerce has certified an extension due to the risk of
displacement or lack of infrastructure capacity;
•any lots designated with critical areas or their buffers;
•any portion of a city within a 1 mile radius of a commercial airport with at least 9
million annual enplanements that is exempt from the parking requirements; and
•any areas subject to sea level rise, increased flooding, susceptible to wildfires, or
geological hazards over the next 100 years.
A city implementing the alternative density requirement may apply to Commerce for an
extension from the implementation timelines for areas at risk of displacement as determined
by the city's antidisplacement analysis. A city granted an extension must create a plan for
implementing antidisplacement policies by their next comprehensive plan implementation
progress report. Commerce may certify one further extension based on evidence of
significant ongoing displacement risk in the impacted area.
A city implementing the alternative density requirements also may apply for an extension to
specific areas where a city can demonstrate that water, sewer, stormwater, transportation
infrastructure, including facilities and transit services, or fire protection services lack
capacity to
accommodate an increased density. To qualify for an extension, the city must have
included one or more improvements, as needed, within its capital facilities plan to
adequately increase capacity or identified which special district is responsible for providing
the necessary infrastructure. If an extension is requested due to lack of water supply from
the city or the purveyors who serve water within the city, Commerce's evaluation must be
based on the applicable water system plans in effect and approved by the Department of
Health.
Any granted extension remains in effect until the earliest of:
•the infrastructure is improved to accommodate the capacity;
•the city's deadline to complete its next periodic comprehensive plan update; or
•the city's deadline to complete its comprehensive plan implementation progress.
A city may reapply for an additional timeline extension with its next periodic
comprehensive plan update or five-year comprehensive plan implementation progress
report. The extension application must include a list of infrastructure improvements
necessary to meet the required capacity. Commerce must provide the Legislature with a list
of those projects identified in a city's capital facilities plan that were the basis for the
extension. A city granted an extension for a specific area must allow development if the
developer commits to providing the necessary water, sewer, or stormwater infrastructure.
Middle Housing Requirements.
A city must allow at least six of the nine types of middle housing and may allow ADUs to
achieve the minimum density requirements. Middle housing is defined as buildings that are
House Bill Report-6 -E2SHB 1110
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. A city is
not required to allow ADUs or middle housing types beyond the density requirements.
A city subject to the density requirements is directed to include specific provisions related
to middle housing in their development regulations. Any city subject to the middle housing
requirements:
•may only apply administrative design review for middle housing;
•may not require standards for middle housing that are more restrictive than those
required for detached single-family residences;
•must apply to middle housing the same development permit and environmental
review processes that apply to detached single-family residences, unless otherwise
required by state law;
•is not required to achieve the per-unit density on lots after subdivision below 1,000
square feet unless the city chooses to enact smaller allowable lot sizes;
•must also allow zero lot line short subdivisions where the number of lots created is
equal to the unit density required;
•may not require off-street parking as a condition of permitting development of middle
housing within 0.5 miles walking distance of a major transit stop;
•may not require more than one off-street parking space per unit as a condition of
permitting development of middle housing on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet
before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits; and
•may not require more than two off-street parking spaces per unit as a condition of
permitting development of middle housing on lots greater than 6,000 square feet
before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits.
A SEPA categorical exemption is established for development regulations that remove
parking requirements for infill development. The limits on off-street parking requirements
do not apply if a city submits to Commerce an empirical study prepared by a credentialed
transportation or land use planning expert that clearly demonstrates, and Commerce
certifies, that parking limits for middle housing will be significantly less safe for vehicle
drivers or passengers, pedestrians, or bicyclists than if the jurisdiction's parking
requirements were applied to the same location for the same number of detached houses.
Commerce must develop guidance to assist cities on items to include in the study. The off-
street parking requirements also do not apply to any portion of a city within a 1-mile radius
of a commercial airport with at least 9 million annual enplanements.
A city may not approve a building permit if other federal, state, and local requirements for a
building permit are not met, including adequate water supply requirements. If an area
zoned for residential use is currently served only by private wells, group B water systems,
or group A water systems with less than 50 connections, or if a city or water providers
within the city do not have an adequate water supply or available connections to serve the
zoning increase, the city may limit the areas subject to the density requirements to match
House Bill Report-7 -E2SHB 1110
current water availability.
Development may be limited to two units per lot in an area served only by on-site sewage
systems until either the landowner or local government provides sewer service or
demonstrates a sewer system will serve the development at the time of construction.
A city meeting the density and middle housing requirements is not required to update its
capital facilities plan element to accommodate the increased housing until its first
comprehensive plan update required on or after June 30, 2034, unless Commerce grants a
timeline extension.
Department of Commerce.
Commerce must provide technical assistance to cities in implementing density and middle
housing requirements. Commerce must develop and publish model middle housing
ordinances within six months after this bill takes effect. The model ordinances supersede,
preempt, and invalidate local development regulations until the city takes action to adopt the
density and middle housing requirements.
Commerce must establish a process for cities to seek approval of alternative local actions to
meet density requirements and may approve actions for cities that have adopted the
following by January 1, 2023:
•a comprehensive plan, and have adopted, or within one year of the effective date
adopts, permanent development regulations that are substantially similar to the
density and missing middle requirements; or
•a comprehensive plan or development regulations that have significantly reduced or
eliminated residentially zoned areas that are predominantly single family.
Commerce must find as substantially similar plans and regulations that:
•result in an overall increase in housing units allowed in single-family zones that is at
least 75 percent of the increase in housing units allowed in single-family zones if the
density requirements were adopted;
•allow for middle housing throughout the city, rather than just in targeted locations;
and
•allow for additional density near major transit stops and in projects that incorporate
dedicated affordable housing.
If a city can clearly demonstrate that the regulations adopted will allow for a greater
increase in middle housing production within single family zones than would be allowed
through the density requirements, Commerce may determine that a comprehensive plan and
development regulations that do not meet these criteria are substantially similar. Any
alternative local actions approved by Commerce are exempt from appeals under the GMA
and SEPA.
Commerce may establish by rule any standards or procedures necessary to implement the
House Bill Report-8 -E2SHB 1110
density and middle housing requirements and issue guidance for local jurisdictions to
ensure that the levels of middle housing zoning can be integrated with the methods used by
cities to calculate zoning densities and intensities in local zoning and development
regulations.
Common Interest Communities.
Governing documents and declarations of CICs within cities subject to the density and
middle housing requirements that are created after this bill takes effect may not prohibit the
construction, development, or use of the additional housing units.
Bqqspqsjbujpo;None.
Gjtdbm!Opuf; Available.
Fggfdujwf!Ebuf;The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the
bill is passed. However, the bill is null and void unless funded in the budget.
Tubgg!Tvnnbsz!pg!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz!)Ipvtjoh*;
(In support) The housing shortage is creating a housing crisis. The state needs 1 million
new homes in the next 20 years, half of which need to be affordable at 30 to 50 percent of
area median income. Working families are being priced out of the housing market, and the
housing shortage is disproportionately impacting people of color. Homeownership for first
time homebuyers is only affordable in three counties. Students also need walkable housing
and communities. This bill will help us bring homeless people inside. There is no single
solution to the housing shortage, but it has to get easier to build new housing. Builders are
ready to build. Eliminating volunteer design review boards will help reduce the time it
takes to get a permit. This policy is the fastest and most scalable way to increase housing
production. Many people are better served by housing that is not single-family, but one
study found that middle housing is prohibited on 75 percent of city land. Some cities have
already implemented middle housing provisions, but every jurisdiction needs to do its part
to tackle the housing shortage. It is less costly for cities to accommodate growth in a
smaller, dense area. Even with growth management, cities are continuing to grow onto
some of the state's best farmland. Middle housing reduces vehicle miles travelled and
emissions.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) Cities are ready to support a bill with minimum density requirements and believe
density requirements should be centered on certain amenities, such as transit, parks, and
schools. The uniform application of requirements does not recognize the uniqueness of
each city. The parking requirements will create many issues. Even in Seattle, 81 percent of
households have cars. Some cities are trying to eliminate the number of cars on the road but
are not well-served by transit agencies. More people would just create more traffic. The
House Bill Report-9 -E2SHB 1110
bill needs some technical changes. Using the same environmental permitting process as
single-family housing will put cities out of compliance with shoreline permitting and
environmental regulations. Applying middle housing provisions to common interest
communities is unconstitutional, and they do not have the infrastructure to accommodate
middle housing.
Tubgg!Tvnnbsz!pg!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz!)Bqqspqsjbujpot*;
(In support) Washington has been underproducing housing for generations and the key
reason is because land use regulations severely limit the number and types of homes that
can be built. If we want to build more homes, we need to open up more land for more types
of housing. It is a statewide problem that requires a statewide solution. Access to quality
housing in close proximity to where people want to live and work, that is near parks and
schools, allows people to drive less is essential to everyone's quality of life. It is key to
fighting climate change, supporting the vulnerable, and building stronger local economies.
The statewide mandate for more housing options could not be clearer. On the surface this
bill is about housing, but in substance it is about empowering people to take root in our
communities and could enrich democracy in Washington. Those with disabilities who are
limited in their ability to find work in their local area would benefit from housing that is
close to light rail or bus rapid transit, which this bill could allow. This bill balances the
need of for-profit developers while also creating an affordability bonus. It will help ensure
everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home by not only building more houses in
more places, but also creating more homeowners.
A number of cities are seeing the need for a wider range of affordable housing and are
working to address those needs but would like to see all cities fully participate in addressing
this issue. The work required under this bill has been funded in the Governor's budget and
Commerce looks forward to working with cities and counties on increasing housing
choices. Instead of asking where we will find the money for the infrastructure, we must ask
where we are going to find the infrastructure for a million housing units that are needed
with or without this bill. A start would be to legalize the types of housing that require less
infrastructure per unit.
There has been a lot of work and ongoing conversation around middle housing over the last
few years. Some of those in support of the bill are appreciative of the changes that were
made in the prior committee and would prefer the version of the bill as it passed out of the
policy committee.
(Opposed) This bill would upzone areas that are miles away from the nearest bus service or
infrastructure system necessary to support it. This will cost millions of dollars and will
drive up the price of housing in already expensive areas. Planning at the local level is
critical because what works in one city may not work in another. The bill does not allow
for this kind of differentiation or application of local knowledge. Many cities are willing to
address the statewide housing shortage, but it needs to be in a way that makes sense to each
House Bill Report-10 -E2SHB 1110
city. Cities like Woodinville are accommodating growth by concentrating it around
services and areas with existing or planned infrastructure in a way that makes sense to that
city. Transportation options like light rail or bus rapid transit are often out of the city's
control and are very limited.
The bill makes no provision for low-income housing and is limited regarding affordable
housing. What may be considered affordable housing is not affordable for most,
particularly the homeless population. The bill eliminates climate protections and will
increase impervious surfaces, creating more heat islands. It would benefit a narrow
business interest at the expense of our environment and community. Many cities are
working on middle housing regulations that are appropriate for their neighborhoods and this
would be negated if the bill were to pass. Just as the State of Washington does not want the
federal government overriding the state on protections for abortion rights, the state should
not be overriding housing codes and regulations of local towns and cities. Cities under the
direction of the Growth Management Act should be exempt from the provisions of this bill.
(Other) This bill has moved too far from what came out of the prior committee and several
changes are needed, including a more nuanced approach to the parking limitations and
infrastructure concerns. There are also concerns around the amendments to add density
around all community amenities which should be revisited. There should be an amendment
to allow cities currently in the comprehensive plan update process to be eligible for the
substantially similar determination provision of the bill. Cities put years of work into their
comprehensive plan updates, including hours engaging with the public. Implementing the
goals of the bill through this process will be the most efficient way to accomplish the bill's
desired outcomes.
Allowing middle housing on all residential lots is likely to have unintended consequences
and unfunded impacts, particularly on lots that lack emergency access and existing or
planned infrastructure. This bill will require upgrades to water, sewer, and stormwater
infrastructure that could result in increases to utility fees. This could burden residents and
inhibit development where cities have been planning investments. The bill will likely apply
to 58 cities and could cost over $7 million in direct expenses and a potential for $6 million
in additional costs. It fails to provide the resources and tools needed to plan for and address
critical infrastructure needs and is not positioned to deliver the affordable housing that
Washington is calling for. Many cities are already adopting provisions to allow more
housing options and increase density around areas with significant transit-oriented
development investments.
Qfstpot!Uftujgzjoh!)Ipvtjoh*; (In support) Representative Jessica Bateman, prime
sponsor; Adán Mendoza-Sandoval, Associated Students of Central Washington University;
Dani Madrone, American Farmland Trust; Alex Hur, Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties; Jacob Vigdor; Brent Ludeman, Building Industry Association of
Washington; Dave Andersen and Joe Tovar, Washington Department of Commerce;
Michele Thomas, Washington Low Income Housing Alliance; Hugo Garcia; Mike Ennis,
House Bill Report-11 -E2SHB 1110
Association of Washington Business; Bryce Yadon, Futurewise; Leah Missik, Climate
Solutions; Jesse Piedfort, Sierra Club; Girmay Zahilay; Zack Zappone, City of Spokane;
Rachel Smith, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; Andrea Reay, Tacoma-Pierce
County Unity Chamber; Bill Clarke, Washington Realtors; Sophia Bowton-Meade; and
Kerri Woehler, Washington State Department of Transportation.
(Other) Carl Schroeder, Association of Washington Cities; Arne Woodard, City of Spokane
Valley; Jason Sullivan, City of Bonney Lake; and Dean Martin, Washington State Chapter
of Community Association Institute.
Qfstpot!Uftujgzjoh!)Bqqspqsjbujpot*; (In support) Joe Kunzler; Shaun Scott; Ryan
Donohue, Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King and Kittitas Counties; Josie Cummings,
Building Industry Association of Washington; Lyset Cadena, City of Burien; Mike Ennis,
Association of Washington Business; Matt Hutchins, American Institute of Architects
Washington Council; and Dave Andersen, Washington State Department of Commerce.
(Opposed) Brandon Buchanon and Mike Millman, City of Woodinville; Judy Bendich;
Jonelle Kemmerling; and Kathleen Russell.
(Other) Salim Nice, City of Mercer Island; Carl Schroeder, Association of Washington
Cities; Arne Woodard, City of Spokane Valley; Lacey Jane Wolfe, City of Bellevue; and
Dana Ralph, City of Kent.
Qfstpot!Tjhofe!Jo!Up!Uftujgz!Cvu!Opu!Uftujgzjoh!)Ipvtjoh*; More than 20 persons
signed in. Please see committee staff for information.
Qfstpot!Tjhofe!Jo!Up!Uftujgz!Cvu!Opu!Uftujgzjoh!)Bqqspqsjbujpot*;None.
House Bill Report-12 -E2SHB 1110
IPVTF!CJMM!SFQPSU
FIC!2448
Bt!Qbttfe!Mfhjtmbuvsf
Ujumf;An act relating to expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and
use of accessory dwelling units.
Csjfg!Eftdsjqujpo; Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of
accessory dwelling units.
Tqpotpst;Representatives Gregerson, Barkis, Berry, Christian, Duerr, Fitzgibbon, Taylor,
Ramel, Reeves, Simmons, Walen, Graham, Bateman, Reed, Lekanoff, Doglio, Tharinger,
Cortes, Macri and Stonier.
Csjfg!Ijtupsz;
Dpnnjuuff!Bdujwjuz;
Housing: 1/23/23, 2/2/23 \[DP\].
Gmpps!Bdujwjuz;
Passed House: 3/2/23, 81-15.
Senate Amended.
Passed Senate: 4/6/23, 39-7.
House Concurred.
Passed House: 4/14/23, 85-11.
Passed Legislature.
Csjfg!Tvnnbsz!pg!Fohspttfe!Cjmm
•Requires fully planning cities and counties to allow accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) in urban growth areas (UGAs).
•Prohibits certain ADU regulations within UGAs.
•Allows cities and counties to offer incentives for the development or
construction of ADUs within UGAs.
IPVTF!DPNNJUUFF!PO!IPVTJOH
Uijt!bobmztjt!xbt!qsfqbsfe!cz!opo.qbsujtbo!mfhjtmbujwf!tubgg!gps!uif!vtf!pg!mfhjtmbujwf
nfncfst!jo!uifjs!efmjcfsbujpot/!Uijt!bobmztjt!jt!opu!qbsu!pg!uif!mfhjtmbujpo!ops!epft!ju
dpotujuvuf!b!tubufnfou!pg!mfhjtmbujwf!joufou/
House Bill Report-1 -EHB 1337
Nbkpsjuz!Sfqpsu;!Do pass.Signed by 11 members:Representatives Peterson, Chair;
Alvarado, Vice Chair; Leavitt, Vice Chair; Klicker, Ranking Minority Member; Barkis,
Bateman, Chopp, Entenman, Low, Reed and Taylor.
Njopsjuz!Sfqpsu;!Without recommendation.Signed by 2 members:Representatives
Connors, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Hutchins.
Tubgg;Serena Dolly (786-7150).
Cbdlhspvoe;
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. 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. Comprehensive plans must be
reviewed and, if necessary, revised every ten years to ensure that it complies with the
GMA. When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider
various goals set forth in statute.
Each comprehensive plan must include a plan, scheme, or design for certain mandatory
elements, including a housing element. The housing element must ensure the vitality and
character of established residential neighborhoods and, among other requirements, consider
the role of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in meeting housing needs.
Accessory Dwelling Units.
An ADU is a residential living unit providing independent living facilities and permanent
provisions for sleeping, cooking, sanitation, and living on the same lot as a single-family
home, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit. An attached ADU is a dwelling
unit located within or attached to another housing unit. A detached ADU is separate and
detached from another housing unit.
House Bill Report-2 -EHB 1337
Cities with more than 20,000 people, counties with more than 125,000 people, and counties
that are required to plan under the Growth Management Act are required to incorporate in
their development and zoning regulations recommendations made by the then Department
of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, now the Department of Commerce, for
the development and placement of accessory apartments in 1993.
As of July 1, 2021, fully planning cities under the GMA may not require the provision of
off-street parking for ADUs within a quarter mile of a major transit stop, such as a high-
capacity transportation system stop, a rail stop, or certain bus stops, unless the city
determines that on-street parking is infeasible for the ADU.
Tvnnbsz!pg!Fohspttfe!Cjmm;
Beginning six months after its next periodic comprehensive plan update, a fully planning
city or county must ensure local development regulations allow for the construction of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within urban growth areas (UGAs) and comply with the
following policies:
•not assessing impact fees on the construction of ADUs that are greater than 50
percent of the impact fees that would be imposed on the principal unit;
•not requiring the owner of a lot on which there is an ADU to reside in or occupy the
ADU or another housing unit on the same lot;
•allowing at least two ADUs on all lots that allow for single-family homes within a
UGA in the following configurations: one attached ADU and one detached ADU,
two attached ADUs, or two detached ADUs, which may be comprised of either one or
two detached structures;
•permitting ADUs in structures detached from the principal unit;
•allowing an ADU on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for the
principal unit;
•not establishing a maximum gross floor area requirement for ADUs that is less than
1,000 square feet;
•not establishing roof height limits on an ADU of less than 24 feet, unless the height
limit on the principal unit is less than 24 feet;
•not imposing setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates,
restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design
review for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for principal units;
•allowing detached ADUs to be sited at a lot line if the lot line abuts a public alley,
unless the city or county routinely plows snow on the public alley;
•allowing ADUs to be converted from existing structures, including detached garages;
•not prohibiting the sale of a condominium unit independently of a principal unit
solely on the grounds that the condominium unit was originally built as an ADU; and
•not requiring public street improvements as a condition of permitting ADUs.
A city or county may impose a limit of two accessory dwelling units, in addition to the
House Bill Report-3 -EHB 1337
principal unit, on a residential lot of 2000 square feet or less. A city or county may not
authorize the construction of an ADU in a location where development is restricted under
other laws, rules, or ordinances as a result of physical proximity to on-site sewage system
infrastructure, critical areas, or other unsuitable physical characteristics of a property.
In addition, a city or county may not:
•require off-street parking as a condition of permitting development of ADUs within
0.5 miles walking distance of a major transit stop;
•require more than one off-street parking space per unit as a condition of permitting
development of ADUs on lots smaller than 6000 square feet before any zero lot line
subdivisions or lot splits; and
•require more than two off-street parking spaces per unit as a condition of permitting
development of ADUs on lots greater than 6000 square feet before any zero lot line
subdivisions or lot splits.
The provisions for off-street parking do not apply:
•if a local government submits to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) an
empirical study prepared by a credentialed transportation or land use planning expert
that clearly demonstrates, and Commerce finds and certifies, that the application of
the established parking limitations for ADUs will be significantly less safe for vehicle
drivers or passengers, pedestrians, or bicyclists than if the local government's parking
requirements were applied to the same location for the same number of detached
houses. Commerce must develop guidance to assist cities and counties on items to
include in the study; or
•to portions of cities within a 1-mile radius of a commercial airport in Washington
with at least 9 million annual enplanements.
The requirements do not apply to lots designated with critical areas or their buffers, or to a
watershed serving as a reservoir for potable water if that watershed is or was listed as
impaired or threatened under the United States Clean Water Act.
Cities and counties may apply certain regulations to ADUs, including:
•generally applicable development regulations;
•public health, safety, building code, and environmental permitting requirements that
would be applicable to the principal unit, including regulations to protect ground and
surface waters from on-site wastewater;
•a prohibition on the construction of ADUs that are not connected to or served by
public sewers;
•a prohibition or restriction on the construction of ADUs in residential zones with a
density of one dwelling unit per acre or less that are within areas designated as
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, flood plains, or geologically hazardous areas; and
•restrictions on the use of ADUs for short-term rentals.
In addition, a city or county may waive or defer fees, including impact fees, defer the
House Bill Report-4 -EHB 1337
payment of taxes, or waive specific regulations. A city or county may only offer such
incentives for the development or construction of ADUs if the units are located within a
UGA and subject to a locally adopted program with effective binding commitments or
covenants that the units will be primarily utilized for long-term housing
Any conflicting provisions in local development regulations after the deadline are
superseded, preempted, and invalidated. Actions taken to adopt these regulations within a
UGA may not be challenged under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or the State
Environmental Policy Act. Attached or detached ADUs may not be considered as
contributing to the overall underlying density within a UGA boundary of a county for
purposes of the GMA.
Declarations or governing documents governing condominiums, homeowners' associations,
and common interest communities created after the effective date of the act may not
prohibit the construction, development, or use of an ADU within a UGA unless such
declarations or governing documents were created to protect public health and safety or to
protect ground and surface waters from on-site wastewater. A city or county that issues a
permit for the construction of an ADU may not be held civilly liable on the basis that the
construction would violate the restrictive covenant or deed restriction created after the
effective date of the act.
By December 31, 2023, Commerce must revise its recommendations for encouraging ADUs
to include the provisions in this act, and during each required comprehensive plan review,
Commerce must review local government comprehensive plans and development
regulations for compliance with the recommendations. The provisions requiring cities and
counties to incorporate in their regulations the recommendations made by the then
Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development for accessory dwelling
apartments are repealed.
Bqqspqsjbujpo;None.
Gjtdbm!Opuf; Available.
Fggfdujwf!Ebuf;The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the
bill is passed.
Tubgg!Tvnnbsz!pg!Qvcmjd!Uftujnpoz;
(In support) The state needs as many tools as possible to address our ongoing housing
crisis. The accessory dwelling units (ADUs) provide results. They are a proven strategy to
add housing units, and there is no better way to increase housing supply quickly. The
ADUs are necessary, reasonably-priced housing. Because ADUs are smaller than other
homes, they offer affordable housing opportunities. The ADUs also provide opportunities
for extended families to live together. The ADUs can be used to house elderly family
House Bill Report-5 -EHB 1337
members or for caregivers to assist seniors who stay in their own homes. Washington is far
behind what other states are doing. California eliminated parking owner occupancy, lot
size, and impact fee requirements with strong results. Statewide rules are desperately
needed for consistency, instead of the patchwork of local laws that developers have to
navigate now. Developers and homeowners face too many obstacles when building ADUs,
and this bill remove the most significant barriers.
(Opposed) Counties are the least financially diversified government in the state and are very
heavily property tax dependent. Counties cannot take on any more responsibilities with
current funding, and this bill would require a costly update to land use regulations. The
prescriptive requirements take away local government authority to make land use
decisions. Impact fees should not be reduced for ADUs because impact fees are not based
on the size of a building.
(Other) The bill needs some technical fixes related to urban growth areas and allowing
hearings under the Growth Management Act.
Qfstpot!Uftujgzjoh; (In support) Representative Mia Gregerson, prime sponsor; Cynthia
Stewart, League of Women Voters of Washington; Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute; Troy
Schmeil, Sapphire Homes Incorporated; Samar Jha, American Association of Retired
Persons; Scott Bonjukian; Ryan Donohue, Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King and Kittitas
Counties; Dani Madrone, American Farmland Trust; Angela Rozmyn, Natural and Built
Environments; Graham Brown, MyKabin Limited Liability Company; and Matt Hutchins.
(Opposed) Paul Jewell, Washington State Association of Counties; and Carl Schroeder,
Association of Washington Cities.
(Other) Bryce Yadon, Futurewise.
Qfstpot!Tjhofe!Jo!Up!Uftujgz!Cvu!Opu!Uftujgzjoh;None.
House Bill Report-6 -EHB 1337