Three recent laws made changes to how cities may regulate the location and occupancy of specific types of housing.

Starting July 25, “a city shall not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed.” That language comes directly from HB 1220, which passed during the recent legislative session.

Furthermore, by September 30, cities must allow indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in zones in which hotels are allowed. An exception is provided for cities that have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and housing in most zones within one mile of transit. Another way to interpret this is that cities have two options to comply with the new law on emergency housing/shelter siting.

Cities can still impose ordinances on reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements on the housing types listed above, to protect public health and safety. However, such ordinances cannot prevent the siting of a sufficient number of these housing and shelter types necessary to accommodate each city's projected need under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii).

Also passed this year and going into effect July 25, SB 5235 restricts occupancy requirements of unrelated persons:

Except for occupant limits on group living arrangements regulated under state law or on short-term rentals as defined in RCW 64.37.010 18 and any lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or generally applicable health and safety provisions as established by applicable building code or county ordinance, a city may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit.

And while you are digging into your zoning ordinances and development regulations, AWC recommends that you double-check that your ordinance on adult family homes allows up to eight (previously six) adults, if the additional capacity is approved by the Department of Health and Social Services (DSHS). That change was made in the 2020 session (HB 1023); yet, according to DSHS, most cities they have contacted during a facility approval process have a conflicting code.