As expected, Governor Inslee has requested a bill intended to promote missing middle housing types both near transit and throughout single-family neighborhoods. Sen. Mona Das (D–Renton) and Rep. Jessica Bateman (D–Olympia) have introduced the bill in each chamber. Unfortunately, this proposal moves away from the recent trend of collaborative and incentive-based approaches to city zoning decisions in favor of a preemptive, prescriptive, and top-down standard. AWC believes the proposed one-size-fits-all mandate to residential zoning in the state is misguided and will not achieve greater housing access or affordability in our communities. Worse, it will divert attention and resources from what will—locally tailored solutions and greater investment to build more housing.

There have been discussions over the last many years in the Legislature about how to increase the state’s housing supply and to make it more diverse and affordable. Cities share these goals. More than 148 cities allow missing middle housing types in their single-family zones, with many allowing it across the entire residential area. Still more have amendments to zoning and development standards underway. In many cases those local processes are state funded to receive input and be honed to address specific, local realities. While we share the Governor's goals, solving our housing challenges is more complicated than what a blanket zoning policy can fix. Experience has shown that merely creating new development authority through rezones does not mean that the market will deliver that needed housing. And it certainly does not ensure any degree of affordability.

AWC is starting from a position of opposing preemption and supporting more collaborative approaches to incentivize these sorts of actions. However, we expect there will be great interest in finding compromise on a bill that cities can live with that advance the goals of the legislation. We need your feedback on this proposal—especially regarding those elements you can support and how areas you do not support conflict with your community goals, adopted policies, or ongoing work. AWC will actively engage and look for that compromise—one that we believe will result in more housing being built—because cities share the underlying goals of this proposal to make housing more abundant, diverse, and attainable for all residents of the state.

We need your feedback on this proposal—especially regarding those elements you can support and how areas you do not support conflict with your community goals, adopted policies, or ongoing work.

In summary, the companion bills, HB 1782 and SB 5670, would:

Zoning for missing middle housing

• Require cities over 20,000 to allow “missing middle housing types” on every parcel zoned for detached single-family residential development when that parcel is within a half mile of a major transit stop (light rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit, regular bus stops on lines operating at least every fifteen minutes for five hours a weekday, and state ferry terminals).
  • Missing middle housing types are defined as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, townhouses, and courtyard apartments with up to six units.
  • As part of this work, cities are required to undertake anti-displacement work that passed in 2021 but was not funded (HB 1220, codified at RCW 36.70A.070(2)(e)-(h)). This law requires ensuring housing policies do not exacerbate racially disparate impacts and displacement. The bill requires cities conclude this work within nine months of the effective date of the bill in transit areas.
• Cities over 20,000 must also allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all other lots that allow single family residential uses.
  • As an alternative, cities may adopt a minimum density across the city's entire urban growth area, as follows:
    • Cities over 500,000: an equivalent of 40 units or more per gross acre
    • Cities between 100,000 and 500,000: an equivalent of 30 units or more per gross acre
    • Cities between 20,000 and 100,000: an equivalent of 25 units or more per gross acre
  • Cities who opt for the minimum density approach must adopt findings that such an approach will not exacerbate racially disparate impacts, displacement, or further exclusion in housing.
• Cities with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 must allow duplexes on all residential parcels allowing detached single-family homes.

Development standards

In addition to specifying blanket zoning standards, the bill requires other prescriptive development standards for missing middle housing:

• Must not discourage development through unreasonable costs, delays, fees, or other requirements that individually or cumulatively make missing middle housing impracticable.
• Must not require standards that are more strict than single family homes.
• Must have identical permit fees and environmental review process as apply to single family homes.
• Must not require off-street parking for any missing middle housing within a half mile of a major transit stop.
• Must not require more than one off-street parking for any lot smaller than 6,000 feet, and no more than two on lots larger than 6,000 feet.

Technical assistance

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is directed to develop a missing middle housing code no later than 18 months after the effective date of the bill. The model code will apply in cities that have not met statutory deadlines to amend codes consistent with the bill. In many cases, the “deadline” is the effective date of the bill.

Safe harbor

Actions taken to comply with this bill are not subject to legal appeal under the Growth Management Act or the State Environmental Policy Act.

Infrastructure

Cities may apply to Commerce for an extension of the timelines in this bill; however, that extension may only be applied to specific areas where a city:

1. Has identified water, sewer, stormwater, or transportation services that are currently deficient, or
2. Are expected to be deficient within the next five years, and
3. For which the local government has established a plan of action that will remedy the deficiency in those services on a specific timeline.

As of publication deadline, neither bill is scheduled for a hearing – so make sure to stay tuned!