Washington lawmakers look for ways to build more housing in rural areas

Photo by D. Goug.

Building more housing in rural parts of Washington is again top of mind for some state lawmakers.

Bills to allow backyard cottages in new areas, to expand where developers can receive tax breaks for building apartments and to let property owners split their plots are all making their way through the legislative process.

Similar proposals came up last year, but many failed, sparking criticism from Republicans who said the Democratic majority was not doing enough to expand rural housing.

This year, bipartisan support and early public hearings could signal an opening for getting the proposals across the finish line before the legislative session ends in April.

Expanding ADUs

One bill from Rep. Sam Low, R-Lake Stevens, would allow counties to approve detached accessory dwelling units, like backyard cottages or mother-in-law suites, in areas outside of cities. The proposal is cosponsored by House Housing Chair Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds.

Under the bill, owners could have one additional detached unit on their property. It must use the same driveway and sewage system as the primary home. Water usage must be metered and cannot exceed the limits under current law when combined with the usage of the main property. The detached units could not be bigger than 1,296 square feet, excluding garages, porches and unfinished basements.

The proposal would also require counties to penalize those who build these units without proper permitting and to keep track of all the units built outside of their urban areas.

A similar idea last year got pushback from Democrats and groups like Futurewise, who warned of suburban sprawl in areas that lack transit, public sewer systems, firefighting services and other resources.

Supporters of the bill reject that argument.

“This is not about destroying the environment. This is not about blowing up the GMA,” Low said, referring to the state’s Growth Management Act, which is designed to concentrate development in urban areas and to preserve open space, among other goals. “This is truly about having more affordable housing options for our young people, for our seniors.”

Senate Housing Committee Chair Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia, said there will be a similar bill in the Senate and that supporters will continue to work on concerns around sprawl.

Low’s proposal will receive a public hearing in the House Housing Committee on Monday.

Third time’s a charm?

Another proposal that has support this year would allow property owners to split their lots into smaller parcels.

The lot-splitting bill has passed the House multiple times in recent years but has yet to clear the Senate.

Sponsor Andrew Barkis, R-Olympia, is hopeful this is the year. He told the House Housing Committee last week that there has been a lot of work done since the last session to address opponents’ concerns, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the lots are developable after they are redesigned.

The bill would prevent cities from denying applications to split lots into two. Both lots must be at least 1,000 square feet and must follow local zoning laws. The split could not result in the demolition of any existing housing that has rent restrictions.

“We’ve worked on a lot of policy with regards to increasing supply and the ability to build within the confines of an urban growth area,” Barkis said. “This is a bill that is integral and important to that process.”

Bateman said the bill would be particularly helpful in increasing homeownership opportunities for duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes. Being able to split those lots could bring down the costs significantly for people who want to own a unit in those buildings, she said.

“This is the third year this bill is introduced, and this is going to be the year that we’re going to pass it,” she said.

The proposal received a committee hearing in the House during the first week of the session. It had support from builders, realtors and housing developers who said it was essential to increasing the number of homes in many areas. It is scheduled for a committee vote on Monday.

Incentives to build

There’s also a bill to expand tax breaks developers get for building multi-family housing.

Washington’s Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption exempts developers from paying taxes on the construction, conversion or rehabilitation of residential property for eight years. The exemption can be extended to 12 years, if at least 20% of the units are affordable.

Currently, only five of the state’s more heavily populated counties are allowed to offer the exemption.

A proposal from Low would expand the exemption to all counties that complete comprehensive plans under the Growth Management Act. That would include 28 counties.

In a public hearing last week, the idea drew support from counties and developers who said the exemption could help get more housing up quickly.

“This is a tool that works,” said Anthony Hemstad, who represented Washington Housing Development, LLC. “If you pass this, it will open areas and more housing truly will be built.”

Bryce Yadon at Futurewise said the organization supports the reasoning behind the bill but had concerns about development in parts of the state that lack infrastructure like roads and transit.

“We don’t want to incentivize the development of more areas that don’t have those amenities if we can,” Yadon said.

– By Laurel Demkovich, Washington State Standard

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence.

  1. I hate to ask a stupid question…where are all these people coming from? Since Covid it appears that Seattle area has been bombarded with whom? I realize there are many countries moving in and around. India and Asian countries. But do we want to be packed in? Who is hiring all these newcomers? What company brought them in? Are they temporary?

    1. It is not Washington. It is the Puget sound region. A combination of big tech, California price migration, and just normal population growth from child births has pushed explosive population and economic growth for the region. The housing supply has failed to keep up as it has in most of the nation. And considering the climate related migration will push people further north, western Washington will continue to attack massive amounts of future residents. This is great for our economy.

  2. These legislators should take a break from tweaking and expansion of the housing bills and give the towns like Edmonds some time to fine tune all of the new zoning from last years bills. By the time we adopt new codes for all of last years changes, the lot splitting bill will come along and require everything to change again.

    Personally I think the lot splitting bill would be a disaster if applied with a broad brush over all of Edmonds….including all the neighborhoods with no sidewalks, worn out pavement and nonexistent stormwater drainage controls.

    1. Edmonds had two whole years to make zoning reforms in compliance with two year old bills. At what point does the excuse of needing more time become just refusal to comply? These new bills are the result of towns continuing to drag their feet. Maybe the message isn’t sticking in yet: the bills will continue until zoning reform takes place and housing supply increases. Edmonds is smacked in the middle of an Urban growth zone in one of the fastest growing regions in the world. That’s just how it is.

  3. “Edmonds is smacked in the middle of an Urban growth zone in one of the fastest growing regions in the world. That’s just how it is.”

    Mr. Ventresca, the above statement of yours is totally untrue. The population of Edmonds has grown by only 8% since the year 2000.

    1. Hi Ron, I agree with you that Edmonds’ internal growth since 2000 is ~8%. (Excluding annexations, Edmonds has only grown ~10% since 1990.) That being said, Paul’s points about the dynamics of the Puget Sound metro area are also validated by Census/BEA data. (One recent headline, and there are many more from the last two decades: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2024/12/10/gdp-growth-seattle-metro-2023.)

      Whether you are looking at GDP or population growth, the Puget Sound is one of the fastest-growing regions among countries similar in economic output to the US. The relative non-construction of new homes in Edmonds over the last several decades is not evidence of a lack of demand for homes here —it is the result of deliberate zoning policies designed to restrict Edmonds’ ability to accommodate demand for homes.

      Growth that is happening (and has happened) in Seattle, Everett, and other parts of the Puget Sound would be happening (or have happened) in Edmonds if there weren’t policy barriers stopping it. Edmonds’ elected leaders decided in the early 1970s (and have maintained) that it is in their best interests to stop Edmonds from growing organically, which prevented us from naturally participating in that regional growth in a more substantial way. I find it most helpful to interpret this dynamic in the actual words of those leaders – this article is the most relevant I’ve found: https://cl0ud.mackeyguenther.com/s/Bkd9WnWo6ErycNA

  4. Transportation infrastructure is not ready and probably never will be ready to accommodate the kind of growth that developers and others encourage and stand to profit from. Interstates and local highways like 2, 9, and 522 already suffer from serious gridlock. Ticky tacky developments are spreading throughout rural King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. How many more people can be crammed into a finite space without serious harm to the quality of life? Just once I’d like to see a legislator or county or state executive discuss the matter of unsustainable population growth.

  5. Decades ago the Growth Management Act was passed to stop rampant housing growth into Snohomish and Skagit County farm and forest lands as had already occurred in KIng County’s agricultural areas. Now we’ve reached the point of trying to pass legislation that basically counteracts some of that legislation. What we really have is a problem of just too many people trying to live comfortably in too small a space and no amount of legislation of any kind is going to solve it. Ecologically speaking, we know that populations of anything that become too successful at procreation (and the elimination of natural enemies) eventually become unhealthy as a result of disease and lack of enough resources to meet the needs of every individual member of the biological group; and then the species dies off at least until some balance in rational numbers of individuals comes back into being. That’s natural science that lot’s of folks just choose not to believe in, but in the end mother nature and natural science rule the world we all live and eventually die in. We all worry too much about things we really don’t have much control over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.