This morning, Washington House Representatives Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac) and Andrew Barkis (R-Olympia) introduced the most progressive accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bill legislators from any state have ever had the opportunity to vote on. For Washington cities of 2,500 people or more, and within urban growth areas, the bill would:
- Permit two ADUs per lot wherever there is a single-family home, duplex, triplex, or townhome
- Eliminate off-street parking, owner-occupancy, and minimum lot size requirements
- Cap impact fees at 50 percent of those for single-family homes
- Set utility connection fees and capacity charges in proportion to the ADU’s burden on the utility system
- Increase design flexibility via more generous setback, height, and size limits
Though legislators in California and Oregon have updated their state’s ADU policies over the last three years, neither state has passed reform as comprehensive and impactful as this could be. What’s more, the bill has strong bipartisan support, reinforcing that Washingtonians of all stripes are eager for this common sense housing type.
In 1993, Washington re-legalized ADUs—including basement apartments, backyard cottages, and mother-in-law suites—in the state’s largest cities. The rule change, however, didn’t prevent cities from enacting piles of restrictions and fees that can deter homeowners from constructing these small homes. And many cities did just that—perhaps unintentionally, or perhaps goaded by small but well-resourced neighborhood groups. Over the past 25 years onerous regulatory barriers have kept ADU construction to a crawl in most of the state’s cities. Even in Seattle only about two percent of the lots in the city’s single-family zones have an ADU.
The lack of ADUs in Washington belies residents’ desire for them. Washington cities that have cut red tape have seen ADU permit applications spike. Take Bellingham, for example. In 2018 the city legalized backyard cottages and reduced off-street parking requirements and impact fees. Within six months, the city saw more than three times as many ADU permit applications than in previous years.
Likewise, California’s largest cities have seen tremendous growth in ADU permit applications since the legislature passed its major ADU reform bill in 2016, which eased the permitting processes for one ADU on lots with single-family homes, reduced off-street parking requirements, and lifted several other key barriers to ADU construction. Portland has also witnessed tremendous growth in annual ADU permit applications since lifting several construction restrictions. In particular, the city saw a nearly four fold increase in permit applications after waiving system development charges on ADUs in 2010.
Rep. Gregerson’s bill is designed to help catalyze a similar boost in housing choices throughout Washington by making it easier for homeowners to build ADUs.
Some of the proposals may evolve in response to feedback from stakeholders as the bill makes its way toward the Governor’s desk. But as it stands now, the bill is a model for ADU reform. If legislators can pass it more or less in its current form, it will give homeowners all the flexibility they deserve to build ADUs if they so choose. And it will set a new bar in Cascadia and beyond for state-level action to increase housing options.
BK
This is great news…this appears to fix a major shortcoming of Seattle’s proposed ADU rules, minimum lot sizes. We’re on a small lot and our neighbor is on one that’s even smaller but that’s completely irrelevant to how the existing structure is divided (or not) internally. (And, of course, the less expensive urvan land attached to homes the more affordable they’ll be.)
Stephen Russak
This ADU progressive bill is a brilliant and much needed adjunct for families with modest incomes. But I do wonder if the architectural idea of “tiny homes” would qualify under this proposal? Could I get a response to the “tiny home” inclusion?
russak.steve@gmail.com Thank you.
Margaret Morales
Hi Stephen, right now nothing in the bill excludes tiny homes from counting as ADUs. But we’d like to go a step farther. There are three bills in the WA Senate right now about specifically legalizing tiny homes as ADUs – SB 5382, 5383, 8384. We’re tracking them all and very supportive.
Donna Cohen
Could you comment on how this compares with Oregon’s ADU guidelines? Thanks.
Margaret Morales
Hi Donna,
Oregon’s ADU reform, which took effect in July of 2018, was much less sweeping than what we’re proposing in WA. Senate bill 1051 legalized ADUs in single-family zones in over 40 percent of the state’s cities—all those with a population of 2,500 or more—plus counties with 15k people or more. But beyond this, it did little to protect homeowners from locally imposed obstacles that erode their ability to actually build the units on the ground. It’s only been seven months since Oregon’s law took effect though, making it too soon to measure its impact on construction permit application numbers.
Paul Conte
@Donna Cohen
Here are the “core” provisions of the statute:
“ORS 197.312. (5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas within the urban growth boundary that are zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.
(b) As used in this subsection “Accessory dwelling unit” means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling.”
To any of who have experience and expertise in writing code, this was unfortunately the work of unqualified author(s), as follows:
* “zoned for detached single-family dwellings” is wholly ambiguous because “for” could mean “with an explicit purpose for” or “to allow by right” or “allows in any manner.” This ambiguity has huge ramifications.
* “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design” is just as bad. What is the standard for “reasonable”? What are the scopes of “siting” and “design.”
* “used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling” is also impossible for impacted cities and counties to apply.
For folks who enjoy irony, SB 1051 also dictated that all housing must have at least one “path” to approval with completely “clear and objective” approval criteria. Yet, the examples above don’t even meet that standard. And, any experienced planner or developer knows that there are some critical issues that cannot ever meet the C&O standard. For example, geological criteria are typically the subject of competing “expert” opinions, but rarely completely “objective,” such as a criteria such as “minimum lot size.”
And, if you’ve tracked quasi-judicial decisions re “clear and objective,” you’ll know that LUBA has ruled that trumps (an apt term in this case) Willamette Greenway Permit approval criteria (for housing) and other Statewide Planning Goals.
HB 2001 is worse, but I won’t delve into that here, as I’ve covered it in comments on previous blog entries. You can read an in-depth analysis at:
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/indepthanalysishb2001.pdf
Donna Cohen
Thank you for all the info!!
Octavius Vanzandt
Fantastic news!
Chuck Sundsmo
Wow! They can do it … Bipartisan cooperation to actually benefit people? Good on ya!
Paul Conte
The elephant in the room is that forced upzoning of zones that aren’t currently multi-unit (aka “multi-family”) to multi-unit will not have any impact on current wealthy areas that have restrictive CC&Rs. In addition, the measure would inevitably prompt developers of new “single-family” subdivisions to record restrictive CC&Rs. The well-off “elite” will do just fine, thank you very much.
The upzoning to multi-family would substantially increase the value (and cost) of land in the unprotected, formerly lower-intensity neighborhoods, which will incentivize demolition of the more affordable homes. In addition, the measure would increase the cost and present an unacceptable risk to lower-income households buying a home in the target areas. Where will low-income families with young children who desire a modest, single-family home on a small lot go? Who cares?
Not the developers for whom this is an incredible gift of the “community commons” that are being robbed from less wealthy households.
Please read the essay by two long-standing proponents of well-planned increases in density.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/all-of-seattles-neighborhoods-deserve-a-say-in-upzoning-upheaval/
Then please read the following exceptional essay on the ethical issues of rezoning wide swaths of single-family neighborhoods: “Zoning and the Neighborhood Commons” and give some thought to the ethics of this proposed bill.
https://trusttheneighbors.org/residential-zoning/
Eric
“The upzoning to multi-family would substantially increase the value (and cost) of land in the unprotected, formerly lower-intensity neighborhoods, which will incentivize demolition of the more affordable homes”
Seattle’s EIS on its very similar proposal about relaxing restrictions on ADUs actually shows the opposite. It predicts that the rate of teardowns would decrease compared to the status quo, as there will be many lots where retaining the existing (relatively affordable) house and adding a cottage out back would be a more lucrative option than razing the existing house to build a very large one.
Paul Conte
@Eric
You cite a study re ADUs. That’s entirely irrelevant to upzoning to allow “multi-family,” i.e., triplexes and quadplexes. I agree that allowing the addition of one small cottage is not an incentive to teardowns.
Greg San Martin
In California AB 68 was recently introduced. It too is ambitious.
AB 68 would further streamline the ADU building process by:
– Requiring permits to be issued in 60 days, rather than the 120 days in existing law;
– Prohibiting a local ordinance that applies lot coverage, lot size, or floor area ratio requirements to ADUs;
– Eliminating the requirement that off-street parking spaces be replaced if a garage is converted to an ADU;
– Specifying that local agencies requiring Owner-Occupancy for the primary unit must exempt trust and non-profit “owners” providing for lower income, senior, or disabled residents;
– Prohibiting local agencies from requiring that existing zoning nonconforming conditions be corrected as part of the ministerial approval process; and
– Prohibiting ministerially-approved ADUs from being used as short-term rentals.
– Allowing ministerial approval for:
– Both a JADU and an ADU within an existing space
– An ADU that is new construction of up to 800 sq. ft. and no taller than 16 ft.
– ADUs in multi-family building areas not currently used as livable space
Paul Conte
@Greg San Martin
Disclaimer: I support ADUs that are truly “accessory” units. I also support “second dwellings” other than as an “accessory” when required to be “affordable.”
It seems to me that prohibiting lot size minimums is counter productive. First, I assume this means prohibiting that the minimum for a house+ADU be some size greater than just a single-family, detached house. In Eugene’s “Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone, which the residents and owners themselves crafted, we intentionally allow lot partitions that create “small lots,” including new lots accessible only from an alley. However, for a variety of substantive reasons (including an aging infrastructure and that alleys are unpaved, narrow and often obstructed, we limited such lots to one unit. Also, for what should be obvious reasons, any dwelling that has its primary vehicle access from an alley must provide an on-site parking space.
So, if such lots were now required to allow an ADU, these small lots would not longer be viable, and we’d advise the City Council to remove those special provisions. The effect would be to remove one of the best ways to make small home and lot ownership more affordable to workforce households.
Maximum lot coverage when an ADU is added is also problematic, especially of accompanied by prohibiting reasonable setbacks. Our neighborhood is a central, close-in, “grid-patterened” neighborhood with a mix of lot sizes, which combined support large trees and other vegetation on yards. You can see the difference from aerial views — an almost continuous leaf canopy, with roofs spotting the canopy. This is a huge benefit in minimizing the “heat island” effect. (In a recent analysis, Portland was one of the worst cities for its heat island.) This again, is something you can feel when you walk this neighborhood (as people working downtown do) because it is significantly cooler than the both the downtown and the strip development immediately outside our neighborhood to the west.
I would be interested in any state or locality that has taken a deeper look at the implications of upzoning older neighborhoods.
Todd Boyle
Much of Jefferson Westside is basically downtown and it’s not surprising that single-family property owners shaped their development in the direction of small single-story infill, considering the alternatives.
Meanwhile I live in another neighborhood of Eugene on a property 6900 square feet, as a single, retired guy. There are four different bus lines within 200 feet, but I’m not allowed to build an ADU because I don’t have 7000 square feet. This is what Neighborhood Associations do. They block solutions to the housing shortage. Eugene has 44,000 R1 lots and there have been 2 ADUs permitted per year in recent years. You’re more likely to die of whooping cough (5 per 100,000).
Paul Conte
@Todd Boyle
None of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) is in downtown, “basically” or otherwise. The S-JW zone allows two-story residential structures, including ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and multi-family (apartments) at medium-density.
I can assure you Todd Boyle doesn’t have a clue about the community process we conducted and the how and why of the S-JW standards.
Eugene’s “single-family” zone (R-1) generally requires a minimum 6,100 s.f. lot for an ADU, and that number is based on the comprehensive plan’s “Low Density Residential” designation’s maximum density of 14.28 dwelling units per net acre. In most places and literature, this density would be considered at the boundary or within “medium density” rsange of residential development.
The City Council approved several temporary requirements for ADUs in three neighborhoods immediately surrounding the University of Oregon, including a minimum lot size of 7,500 s.f. for an ADU. Anyone who actually understands the history and plans would know that these neighborhoods have been hammered by jammed in student rentals, and that Council adopted several more stringent regulations, temporarily until the univesity neighborhoods can go through an area planning process as the JWN did on its own.
I know these neighborhoods’ leaders very well, and they all believe that standards such as we JWN neighbors created would work well (with a few tweaks) in the areas of their neighborhoods that have a similar “grid-patterned” neighborhood. Once that planning process produces appropriate code, the ADU requirements will almost certainly be relaxed.
Blake
I’m happy for this bill considering the housing shortage here in Spokane, WA. However, I do not agree with eliminating the owner-occupancy restriction. This only benefits real estate landlords. In fact, an investor bought a house next to mine just recently and remodeled into a duplex even though it’s zoned single family. The applied for ADU permit and got it even though they’ve never even lived in the house. Now they rent out both units (one is under the table) and are in violation of the code. Parking is already bad on my street and now this has made it worse. If this passes then this investor will no longer be out of compliance. This is not okay for all these investors who have already been unethical in going around the system anway.