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. Fully 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. When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider various goals set forth in statute. Fully planning counties and cities must review and, if necessary, revise their comprehensive plans every 10 years to ensure they comply with the GMA.
A mobile dwelling is a tiny house on wheels or a type of vehicle primarily designed for recreational camping or travel use that either has its own motor or is mounted on or towed by another vehicle; this includes: travel trailers, fifth-wheel trailers, folding camping trailers, truck campers, and motor homes.
A fully planning city or county must allow at least one mobile dwelling on each lot zoned for residential use if the following conditions are met:
The mobile dwelling must be connected to electrical service through a dedicated outlet. If a mobile dwelling has internal plumbing, it must be connected to potable water and sanitary sewer services. If a mobile dwelling does not have internal plumbing, the occupants must have access to potable water, toilets, and showers in an existing housing unit on the lot.
Cities and counties must use standard permitting and inspection procedures for new utility hookups for mobile dwellings, including electric, water, and sewer cleanouts. Cities and counties may not require inspection of the mobile dwelling itself.
A common interest community may not enact any new restrictions that would prohibit at least one mobile dwelling on each residential lot.
The substitute bill (SHB) changes the term "home on wheels" to "mobile dwelling" and clarifies that a mobile dwelling includes a tiny house on wheels. The SHB removes language related to a city or county determining that a housing development cannot be adequately served by water, sewer, stormwater, and transportation systems. The SHB requires cities and counties to use standard permitting and inspection procedures for new utility hookups for mobile dwellings, including electric, water, and sewer, and specifies that any water connections to the mobile dwelling must be certified for potable use. The SHB allows a city or county to prohibit mobile dwellings in designated critical areas, natural resource lands, or shorelines of the state.
(In support) The state has been working on building housing supply in areas where people already live. Mobile dwellings create immediate and extremely affordable housing. They do not change the neighborhood characteristics. People are already living in mobile dwellings in neighborhoods, and this just ensures standards are in place. It is legal to live in a recreational vehicle (RV) in an RV park. It is also legal to live in your RV on your own lot. This bill combines those two things. The City of Portland has already enacted this policy. There has been no negative news coverage. There have been no major complaints. It just has not created a lot of issues. People who live in mobile dwellings sometimes have nowhere else to live. This is a type of housing that may allow people with disabilities to live independently. It can provide affordable and dignified housing for the homeless. Mobile dwellings can give people privacy and pride of ownership. The mobility of the units provides flexibility in choosing where a person ultimately wants to settle. Water and sewer are not a problem with mobile dwellings. A mobile dwelling can be good for people who have issues with mold because they can take care of any problems on their own.
(Opposed) None.
(Other) Mobile dwellings raise significant concerns about water and sewer issues. They may not meet Department of Health guidelines. Spigots need to be connected to potable water. Cross-contamination can occur with RVs. Mobile dwellings may create clogs and other issues if connected directly to sewers. This can lead to bigger infrastructure problems. There may be value in having the State Building Code Council establish standards. Cities will still be able to charge connection fees, which may make mobile dwellings less affordable. This may result in de facto mobile home parks in neighborhoods. There is concern about how mobile dwellings interact with other housing density requirements.
(In support) Representative Mia Gregerson, prime sponsor; Kol Peterson, Tiny Hookups LLC; Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute; Tim McCormick; Joe Wykowski, Community Vision; Zachariah Giffin, Operation Tiny Home; Todd McKellips, Washington Tiny House Association; Gwyn Howat, Mt. Baker Ski Area; Lisa Tenney; and M. Natalie S.
The Appropriations Committee recommends:
(In support) This legislation works to provide more housing quickly. The policy exists in other places, so we know it works. There have been no issues or complaints about this type of housing in Portland where mobile dwelling units have been legal since 2001. Washington already allows permanent living in RVs in manufactured parks. This simply extends that right to residential properties. People can live in these types of homes for 180 days, so there is nothing that would change the health and safety of the structure on day 181. Concerns about building codes are unnecessary as there are standards in place that have been used around the country that will ensure safe hookups of these homes. There is a big gap between being in a shelter and getting into permanent housing, and this bill offers another low-cost option. It would help people live safely in residential zones rather than resorting to illegal solutions or homelessness.
(Opposed) This bill is adding to the density requirements of the middle housing bill. There are concerns about treating temporary accommodations like RVs and campers as permanent structures when they are not designed for that. A clearer path would be to have this bill focus on tiny homes on wheels rather than these other temporary accommodations. There are costs for cities to adopt ordinances, but costs may be higher in cities that need to develop enforcement programs to implement the bill and for cleanup. The city does not have the staff resources to do proactive code enforcement. Just because the bill says these dwellings must be connected, does not mean they will. There is also a lack of clarity around whether these dwellings could be rented out, which is problematic. There are concerns about the impacts on public health, water quality, and environmental impacts to critical areas. There has been discharge into wetlands, unpermitted additions, and some laundry facilities and bathrooms connected straight into the stormwater system, causing human waste to run into our neighborhoods and neighboring properties.
(In support) Representative Mia Gregerson, prime sponsor; Dan Bertolet, Sightline Institute; Kol Peterson; Todd McKellips, Washington Tiny House Association, Seattle Tiny Homes, and the Roots Collective Farm Buckley; and Zachariah Giffin, Operation Tiny Home.