Committee hears heavy testimony for and against bill to allow housing in commercial zones
Loading...
Summary
Supporters, including executive office representatives and builders, said HB 2480 would unlock underused commercial land for housing; cities and local governments warned it could hollow out ground-floor retail, erode tax bases and undermine locally planned walkable neighborhoods. Lawmakers signaled openness to amendments.
House Committee on Local Government members heard more than three hours of testimony on House Bill 2480, a proposal to allow residential development in areas now zoned for commercial or mixed use in jurisdictions that plan under the Growth Management Act and have populations of 30,000 or more. Proponents said the bill removes a regulatory barrier that blocks housing production on underperforming commercial sites; opponents said the measure is too blunt and risks losing local tools to preserve retail, services and tax bases.
Supporters including a lieutenant governor aide, the governor's housing policy advisor and representatives of developers and business groups argued HB 2480 would make it easier and faster to produce housing where infrastructure already exists. A Commerce official presented analysis showing about 20% of commercial land affected currently prohibits residential uses and said the bill would prevent cities from requiring ground-floor commercial space as a condition of residential permits while still allowing design standards to “activate the street.” “This bill unlocks that opportunity as a great way to provide more housing,” a Commerce witness said.
The sponsor framed the bill as a supply-side housing tool, saying it is not intended to eliminate commercial districts or walkable downtowns and that exemptions and further fine-tuning are possible. “We really need the private market and supply-side economics to kick in here,” the sponsor said, urging colleagues to consider targeted exemptions for traditional downtown cores.
Cities, planning officials and many local elected leaders submitted detailed opposition. Mayors and planning staff from Bothell, Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Pasco and other cities warned that prohibiting first-floor commercial requirements across broad areas could lead to ‘‘residential islands’’ with fewer services, fewer small-business spaces and lost sales-tax revenue that funds local services. “Please don't take away our ability to welcome small businesses that serve our residents and neighbors,” Bothell’s mayor told the committee.
Several municipal witnesses urged more nuance: allow conversion where commercial vacancy is demonstrably high, exempt transit-oriented districts or define limited portions of land where the restriction applies. Industry and housing advocates countered that many commercial storefronts can be hard to lease, and ground-floor mandates often make projects financially infeasible; builders and employer groups said those mandates must be removed in many locations for projects to pencil.
The committee received written and in-person submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including chambers of commerce, builders’ associations, housing advocates, employers and regional nonprofits. Committee members acknowledged the competing priorities — preserving local economic vitality and increasing housing supply — and indicated they are considering amendments that add geographic or use-based exemptions.
The public hearing closed after extensive testimony; the committee did not take a formal vote during this session and directed staff and members to continue work on possible amendments and clarifying language.
