Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rental Housing Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakewood to clarify rental‑housing licensing, narrow inspection exemptions and shorten exemption period
Summary
Staff introduced 16 amendments to Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.6 to clarify that all residential rental units (including ADUs, transitional housing and shelters) must register and be inspected, to reduce long exemption periods from 10 to 5 years, and to add an owner‑certification option and enforcement tools; a public hearing and action are scheduled for March 4.
City staff presented a package of changes to Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.6 at the Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 18, saying the packet contains 16 amendments intended to clarify which rental units must register and be inspected and to align local code with recent state law changes.
“There are 16 amendments that were included in the memo, in tonight's packet that are related again to regulations and maps governing rental housing licensing within the city,” staff said. The presentation emphasized that the chapter was always intended to apply to residential rental units broadly, not only to larger multifamily complexes, but that prior wording created enforcement confusion.
Key changes proposed include removing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), transitional housing and shelters from an exemption so those units will require inspection; clarifying when an inspection equivalency (for units inspected under another subsidy program) can be accepted; and reducing the length of time a property may be exempted from inspection from 10 years to five years. Staff noted, “Next meeting, which is March 4, you would have public hearing and action, and then it is scheduled to begin work, through the city council legislative process on March 16.”
Commissioners raised specific wording and enforcement questions. Commissioner Robert Estrada asked whether the rule could be misread to allow a landlord who merely provides an inspection to the city to receive an exemption; staff replied the exemption requires meeting all enumerated criteria (subsidy, inspection frequency and equivalency), not a single element. Staff also tied a provision allowing assessment of transitional relocation costs to state law (RCW 59.18.085), explaining the clause applies where city closure or condemnation results in displacement.
On enforcement, commissioners asked when daily penalties would begin. Staff described the $150-per-day fine (noting fines can rise to $500/day if violations continue) as a seldom-used tool and said the typical path is repeated outreach and, where necessary, municipal-court action; staff said court cases often end once an owner obtains a required license. Regarding inspection practice, staff explained the program uses a five‑year inspection cycle after annual registration and that surprise inspections are not used except when tenant complaints provide lawful entry; “We do not do surprise inspections,” staff said.
Staff proposed an owner‑certification option for long‑compliant owners to reduce inspection burden, supplemented by random follow‑ups and inspections triggered by complaints. Commissioners broadly praised the program’s improvements to housing safety and asked for clearer drafting where language could be misread.
The commission will hold a public hearing and may take action on the Chapter 5.6 amendments at its March 4 meeting; staff said any approved changes would then proceed to the City Council’s legislative process starting March 16.
