Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor | Accessory dwelling units could help provide affordable housing

It’s encouraging to see so many people paying attention to the Gig Harbor Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU). However, keep in mind the growth planned for in the CPU is not the result of Council, Mayor or Staff kowtowing to real estate interests, it’s a state mandate.

Per the March 20th Gig Harbor Now article, “Comp plan updates include targets for housing growth. The state tells cities how many new dwellings they must accommodate. Between now and 2044, Gig Harbor must enable developers to create 662 new homes.” This requires clarification. The state mandated a housing target for Pierce County, in turn the County set a target for Gig Harbor. Regardless of how the mandate has come to be levied on Gig Harbor, we are obliged to come up with a workable plan to meet the target. Gig Harbor is not obliged to enable developers.

Per CPU Section 6, Gig Harbor’s target is “… a net increase of 892 housing units is required to meet housing growth targets within the 2020-2044 period. As statistics from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) have suggested that about 510 housing units were built between 2020 and 2024, this leaves around 382 housing units over the next 20 years (about 19 units per year) to meet the base target alone (without considering the distribution according to affordability).”

The article’s number of 662 appears to refer to the requirement to accommodate lower-income households. Again, CPU Section 6, “..meeting the requirements of housing types by income categories will require the development of an additional net 662 units of middle and multifamily housing types.”

I mention this to encourage everyone to review the CPU (Gig Harbor Comprehensive Plan Update) so as to understand for yourself our city’s mandate.

While communities each have their own mandate, there are also new state laws of which all communities must abide. These laws offer solutions for housing issues. While not everyone will agree with the laws, they are an honest attempt, if you have some ideas, please reach out to those in Olympia. The solution is not just build baby build.

In 2023, State Legislature adopted House Bill 1337, and Gig Harbor must amend its Municipal Code to accommodate this law. In summary, HB 1337 is an act to expand housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). This law encourages the use of ADU’s for long-term housing.

When you read the CPU, you’ll note a number of items the city is required by law to address. HB 1337 specifically references some of these items in the rationale for its adoption:

• a need of more housing for renters across the income spectrum, due to their smaller size, ADU’s can provide a more affordable housing option in single-family zones.

• the adoption of more diverse housing types, including ADU’s, can address historic economic and racial exclusion in single-family zones.

• ADU’s are frequently rented below market rate, providing additional affordable housing options for renters.

• ADU’s can help provide housing for very low-income households, more than 10% of ADU’s in some areas are occupied by tenants who pay no rent (e.g. Grandparents, Adult Children, etc..)

• ADU’s can meet the needs of our growing senior population.

The intent is to promote and encourage ADU’s as a means to address the need for additional, long-term affordable housing options.

This intent allows a city to count ADU’s toward its mandated housing target, possibly even its income derived housing targets. It is this intent to encourage long-term housing options that prompted the legislature to include a section in the law which allows a city to restrict the use of ADU’s as short-term rentals. I submit it is the intent to create long-term housing options which prompted the Gig Harbor Planning Commission to recommend amended language to the Gig Harbor Municipal Code to prevent ADU’s from being used as short-term rentals.

Everyone is struggling to find housing solutions to meet our community needs. What I’m struggling with is why our Gig Harbor City Council chose to ignore this need and a viable solution? Why is our City Council once again ignoring the recommendation of the Planning Commission in favor of short-sighted interests. Why has Council directed staff to remove the language which would legally prevent ADU’s from becoming short term rentals? Does the council not see a need for long-term housing options?

I suggest going one step further and not only prevent ADU’s from being short-term rentals, but when an ADU is present also restrict the primary residence from being an STR. The intent is to increase long-term housing options, even a single ADU used as an STR removes an affordable housing option from our community. Large scale development is not the only option available to meet our Housing mandate.

Edward Nadler

Gig Harbor