SB 5364 — Increasing housing options through lot splitting.
Last action — By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Introduced” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
25 added · 29 removedPlain-language change summary
The updated version of SB 5364 has added clarity to regulations regarding lot splits. Previously, the bill allowed for broader easement widths and construction requirements unless site-specific conditions warranted a need for deviation. The changes now specify that easement widths more than four feet for access to rear lots only require a justifiable reason, ensuring that such regulations are enforced more consistently. This matters because it strikes a balance between facilitating new housing development and protecting existing residential properties and their occupancy, making it easier for both developers and current residents to navigate these regulations.
S-1151.1S-0624.1 SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5364 State of Washington 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session By Senate Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs (originally sponsored by Senators Frame, Gildon, Liias, Nguyen, Saldaña, Shewmake, Torres, Van De Wege, and C.
Wilson)Wilson READRead FIRSTfirst TIMEtime 02/03/23.01/13/23.
Referred to Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs.
1 SSBSB 5364 (1)(a) Cities planning under this chapter must adopt or amend by ordinance, and incorporate into their development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls the requirements of subsection (2) of this section by July 1, 2024, to apply within the city's urban growth area.
(iii) The resultingoriginal lotslot arewas consistentnot withcreated through the minimumsplitting reviewof standardsa undersingle chapterresidential 58.17lot RCW;authorized by this section;
(iv) The original lot wassplit would not createdrequire throughdemolition theor splittingalteration of aany singlehousing residentialthat lotis authorizedrent restricted, rent subsidized, or that has been occupied by thisa section;tenant paying market-rate rent within the preceding 12 months;
and (v) TheAny lotconstruction spliton wouldthe notresulting requirelots demolition or alteration of any housing that is rentsubject restricted,to rentall subsidized,existing orstate thatand haslocal beenlaws occupiedregarding bystormwater arunoff, tenantcritical payingareas, market-rateshorelines, rentand withinconservation theareas; preceding 12 months;
(iii) Require easement widths of more than four feet for access to rear lotslots; unless site-specific conditions, such as access to utilities, require wider easements;
2 SSBSB 5364 (v) Impose requirements for dedications of rights-of-way or for the construction of off-site improvementsimprovements. unless site-specific conditions require otherwise.
(3) Any construction on the resulting lots is subject to all existing state and local laws except for the provisions specified in subsection (2) of this section.
3 SSBSB 5364
View plain text versions (2)
- Bill View text Current pdf
- Substitute Substitute Bill pdf
Action History
-
By resolution, reintroduced and retained in present status.
-
Senate Rules "X" file.
-
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
-
LGLT - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass.
-
Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM.
-
Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM.
-
First reading, referred to Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs.
Sponsors
- Claire Wilson · Cosponsor
- Nikki Torres · Cosponsor
- Sharon Shewmake · Cosponsor
- Rebecca Saldaña · Cosponsor
- Marko Liias · Cosponsor
- Chris Gildon · Cosponsor
- Noel Frame · Primary
- Joe Nguyen · Cosponsor
- Van De Wege · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 8 co-sponsors · 142 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Noel Frame Democrat
Co-sponsors (8)
- Claire Wilson Democrat
- Nikki Torres Republican
- Sharon Shewmake Democrat
- Rebecca Saldaña Democrat
- Marko Liias Democrat
- Chris Gildon Republican
- Joe Nguyen Democrat
- Van De Wege
Not signed on (142)
142 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 142 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 5364?
- SB 5364 is sponsored by Claire Wilson (Democrat), Nikki Torres (Republican), Sharon Shewmake (Democrat), Rebecca Saldaña (Democrat), Marko Liias (Democrat), Chris Gildon (Republican), Noel Frame (Democrat), Joe Nguyen (Democrat), and Van De Wege.
- What is the current status of SB 5364?
- This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Introduced” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 5364?
- Track SB 5364 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 5364
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 5364
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →