Committee hears support for House Bill 2269 to expand middle housing options in rural counties

At the inaugural 2026 meeting of the House Housing Committee, members held a public hearing on House Bill 2269, which would limit middle-housing authority in certain rural areas while clarifying acceptable wastewater systems for those developments.

Jim Morishima, temporarily reassigned staff to the committee, briefed members that HB 2269 narrows the middle-housing authority in "limited areas of more intensive rural development" to counties the bill defines as rural — counties with population density under 100 people per square mile or counties smaller than 225 square miles — and expands the definition of allowable wastewater systems to include large on-site sewage systems. Morishima also said the bill clarifies that a sewer system serving a middle-housing development must be a publicly owned sanitary sewer system rather than the broader phrase "existing sewer system" used in current law.

Sponsor Representative Birnbaum said the bill is intended as clarifying, not restrictive, language for smaller counties completing comprehensive plans. She described a small technical amendment that would remove an unintended restriction on urban counties and said the change reflects negotiation over the interim.

Public testimony was uniformly supportive during the hearing. Anthony Mixer, speaking for himself, urged bipartisan support and described middle housing as a proven tool to increase housing options without changing neighborhood scale, saying the bill "strengthens rural housing supply while safeguarding health and safety." Curtis Steinhauer of the Washington State Association of County Regional Planning Directors said the bill provides important flexibility for smaller counties and noted a drafting correction was needed so urban counties would retain authority; Ken Short of the Association of Washington Business described the measure as a tool to help the housing supply meet demand.

Andrea Smiley, legislative director for the Building Industry Association of Washington, said the industry sees the technical fix as likely to reduce costs and expand options. Bryce Aden of FutureWise described the practical difference between single-unit on-site septic systems and larger multiunit on-site sewage systems: larger systems, he said, typically involve more oversight and periodic monitoring and are managed under a different permitting regime.

Members asked technical questions about wastewater and oversight. Representative Andrew Engel summarized a regulatory test cited in the hearing: systems treating more than about 3,500 gallons per day are typically regulated by the State Department of Health and subject to ongoing monitoring, inspections and annual permitting rather than only local health department oversight; Bryce Aden agreed to provide supporting documentation from the Department of Health and local health authorities. Members also raised flood-zone concerns, citing recent flooding in the Kent Valley where many households rely on septic; witnesses said redevelopment in areas with sewer access is likely to connect to sewer and that guidelines exist for when connection is required, but they agreed to follow up with more detail.

Several members noted related work this session, including a rural accessory dwelling unit bill (House Bill 1345) that broader rural zones, and discussed how the two bills could operate together: HB 1345 affects the entire rural zone while HB 2269 would apply only in "areas of more intense rural development," such as small town centers.

The committee closed the public hearing without taking a vote and adjourned. Staff and witnesses committed to providing additional technical documentation on large on-site sewage systems and State Department of Health oversight to inform later consideration of the bill.