Category Archives: Land Use

SB6335

SB6335 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2609 is a companion bill in the House.

Comments –
The first section of this bill, which adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes, and is summarized in the first paragraph below, is identical to all of Senator Salomon’s SB6453.

Summary –
The Growth Management Act currently lists fourteen goals that are supposed to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations for cities and counties planning with that framework. The bill adds a fifteenth, which says that they’re supposed to ensure that their own comprehensive plans and development regulations, and the regional policies, plans, and strategies for their countywide planning framework (under RCW 36.70A.210) and for their regional transportation planning (under RCW 47.80) “adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support state greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements and state vehicle miles traveled goals; build resilient infrastructure; and nurture environmental, economic, and human health.”

This bill adds a new climate change and natural hazards resiliency element to comprehensive planning under the GMA for the following counties and cities within those counties – counties west of the crest of the Cascades that OFM estimates had more than 100,000 residents in 2019, and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 500,000 residents; counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 200,000 residents in 2019 and an unincorporated population of less than 40,000; and counties east of the crest with an estimated population of more than 90,000 residents and an unincorporated population of less than 15,000.

The Department of Commerce, in consultation with several other agencies, is to develop an baseline estimate from 2017 data of the share of the State’s transportation and land use greenhouse gas emissions from those emissions in the regions in which multiple counties subject to the act plan together through formal structures, and for each remaining city and county. Then the Department is to calculate the proportional share of reductions that each county or multicounty region would need to acheive for the state to reach its 2035 and 2050 emissions reductions targets.

The new element must be designed:
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

This new part of the plans must be finalized no later than two years before the comprehensive plan review and revision deadlines specified in RCW 36.70A.130. Other jurisdictions are encouraged to develop a climate change and natural hazards resiliency element in their planning, whether or not they’re doing it under the GMA.

As part of its technical assistance program, the Department of Commerce is to develop a model climate change and natural hazards resiliency plan element that may be used by counties, cities, and multiple county planning regions for developing and implementing climate change and natural hazards resiliency plans and policies. Counties and cities that adopt this element are to treated as in compliance with the GMA’s requirements until January 1st, 2029. A review and update of comprehensive plans must take place by June 30th 2025. If they occur before June 30th, 2029, adoption of the model plan element, development regulations in accordance with it, changes in countywide policies in accordance with it that affect the fiscal impact analysis required by the GMA, and the adoption of a regional emissions and vehicle miles reduction plan by a regional transportation planning organization to address the reductions required by the new element are not subject to appeal. (The comprehensive plan of each county or city would now be required to be consistent with these regional transportation plans.)

Regional transportation organizations including at least one jurisdiction the act applies to would be required to adopt a regional emission and vehicle miles reduction plan addressing all their member jurisdictions implementing the goals for reducing annual per capita vehicle miles traveled; and reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector according to the share of reductions assigned to them by the Department of Commerce.

HB2609

HB2609 – Adding proportional greenhouse emissions reductions and resiliency to growth management planning.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th at 3:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6335 is a companion bill in the Senate.

The new element must be designed
(a) To result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation and land use systems within the planning jurisdiction consistent with that share of the State’s targeted reductions: and
(b) To result in reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled consistent with the state transportation policy goals (in RCW 47.01.440); and
(c) To avoid, and build resiliency to, the worst impacts of climate change on people, property, and ecological systems through specific actions consistent with the best available science that institute adaptation or resiliency measures. (These may include actions designed to address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of reasonably anticipated changes to temperature and precipitation.

SB6453

SB6453 – Adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government January 21st. Failed to make it out of committee by 2020 cutoff; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
HB2427 is a companion bill in the Senate.

HB2550

HB2550 – Makes achievement of net ecological gain in environmental, land use, and development laws the State’s policy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Lekanoff (D; 40th District; San Juan Islands and Anacortes) (Co-Sponsors Shewmake, Kloba, Lekanoff, Callan, Ramel, and Pollet)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 28th. A much less ambitious substitute bill passed out of committee February 4th. Had a hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations February 8th; did not pass out of Appropriations by the cutoff for finance committees; dead bill.
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The substitute retains the requirement for a report on the issue, and drops everything else. (It also rewrites the definition of “net ecological gain”, but I don’t think the changes are substantive.)

Summary –
The bill says it’s the policy of the state that the laws in the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act, the Model Toxics Control Act, and the section of the code governing construction projects in the waters of the State result in the achievement of net ecological gain, except where otherwise specified in statute. Net ecological gain is defined as a standard for a project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed enough by measures taken to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts so that the gains exceed the losses.

The measures are to be applied according to a mitigation hierarchy, in the following order – first avoiding impacts; then minimizing unavoidable ones; then rehabilitating or restoring sites; and then offsetting remaining impacts through positive management interventions such as restoration of other degraded habitat, averted risks to habitats or ecosystems, and protection of areas where there is imminent or projected loss of ecological integrity. Measures to compensate for or pay damages for loss of ecological integrity caused by a project, policy, plan, or activity that falls short of achieving net ecological gain are the final, least acceptable stage. Agencies that have the authority to establish a standard of ecological or habitat protection or are not otherwise bound to a different standard of ecological protectiveness would be required to use these.

The Office of Financial Management would be required to report to the Legislature assessing how to incorporate this standard into the State’s land use, development, and environmental laws and rules, addressing each of those where the existing standard is less protective of ecological integrity than the new standards. The report would include an assessment of opportunities and challenges for local government implementation of the standard under different environmental, development, and land use laws; recommendations on funding, incentives, technical assistance, monitoring and other use of scientific data, and other considerations about integrating the standard into each environmental, development, and land use law or rule; recommendations on instances in which it could be achieved using voluntary or incentive-based programs and on where regulations would probably be required; and assessments of how applying this standard is likely to achieve substantial environmental or social co-benefits.

The bill includes activities regulated under the Puget Sound Water Quality Act in the definition of “infrastructure development” in the Aquatic Resources Mitigation Act. It would require the approval of an aquatic resources mitigation plan through a memorandum of agreement between the project proponent and either the Department of Ecology or the Department of Fish and Wildlife, or both, rather than having that be a possibility. (It also removes the provisions about mitigation for “non-infrastructure development”, for reasons that aren’t clear to me – perhaps because they were only intended to cover the Puget Sound Water Quality activities that are now included under the “infrastructure development, or perhaps because the new net ecological gain standards would cover them…)

HB2536

HB2536 – Changes the definition governing the patterns of land use and development in the rural element of counties’ comprehensive planning.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment February 4th at 3:30.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
Under the bill, the definition of “rural character” that governs the patterns of land use and development for the rural element in counties’ comprehensive plans in the Growth Management Act would be amended. The new version would be:

“Rural character” refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan that must provide opportunities to support natural growth of families in the communities to prevent out-migration of people that were born in those communities. Rural character refers to patterns of land use and development that prevent high density development throughout the landscape. Land uses are adaptable with the use of land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat, farming and farm-related industries, natural resource usage and manufacturing, and tourism. Rural character includes but is not limited to access to cell phone, broadband, and wireless technology; health care and wellness services for humans and animals; a variety of services and opportunities for children; markets, restaurants, and food services; industries to support agricultural tourism and outdoor recreation; and home-based economic opportunities that diversify rural economies.

SB6306

SB6306 – Creates the Washington Soil Health Initiative.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Lilas (D; 21st District; Lynnwood)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the Senate –
Passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks January 23rd. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 3rd. Amended and passed out of Ways and Means February 4th. Referred to Rules February 6th. Passed the Senate unanimously February 17th.

In the House –
Referred to the House Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture, & Natural Resources; had a hearing February 25th. Passed out of committee February 28th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there on February 29th, and was passed out of committee and referred to Rules on March 2nd. Passed the House March 6th.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The amendments in Ways and Means simply specify that the program has to operate within the limits of its appropriated budget.

Summary –
The Initiative is to develop collaborative soil health research, education, demonstration projects; and to develop technical assistance activities to identify, promote, and implement soil health stewardship practices that are grounded in sound science. It would be jointly administered by the Department of Agriculture, the Conservation Commission, and Washington State. Its goals would include helping agricultural producers implement good soil health practices and improve farm profitability; supporting the increased nutritional benefits from healthy soils, and enhancing the environmental functions of the state’s soils, such as sequestering carbon and increasing water retention.

The University would have primary responsibility for establishing a regionally dispersed network of long-term agro-ecological research and extension demonstration sites, compiling and developing information on the nutritional effects of soil health, and developing a statewide soil health map to guide future public and private investment in the initiative.

The Department would be primarily responsible for developing a statewide “state of the soils” baseline assessment of soil health practices and indicators; developing accurate and cost-effective standard methods and tools for assessing soil health; and developing and promoting a marketing program focused on the benefits of products from healthy soils.

The Commission would have primary responsibility for providing outreach and education materials to help conservation districts, cooperative extension, and local governments raise awareness of the importance of soil health; providing technical support in coordination with WSU’s extension service to encourage and support farmers, ranchers, and land managers interested in implementing soil health practices; and training volunteers willing to take ongoing soil health measurements and submit them to the state soil health monitoring database.

These organizations are to collaborate in jointly appointing new members to the current Washington soil health advisory committee, and in convening, staffing, and developing agendas for its meetings. They’re to assess the needs of the program, to build their capacities and fill gaps to improve their reach and effectiveness; to prioritize in-state sourcing of needed resources; employ adaptive management in running the program; to develop equitable criteria for the awarding of soil health grants; and to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature every two years including an assessment of progress in meeting the initiative’s goals and objectives, a work plan detailing any proposed legislation, budget requests or administrative rules, and a prioritized list of proposed actions needed to fulfill each collaborating agency’s responsibilities in the upcoming biennium.

HB2427

HB2427 – Adds addressing climate change to goals for regional planning processes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsors Springer, Shewmake, and Doglio)
Current status – Failed to pass out of committee by cutoff.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 23rd. Substitute bill passed out of committee February 4th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 16th.

In the Senate –
Referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government; had a hearing February 25th.
Next step would be – Dead bill…
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6453 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
The substitute rewrites the new goals. It drops supporting the State’s vehicle miles traveled goals and taking steps to mitigate climate change, but retains the more or less equivalent goal of reducing emissions. It shifts the goal of nurturing environmental, economic, and human health to the narrower one of protecting people and property from natural hazards exacerbated by the changing climate.

The substitute only requires the new goals for counties required to do reviews and evaluations under the “Buildable Lands” program (that is, ones west of the Cascades that had over 150,000 residents in 1996), and for counties with over 300,000 people and cities within those. It adds that it’s the Legislature’s intent to have the changes adopted by these jurisdictions as part of the next scheduled update under the GMA.

The amendments on the House floor add language about the variable ability of different cities to achieve the goals of the bill through planning, and require a UW study of the heat island effects on human health, salmon and ecology of cities over 100,000 people.

HB2343

HB2343 – Authorizes increasing neighborhood density and reducing parking requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Fitzgibbon (D; 34th District; Vashon Island & NW Seattle) (Co-sponsors Frame, Macri, Doglio, Tharinger, Pollet)
Current status – Referred to the Governor for signature.
In the House – (Passed the House)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 16th. Substitute passed by the committee January 28th. Referred to Rules; passed by the House nearly unanimously February 16th. House concurred in the Senate amendments.

In the Senate – (Passed the Senate)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Housing Stability & Affordability; had a hearing February 24th. Replaced by a striker, significantly amended, and passed out of committee February 28th. Referred to Rules; passed the Senate March 3rd.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
There’s a House Bill Analysis.

Comments-
The substitute clarifies that the maximum parking limits for multi-family housing depend on having at least one route providing 15 minute transit service. (Having four routes with service once an hour, for example, doesn’t qualify.) It exempts counties as well as cities from this requirement under certain circumstances.

It shifts from exempting projects from appeals on aesthetic grounds if they’ve “undergone” design review to exempting them if they are “subject to” it, and makes the definition of what counts as “design review” a good deal more general. It modifies the definition of permanent supportive housing, which the GMA says cities may not prohibit in any areas zoned multi-family. The current language simply says this housing is intended to support “a person living with a disablility”. The new language says it “prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing …”

The striker in the House committee adds a section that makes some changes to the ongoing reporting on housing supply and affordability by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at the University of Washington that’s required by current law. Senator Das’s amendment added quadplexes, sixplexes, stacked flats, and townhouses to the recommendations for upzoning residential neighborhoods that are exempted from appeals. It also added the following items to the list of actions cities are encouraged to take:

(a) Adopting maximum allowable limits on SEPA exemptions for certain types of construction;
(b) Adopting standards for administrative approval of final plats;
(c) Authorizing administrative review of preliminary plats;
(d) Adopting other changes in permitting processes to make them more efficient for customers;
(e) Eliminating conditional use permits for all housing types except essential public facilities;
(f) Allowing off-street parking to compensate for lack of on-street parking when private roads are proposed or a parking demand study shows less parking is required;
(g) Developing local programs that offer financing, design, permitting, or construction for homeowners to build ADUs, with the option of imposing an affordability requirement for home ownership or renting the unit; and
(h) Developing programs that offer financing, design, permitting, or construction for homeowners to convert single-family homes into duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes, with the option of imposing an affordability requirement for ownership or renting the unit.

Summary –
The bill revises various ways to authorize increased neighborhood residential density created in last session’s HB1923, and removes that bill’s restrictions on cities’ rules for permitting ADUs. HB1923 exempted any steps implementing those recommendations before April 1, 2021 (except adopting a sub-area plan) from administrative or judicial appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act or the Growth Management Act; the new bill extends that window to 2023, and removes analysis of impacts on parking from the requirements for SEPA environmental impact statements and checklists. It adds an exemption from appeals on aesthetic grounds if a project has “undergone” design review to HB1923’s exemption limiting the grounds for appeals based on transportation impacts.

Details –

The bill removes the prohibitions on parking requirements for ADUs, owner occupancy requirements, restrictions on their rental or separate sale, restrictions on their size below 1,000 sq ft, and on the imposition of any impact fees above the projected impact of the ADU. (It authorizes cities to encourage building ADUs by eliminating several of these restrictions instead.)

The bill increases HB1923’s limits on parking requirements for low-income housing within a quarter mile of a transit stop to include stops with service twice an hour as well as those with fifteen minute service, and now limits market-rate multi-family housing within a quarter mile of a transit stop with fifteen minute service to one parking space per bedroom or .75 space per unit.

It shifts from recommending authorizing a duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment on “each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single family residences” to recommending authorizing them on “one or more parcels for which they are not currently authorized.” (This still allows a city to authorize them on each parcel if it chooses to, of course.)

It adds recommendations for creating one or more medium density zones with lots under 3,500 sq. ft, and single family residences under 1,200 sq. ft. It adds recommendations for authorizing ADUs in zones where they are currently prohibited, removing parking and owner occupancy requirements for them, and relaxing limits on their size.

It makes HB1923’s grants to cities planning to implement at least two of the recommendations available to cities under 20,000 people as well as larger ones.

HB2206

HB2206 – Allows extension of sewers and other urban government services outside the urban growth area.
Prime Sponsor – Representative MacEwen (R; 35th District; Mason County)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 4th at 3:30 PM
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
The proposed amendments would leave the Growth Management Act in a rather contradictory state, since they would only remove some of the language saying that the patterns of land use for rural elements in counties’ comprehensive plans are supposed to “reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development” while adding that counties can, in fact, choose to build sewer lines and provide other urban services to support that sort of development…

Summary –
The bill explicitly adds the construction of sewer lines to the definition of “rural government services.” It also removes various language prohibiting counties from providing services that permit low-density sprawl, or restricting their ability to expand “urban government services” into the designated rural areas of their comprehensive plans.