Category Archives: Land Use 2022

HB2066

HB2066 – Requires local governments to exempt certain infill development from the State Environmental Policy Act’s requirements. (That’s an option for them now.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Dufault -D; Klicker, Gilday, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Had a hearing in Environment and Energy February 1st. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 3rd. Referred to Rules; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –

Substitute –
The substitute would leave the categorical exemption as an option rather than requiring it, and would require a jurisdiction adopting it to provide  a means for collaboration and coordination with any tribe whose lands, usual and accustomed areas, or protected areas would be affected by the infill development. It would limit the current provision which allows the exemption if the applicable comprehensive plan has ever undergone environment review under SEPA by requiring that to have been done within the previous seven years. Cities and counties engaged in a review and evaluation of their urban densities would be required to consider how to maximize the use of the infill development exemption as part of identifying reasonable measures to align their actual development with their targets.

Original bill –
Currently, a local government can choose to categorically exempt certain infill development from SEMA requirements, if it’s for an area where current density and intensity of use is equal to or lower than what’s called for in the comprehensive plan and the development is residential mixed-use, or commercial up to 65,000 sq. ft., excluding retail. (It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and can’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use that calls for.) The government also has to consider the specific probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action and determine that they’re adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements, rules or  laws; and the comprehensive plan has to have completed an environmental impact statement under SEPA’s requirements before it was adopted or the local government has to have prepared an environmental impact statement considering the proposed use or density and intensity of use in the area.

The bill would require these exemptions unless the local government’s legislative body  considers the probable adverse impacts and adopts a finding that they’re not adequately addressed by the regulations or other requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan, planned action ordinance, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws. In that case, it can require the development  to comply with SEPA.

HB2049

HB2049 – Requiring local governments to accept building applications from certain professionals as complete; excluding some expansion and remodeling projects from local review; and streamlining processes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barkis (R; 2nd District; Southern Pierce and Eastern Thurston Counties) (Co-Sponsors Bateman, Shewmake, Walen, Wicks, Dufault, Macri, Peterson, and Simmons -Ds; Boehnke, Gilday, Hoff, Robertson, Rude, Sutherland, Eslick, and Young – Rs)
Current status – Referred to Local Government.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In spite of the title, there’s nothing in the bill saying the changes only apply to affordable housing.

Summary –
The bill would require local governments to accept any building permit application with plans, computations, or specifications prepared by a professional engineer or architect with at least $1 million in liability insurance as complete, and prohibit them from imposing “substantial modifications or conditions on submittals prepared, stamped, and signed by a licensed architect, landscape architect, soils engineer, civil engineer, structural engineer, or combination thereof.” The requirement would apply during project review, and would apply to approving construction drawings as well.

Unless a clear violation of substantive and procedural requirements was demonstrated by a local government, the bill would allow no more than three reviews or requests for additional information during project review before a project would be automatically deemed approved. It would shift the current reporting requirements to focus on permitting times for subdivisions and for housing from single-family residences through fourplexes, and it would have local governments report to the Department of Commerce, which would post it, rather than posting the information on their own websites. It would have Commerce freeze funding for public works and the implementing the Growth Management Act if a city missed the deadline for its annual report.

It would require local governments planning under the Growth Management Act to do a technical review of an application for conformity with the requirements by all departments, divisions, and sections of the local government with jurisdiction over the project before returning a permit to an applicant for corrections and changes.

It would prohibit local governments from requiring local project review for the expansion or remodeling of existing buildings, structures, or development if:
(i) Alterations would not modify the existing site layout for single-family dwellings or duplexes, except those located in critical areas, or when two or more duplexes would be built on the same lot;
(ii) The project involves no exterior work adding to the footprint;
(iii) The door or window adjustments or replacements are allowed with no site plan needed; and
(iv) Total additions and alterations and detached accessory structures are less than 2,000 square feet in area without new vehicular access.

The bill would also no longer allow local governments to exclude landmark designations, street vacations, or other approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities, or other administrative or quasi-judicial project permits that they determined presented special circumstances from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.090. [I think that’s simply because that section is not in the code any more, but I don’t know what happened to it.]

HB2020

HB2020 – Includes requiring design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building Challenge certifications, and provides accelerated permitting for them.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Wallen (D; 48th District; Kirkland) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Leavitt, Ramel, Ryu, Macri, Bateman, Lekanoff, and Pollet -Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in Local Government January 18th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 2nd. Referred to Appropriations. Did not progress by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill is mostly about increasing affordable housing, but it would also require the standards set by local design review boards to allow for buildings with Passive House, LEED, or Living Building certifications. It would require cites to create a preferred permit path program that would be available to developments that were Passive House or Living Building Challenge certified as well as for projects with 20% affordable housing. The program would provide expedited processing in less than 120 days. (The substitute drops most of the original bill, including the requirements about providing for certified high efficiency buildings; it retains creating a Sustainable Equitable Affordable Measured Board to “provide oversight and guide local jurisdictions in achieving goals for expeditious sustainable affordable housing”, create a plan, and measure and report on progress.

HB2001

HB2001 – Expanding the incentive program for affordable housing to include tiny houses.
Prime Sponsor – Representative McCaslin (R; 4th District; Spokane Valley) (Co-Sponsors Graham, Jacobsen, Chase, and Sutherland – Rs)
Current status – Scheduled for a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government Tuesday February 1st at 10:00 AM.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would expand the current incentive program for affordable housing to include tiny houses. The program allows cities and counties to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing, if it meets certain requirements. (The incentives include density bonuses within the urban growth area; height and bulk bonuses; fee waivers or exemptions; parking reductions; and expedited permitting.) The bill would allow tiny houses to be built inside or outside the urban growth area.

HB1711

HB1711– Allows cities and counties to waive or defer ADU fees; defer taxes; and waive regulations for them, provided that they can’t be used as short-term rentals.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Pollet (D; 46th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsor Representative Shewmake -D)
Current status – Passed out of committee and referred to Rules January 21st; still there at cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th.

Summary –
The bill would allow cities and counties to waive or defer fees for ADUs, including impact fees; defer the payment of taxes on them; or waive specific regulations for them. However, it would only allow these or other local incentives for the development or construction of ADUs if they were subject to binding commitments or covenants preventing their regular use as short-term rentals, and the jurisdiction had a program to audit compliance with those.

(It also removes the current definition of an ADU’s owner as someone with at at least a 50% interest in the property it’s on, and fixes the phrasing about route frequency in the definition of a major transit stop.)

HB1660

HB1660 – Modifying the State’s limits on local jurisdictions’ ADU requirements.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shewmake (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing & Local Government Wednesday February 23rd. Amended to specify that jurisdictions issuing ADU permits aren’t liable if that violates various ownership associations’ existing restrictions on them. Passed out of committee February 23rd; referred to Rules.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5648 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Local Government January 12th; replaced by a substitute January 21st. (The substitute would prohibit local jurisdictions from limiting ADUs in various additional ways; there’s a staff summary of the details at the beginning of the substitute.) Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor to prohibit condominium associations or associations of apartment owners from blocking the construction or use of an ADU and passed by the House February 14th.

Original bill –
The bill would extend the date by which cities and counties would have to adopt subsection (2) of RCW 36.70A.698 from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. That subsection allows them to require off-street parking for an ADU within a quarter mile of a major transit stop if they determine that the ADU is in an area that lacks access to street parking capacity, has physical space impediments, or there are other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible there. (If they changed their rules about ADUs after July 1, 2021, they would have until their next comprehensive plan update to make this additional change. The bill would make the subsection take effect after July 1, 2024 in any jurisdiction that hadn’t adopted the change by then, though.)

The bill would also prohibit cities and counties from requiring owner occupancy of the principal housing or dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU unless it were being offered or used for short-term rental.

HB1099

HB1099 – Improving the state’s climate response through updates to the state’s comprehensive planning framework.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-sponsor Fitzgibbon – D)
Current status – Passed by the Senate March 3rd. Though I thought it hadn’t been, the floor amendment making a lot of cuts to the environmental provisions in the bill was adopted. They are summarized by staff at the end of the amendment. The House refused to concur in the Senate’s version, and the bill went to conference committee. The Senate adopted the conference report, but the House reportedly didn’t have the time to do the same. I think they needed to do that last step for the bill to pass…
Next step would be –
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House 2022 – Passed
Returned to House Rules; reintroduced there, and passed by the House January 21st.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing and Local Government February 1st. Replaced by a striker adding several environmental justice provisions, and adding to the goals of a number of comprehensive plan elements (mostly about environmental issues). Passed out of committee February 17th, and referred to Ways and Means. (There’s a staff summary of the changes at the end of the striker.) Amended in Ways and Means, passed out of committee February 28th and referred to Rules. The amendments replace the measures about climate change  and reducing emissions with language about increasing resiliency and addressing extreme weather events, drop the requirement for reporting on per capita miles traveled, make the adoption of Commerce’s model resiliency element optional, and make a couple of other less significant changes.

In the House 2021 – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy January 19th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 28th. Referred to Appropriations, and had a hearing there February 16th. Replaced by a 2nd substitute, amended, passed out of Appropriations, and referred to Rules on February 22nd. Replaced by a striker by the sponsor, amended, and passed by the House March 5th.

In the Senate 2021 –
Referred to the Committee on Housing and Local Government. Had a hearing March 16th. Replaced by a striker and passed out of committee March 24th. Referred to Ways and Means. Had a hearing March 27th, and passed out of Ways and Means March 29th. Then referred to Transportation, had a hearing there April 1st, but didn’t get out of committee. Returned to House Rules in 2022.

Summary –

In Senate Committee-
The striker makes avoiding creating or worsening environmental health disparities and approval of the GHG emissions reductions sub element voluntary rather than mandatory, and makes a couple of other minor changes that are summarized at the end of it.

On the House floor –
The sponsor’s striker made a number of small changes which are summarized at the end of it. Until 2035, the amendment made authorizing missing middle housing with specified provisions in current single family zoning areas count as satisfying the requirements of the greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement. (The provisions are summarized at the end of it.)
2nd Substitute –
There’s a staff summary of the 2nd substitute’s changes at the beginning of it.. The amendments prohibit Commerce’s guidelines for measures that cities and counties can take to reduce emissions through comprehensive plans and development regulations from including road usage charges, any fees or surcharges related to vehicle miles traveled, or any measures that would regulate or tax transportation service providers, delivery vehicles, or passenger vehicles.

Substitute –
There’s a summary by staff of the changes, which are significant, at the beginning of the substitute.

Original bill –
The bill adds adapting to and mitigating the effects of a changing climate, helping to achieve statewide targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled, preparing for climate impacts scenarios, and protecting “environmental, economic, human health, and safety” to the list of goals for planning under the Growth Management Act  and the Shoreline Management Act.

It requires a new climate change and resiliency element in comprehensive plans, designed to result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions, avoid the adverse impacts of climate change, and enhance resiliency. (Emissions reduction planning is required for counties with at least 100 people per square mile and a population of at least 200,000, or at least 75 people per square mile and an annual growth rate of at least 1.75%, and for the cities within them. It’s encouraged for the rest. Resiliency planning is required for jurisdictions planning under the GMA and is encouraged for others.)

The greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement of the comprehensive plan must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Commerce, after public comment, and must be designed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the jurisdiction’s transportation and land use systems, reduce vehicle miles traveled within the jurisdiction, and prioritize reductions in communities that experience disproportionate impacts and harm due to air pollution.

The resiliency subelement must be designed to identify and protect natural areas resilient to climate impacts, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe passage and species migration; and address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. It’s to enhance resiliency equitably, and must prioritize actions in communities that will disproportionately suffer from compounding environmental impacts and be most impacted by natural hazards due to climate change.

(In collaboration with other agencies, the Department of Commerce is to create a model resiliency element that may be used by jurisdictions in developing their plans. It’s to establish minimum requirements or include model options for fulfilling the bill’s requirements; and should provide guidance on identifying, designing, and investing in infrastructure that supports community resilience to climate impacts, including the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural infrastructure as well as traditional infrastructure, natural areas and vital habitat. It should provide guidance on identifying and addressing natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change; and must recognize and promote as many co-benefits of climate resilience as possible – such as salmon recovery, ecosystem services, and supporting treaty rights.)

During the 2024 update cycle, the larger and faster growing jurisdictions for which emissions reduction planning is required must adopt goals, policies, and actions that are likely to result in reductions of emissions and vehicle miles traveled that comply with the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Department of Commerce, in consultation with other agencies, is to estimate the required reductions. (However, adopting and implementing a climate action plan satisfies this requirement if it achieves “meaningful reductions” in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled.) These jurisdictions’ 2032 updates have to fully comply with the rest of the requirements. (The bill also specifies that these jurisdictions’ land use plans “should” give special consideration to achieving environmental justice and “must” avoid creating or worsening environmental health disparities; it specifies that they must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed by wildfires, including reducing residential development in their wildland urban interface.)

The bill adds pedestrian and biking facilities to the inventory for transportation facilities and services needs; it requires level of service standards for them and forecasts of mutimodal transportation demand. It prohibits denying approval of a development if it’s possible to provide for its transportation needs through pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, increased or enhanced public transportation service, ride-sharing programs, demand management, or other strategies funded by the development, even if it fails to meet traffic level of service standards.

It requires regional transportation planning organizations encompassing at least one of the larger and faster growing jurisdictions to adopt a regional emissions and vehicle miles reduction plan for all jurisdictions in the organization. This must implement the State’s goals for reductions in per capita vehicle miles traveled, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector consistent with the Department of Commerce’s estimates of the area’s proportional share of what’s needed to meet the State’s targets, allocating vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions reductions that must be achieved to the larger jurisdictions after taking into account the reductions achieved within them by the regional plan. It must prioritize reductions in communities that have experienced disproportionate harm due to air pollution. (The comprehensive plans of jurisdictions would be required to be consistent with their regional plans.)

The bill requires parks and recreation planning to add consideration of the health disparities map published by the Department of Health to increase green space in the most pollution-burdened locations.

Commerce is also to publish a summary of annual vehicle miles traveled in each city and the unincorporated portions of each county in the state. It’s to update its shoreline master program guidelines, requiring them to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, and shoreline natural resources and the environment.

SB5042

SB5042 – Delays vesting of development rights associated with actions under the Growth Management Act until sixty days after final planning decisions are made.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsor Billig – D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 17th. Passed out of committee February 22nd; referred to Rules, and passed by the House March 3rd.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the Senate 2021 –
Had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Housing and Local Government January 12th; passed out of committee January 28th. Referred to Rules. Was still in the house of origin at cutoff.

In the Senate 2022 – Passed
Reintroduced in Senate Rules for the 2022 session; passed by the Senate January 26th.

In the House 2022 –
Referred to Environment and Energy.

Summary –
The bill sets the “initial effective date” of various planning changes covered by the Growth Management Act at sixty days after the publication of a notice of adoption for the action (or sixty days after the issuance of the Growth Management Hearing Board’s final notice, if there’s a review.) The bill’s findings say that the current legal interpretation of the GMA sets this effective date (and the vesting of development rights which occurs then) earlier in the process, and allows those rights to vest before the validity of plans and regulations can actually be determined.

The bill applies to actions that expand an urban growth area; remove the designation of agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands; create or expand a limited area of more intensive rural development; establish a new fully contained community; or create or expand a master planned resort.