HB1517 – Promoting transit oriented development. (Dead.)
Prime Sponsor – Representative Reed (D; 36th District; Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Taylor, Ramel, Berg, Peterson, and Stonier – Ds) (By request of the Governor.)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Housing February 7th. Still in committee by cutoff.
Next step would be – Dead bill.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB5466 is a companion bill in the Senate.

Comments –
Though Section 6(5)(b) of the bill says that certain of its restrictions on local development standards don’t apply to those contained in a shoreline master program, Section 9(3) seems to categorically exempt any multifamily, mixed-use or commercial development in areas near major transit from the State Environmental Policy Act.

Summary –
The bill would prohibit cities planning under the Growth Management Act from having any development regulations that would prohibit multifamily housing on any parcels where other residential uses were permitted within three-quarters of a mile from a major transit stop in an urban growth area. (The bill defines a major stop as one that is or has been funded for development as a ferry terminal, a stop for rail, for bus rapid transit or bus service that runs in HOV lanes, or for transit providing fixed route service every day at intervals defined by the local transit agency.) Any maximum floor ratio in these areas would have to include a 50% density bonus for housing for households at or below 60 % of area median income or for long-term inpatient care. Cities couldn’t enact new maximum residential densities in these areas. (They would be allowed to have higher or lower floor area ratios in parts of an area if the average maximum ratio of all the buildable land in it provided at least the required transit-oriented density, nothing had a floor area ratio less than 1.0, and nothing within a quarter mile of a rail station had a ratio less than 0.5.) These requirements wouldn’t apply to areas subject to a shoreline master program or critical area ordinance, to non-conforming parcels, or to those on a state or national heritage register, but even cities with existing regulations that didn’t meet them would have to enforce and apply those in a way that was “consistent with” the bill’s requirements. If these cities had not already adopted local antidisplacement measures as part of their mandatory housing element under the GMA, they’d have to take the steps that element specifies for identifying local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing with respect to these areas near major transit. They’d also be prohibited from requiring off-street parking as a condition for permits in these areas, unless it was for the exclusive use of individuals with disabilities.

The bill would allow local jurisdictions to categorically exempt multifamily residential development, mixed-use development, and commercial development projects in these areas from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, if a project wasn’t inconsistent with the applicable comprehensive plan, and didn’t clearly exceed the density or intensity of use called for in the plan. It would prohibit home owners’ associations and other similar organizations from adopting rules that weren’t consistent with the bill’s requirements.

The bill would have the Department of Transportation create a new division, or expand an existing one, to provide technical assistance and award planning grants to cities to implement its requirements, provide compliance review of any regulations adopted in accordance with those, and mediate or help resolve disputes between DOT, local governments, and project proponents about land use decisions and processing permit applications.

In consultation with Commerce, the department would create a competitive grant program to help finance housing projects in rapid transit corridors. Grants would be available for projects within a quarter mile of a rapid transit corridor that met specifications for floor area ratios or net density minimums, produced at least 100 units of housing; and included a covenant on the property requiring at least 20% of the units to remain affordable for households with incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income for at least 99 years. The grants could be provided for project capital costs, infrastructure costs, and for addressing gaps in financing that would prevent ongoing or complete project construction; they’d be available to agencies, local governments, and developers. The department would be required to prioritize projects by occupancy date, and would also have to consider a list of other criteria.

The bill would allow money that was appropriated to the Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Fund to facilitate transit oriented development to be used by Commerce for grants to support a variety of planning processes. It specifies a long list of criteria for prioritizing these awards; it also uses a somewhat different definition of “transit access” from that in other sections of the bill, including being within walking distance of a park and ride.