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.