SB5818 – Limits review and appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act and Growth Management Act to promote housing construction in cities.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Salomon (D; 32nd District; Shoreline) (Co-Sponsors Short – R; Liias, Kuderer, and Saldaña – Ds)
Current status – Senate concurred in the House amendments.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House – Passed
Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment and Energy February 24th and passed out of committee. Referred to Rules; replaced by a striker making various changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it; and passed by the House March 4th.

In the Senate – Passed
Had a hearing in the Committee on Housing & Local Government  January 20th. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Rules and passed by the Senate February 15th.

Summary –
Substitute –
The substitute simplifies (and perhaps broadens) the exemption from GMA review and SEPA appeal of some local development regulations by saying it applies to any that “increase housing capacity, increase housing affordability, and mitigate displacement” and aren’t in a critical area. It adds projects creating “light and glare” to those that are exempt from SEPA appeals about aesthetics as long as they’ve passed local design review. The staff summary says it “removes the requirement for Ecology to modify the existing rule-based categorical exemption for single-family residential project types in UGAs to apply only to single-family residential types with total square footage of 1500 square feet or more”. (As I read the bill, there’s no difference in the effect of these two versions.) It drops the provision about awarding attorney’s fees, making it more difficult for citizens to go to court.

Original bill –
The bill would remove the ending date for the current exemption from administrative or judicial appeals under the State Environmental Policy Act of any ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions a city takes to implement the twenty-five steps the Growth Management Act encourages to increase residential building capacity. (The exemption, which was adopted in 2020, will expire in April 2023 now.) It would add an exemption from environmental or judicial review under SEPA for them. It would exempt adoption of ordinances, amendments to development regulations, and other nonproject actions to implement any strategies adopted in a city’s housing action plan from these SEPA appeals and reviews. (I think that Section 3 of the bill merely adjusts another section of the law to make the same changes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.)

It would exempt any action taken by a city to implement strategies adopted in a housing action plan from review or legal challenge under the Growth Management Act. It would exempt the adoption of any ordinances and amendments to development regulations taken by a city to implement actions specified in the housing element of its comprehensive plan from SEPA environmental or judicial review and administrative or judicial appeal.

It would direct the Department of Ecology to conduct expedited rule making to modify the thresholds for the categorical exemptions from threshold determinations and environmental impact statements in the current SEPA rules to exempt four attached single-family residential units as well as four detached ones; exempt multifamily residential projects of up to 200 units in incorporated urban growth areas rather than projects up to 60 units; exempt single-family residential project types of less than 1,500 square feet in incorporated urban growth areas with up to 100 units, while continuing to cap the current exemption at 30 units for single-family residential projects larger than that.

It would exempt project actions pertaining to residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development from SEPA appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on aesthetics, or those impacts, unless the project had not been subject to local design review requirements. (I think it merely restates their current exemption from appeals based on the evaluation of their impacts on transportation, or those impacts, unless DOT had found a project would present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation system.)

The bill adds a provision to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party at trial or on appeal before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of a decision by a county, city, or town to issue, condition, or deny a development permit involving a project-specific affordable housing development.