A few of the draft proposals to amend the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA) that we shared with city planning directors over the interim are being introduced at the Legislature.

Integrating climate change into the GMA

HB 1099, from Rep. Davina Duerr (D–Bothell), would create a new requirement for certain cities and counties to plan for and work to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reductions.

All cities planning under GMA would have a new climate goal to help achieve statewide GHG and VMT reductions and address resiliency to a changing climate. The cities in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Whatcom, Thurston, Clark, Benton, Franklin, and Spokane counties would get an additional new responsibility to develop a climate element.

Through a rulemaking process, the Department of Ecology would provide regional reduction allocations based on the state’s existing GHG reduction goals to each regional transportation planning organization, and cities would be expected to develop their comprehensive plans to help achieve those reduction targets. There is a process for cities who update their comprehensive plans prior to the conclusion of this rulemaking process. The Department of Commerce is also directed to develop technical and financial assistance for cities.

In addition to these broad themes, there are several other smaller changes to planning responsibilities incorporated into the bill. We encourage city planning departments to closely review this bill and provide feedback to Shannon McClelland by January 20.

Salmon recovery integration into GMA

In a similar vein, Rep. Debra Lekanoff (D–Bow) has introduced a proposal to integrate salmon recovery planning into local comprehensive plans. HB 1117 is a much-improved version of the net ecological gain proposal from last session. A key component of this proposal is that it would not go into effect if financial support from the state is not provided. We greatly appreciate the acknowledgment that doing this important work correctly will require additional planning resources that cities do not currently have.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife is directed to review regional salmon recovery plans, identify which elements of those plans cities have land use control over, and identify the means by which a city can ensure that they are consistent with those salmon recovery plans, including through comprehensive planning. In most cases, we expect cities were involved in the creation of these plans. Please let us know if you see concerns with this expectation of consistency.

Additionally, the department will identify an environmental “baseline” in the city and county. There would be a new requirement that cities achieve net ecological gain over time through the selection and design of publicly-funded projects that are developed in the city, or through other means like improvements in environmental outcomes as redevelopment that occurs with contemporary stormwater standards. The process is designed to include significant flexibility for cities to identify and achieve improvements and there is no specific threshold of improvement requirement.

Finally, the bill specifies a “mitigation hierarchy” to be applied for projects impacting critical areas and other natural resources. Our reading of the bill suggests this is essentially a re-statement of current practice around mitigation. If you have a different interpretation, we welcome your comments.

Please provide feedback on this bill to Shannon McClelland by January 20.

Housing options and equity

Rep. Strom Peterson (D–Edmonds) has introduced HB 1220. The bill proposes several changes to the Housing Element portion of comprehensive plans and some new requirements for cities to authorize certain emergency housing anywhere they allow short term rentals.

The bill would do the following:

• Change the GMA housing goal from “encourage availability of affordable housing” to “plan for and accommodate housing affordable” to all economic segment.
• Change the Housing Element to require:
• Inventory and analysis for moderate and all levels of low income households, emergency housing/shelters, and permanent supportive housing—including identifying zoning capacity;
• Mandatory provisions for moderate density housing options;
• Special consideration for multiple levels of low income housing and identification of gaps/ barriers to achieve;
• Identification of local policies/practices that have resulted in racially disparate housing impacts and plan of implementation to undo; and
• Identification of high-risk displacement areas due to market reaction to zoning development regulations and capital projects and implementation of anti-displacement policies/investments/regs.
• Requires a city to allow emergency housing, permanent supportive housing, or emergency shelters in multifamily, commercial, mixed use, or form-based zones where short-term rentals are allowed.

Of note, this amendment would trigger the “null and void if funding not appropriated in advance” provision in RCW 36.70A.070(9).

Relative to recent GMA proposals on housing, this proposal appears to be more workable and maintains local discretion. We expect significant discussion to refine this proposal and would appreciate your feedback on how it could be improved. Please send your comments to Shannon McClelland by January 21.

Dates to remember

HB 1099 is scheduled for public hearing in the House Environment & Energy Committee at 8 am on Tuesday, January 19.

HB 1117 is scheduled for public hearing in the House Environment & Energy Committee on Thursday, January 21 at 1:30 pm.