HB 1220, a Growth Management Act bill, has been difficult for cities this year. Always with the caveat that the state agrees to help pay for additional planning work, AWC has been supporting one major element of the bill: a planning requirement to explore the implications of city zoning policies with a racial equity lens and do more specific work to provide for more affordable housing.

The bill also requires cities to plan for projected emergency shelter needs and ensure appropriate zoning capacity for those needs. Cities have not objected to the provision, recognizing that all cities need to do their part to address the state’s homelessness crisis.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach agreement on two other sections of the bill that preempt local decision-making around the exact siting of emergency shelters and associated facilities. AWC and several cities have been attempting to find middle ground on these provisions, with little success. The Senate Housing & Local Government Committee passed a new version of the preemption that showed movement towards the city position in terms of ability to regulate occupancy and intensity of use, but still retains ambiguity between emergency shelters and emergency housing, and strict siting requirements tied to hotels and short-term rentals.

Sections 3 and 4 of the proposal are identical provisions addressing different classes of cities. The language now reads:

A [city] may not prohibit emergency housing, transitional housing, or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units, hotels, or short-term rentals are allowed, and may not prohibit emergency shelters in any zone in which hotels are allowed. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, intensity of use, and operational restrictions may be imposed on indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelters. Any such restrictions on occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of sufficient indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each [city’s] projected need for such housing and shelter. For purposes of this section, "dwelling unit" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 36.70A.696, "hotel" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 19.48.010, and "short-term rental" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 64.37.010.

Some cities are still concerned that the definition of emergency shelter and emergency housing are very similar, but each is treated differently than the other in the new language. Further, there are cities who continue to prefer more flexibility in the places they would be required to allow emergency shelters.

AWC requests that cities share your current position on HB 1220 with Carl Schroeder.

The operative definitions are as follows:

"Emergency housing" means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement.

"Emergency shelter" means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations.

AWC requests that cities share your current position on HB 1220 with Carl Schroeder, given the new language in Section 3 & 4. Comments submitted before the public hearing on March 31 would be most helpful.

Date to remember

HB 1220 is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Ways & Means Committee on Wednesday, March 31 at 1:30 pm.