Starting during the interim, we have seen a significant number of proposals amending the Growth Management Act (GMA), with a focus on addressing the housing crisis. At last count, we know of at least fifteen land use planning proposals before the Senate!

Here are the proposals that were either heard last week or are scheduled for a hearing this week:

Short plats – SB 5008, sponsored by Sen. Guy Palumbo (D–Maltby), increases plats for a short subdivision. It had a hearing on January 17.

Generally, short subdivisions remain defined as the division of land into four or fewer lots. However, this bill would allow jurisdictions not planning under the GMA to, by local ordinance, increase the number of lots, tracts, or parcels to nine. Those jurisdictions planning under the GMA would be required to process subdivisions of up to nine lots, tracts, or parcels, through the short subdivision process and, by ordinance, a city could increase the number to 30 within a UGA.

We support the interest in facilitating residential housing development, but testified with concerns about the provisions of this bill that mandate moving from four units to nine as a default minimum. Among other reasons, because some cities have concern about the lack of public hearings for short subdivisions and a desire to protect their ability to maintain status quo. Does this concern your city? Please reach out to Carl or Shannon with any comments.

Rural development – SB 5193, sponsored by Sen. Shelly Short (R–Addy), will be heard Thursday, January 24 at 8 am in the Senate Local Government Committee.

This bill restructures existing language under the limited areas of more intensive rural development section of the rural element of GMA comprehensive plans. SB 5193 would allow a county to expand limited areas of more intensive rural development and establish a logical boundary for that limited development. We have historically been a wary of expansion of the LAMIRD statutes. We would appreciate feedback on whether this is a problem or if there are ways it could be done that we should support.

UGA requirements – SB 5194, also sponsored by Sen. Short, will be heard after SB 5193.

This bill adds economic development projections to the land use element consideration; adds the definition of urban character that is allowed in the UGA; and adds medium household income estimates and projection, and housing inventory and gap analysis to plan for 20-year growth. In addition to considering density during the UGA review, the bill adds commercial uses and housing to ensure the urban growth area contains a balance of market supply of housing types, at a variety of economic price points and densities and increased economic development. During comprehensive plan review, if more than one-third of the households in the jurisdiction are considered cost-burdened by paying more than thirty to fifty percent of their household income for housing or severely cost-burdened by paying more than fifty percent 36 of their household income for housing, the bill requires that the urban growth area be expanded.

We know some cities would like to see economic factors as an eligible element of UGA expansion, but we expect that you will find much of this bill very problematic. We don’t need detailed review, but please share any particularly concise problem statements about the approach.

Opt out of the GMA – SB 5242, also sponsored by Sen. Short, will be heard after SB 5194.

Under this bill, if a rural county:

• Has an unemployment rate at least twenty percent above the state average for the immediately previous three years; or
• Has a median household income that is less than seventy-five percent of the state median household income for the previous three years; then
• The county could adopt a resolution to remove it, and all of the cities in the county, from GMA planning requirements. This bill also eliminates the provisions that AWC has insisted on in other opt out bills requiring a certain amount of agreement from the affected cities before the county can opt out.

Hearings board standing – SB 5243, also sponsored by Sen. Short, will be heard after SB 5242.

This bill changes who is able to petition the growth management hearings board. Currently, anyone who has engaged with the city or county on the issue can file a petition. This bill does not focus on previous participation, but rather requires that the person:

• Must own property within the jurisdiction;
• Is, or will likely be, prejudiced by the action; and
• Will suffer actual injury if the action is upheld.

AWC would appreciate hearing your perspective on this change. The likelihood that this bill is passed into law appears low.

Critical areas – SB 5245, also sponsored by Sen. Short, will be heard after SB 5243.

This bill revises the GMA to require only the best available science be used by cities and counties to designate critical areas. The bill defines “best available science” as findings of peer-reviewed scientific studies or data collected using methods and processes widely accepted and utilized within the scientific community. This includes, but is not limited to, scientific studies or data recommended by the departments of commerce, ecology, or fish and wildlife. In addition, the bill requires:

• Area designations that deviate from agency recommendations must be supported by a showing of a thorough consideration of all reasonably available scientific and nonscientific data.
• In designating fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, counties and cities designate areas for species proven by best available science to exist or species that could reasonably be expected to exist during the planning period.
• Each jurisdiction must specifically address what, if any, conservation or protection measures are necessary within that jurisdiction to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries as determined by an examination of reasonably available scientific and nonscientific data. This is a change from only requiring special consideration for these fisheries.

AWC has significant concerns with the requirements of this bill. We will be testifying as opposed.

Agricultural land – SB 5259, sponsored by Sen. Hans Ziegler (R-Puyallup) will be heard after SB 5245.

As related to agricultural land both within and outside of UGAs, this bill allows cities or counties to:

• Consolidate multiple permit requirements to create a more efficient permitting system;
• Exempt agricultural lands from requirements a county or city determines to be unnecessary;
• Reduce the amount of time required for permit review;
• Expand opportunities for county or city employees to provide technical assistance to landowners who request assistance; and
• Increasing coordination among counties or cities and other agencies to avoid duplication of work during permit review.

Density – We have heard from many of you on GMA density drafts that we have been reviewing over the interim and in the last few weeks. Thank you again for your feedback and examples of how these proposals either help or hinder your local planning goals and circumstances. Please stay tuned and engaged as we continue to advocate for effective solutions to growth management and our statewide housing crisis.

Here are some more housing and density bills that were introduced, but, as of writing, have not yet been scheduled for a hearing:

SB 5249 – Eliminates certain requirements for the annexation of an unincorporated island of territory.

SB 5353 – Promoting redevelopment of certain areas to encourage transit supportive densities and efficient land use.

SB 5358 – Concerning affordable housing development on religious organization property.

SB 5372 – Concerning local project permit review.

SB 5382 – Concerning tiny houses serving as accessory dwelling units.

SB 5383 – Concerning tiny houses.

SB 5384 – Concerning the location of tiny house communities.

Dates to remember

A slew of bills briefed above will be heard Thursday, January 24 at 8 am in the Senate Local Government Committee.