While the fate of the major Growth Management Act (GMA) bills remains in question, two proposals that impact land use decisions by cities are only a signature away from becoming law.
Shelter preemption and expansion of affordable housing planning
HB 1220 had a bit of a rocky road to the finish line. From introduction, AWC supported the new
planning requirements of the bill, including:
- Plan for housing for a variety of income levels and consideration of moderate density housing.
- Review local policies, zoning, and ordinances that may have racially disparate impacts or displacement effects and then identify and implement strategies to correct them.
- Plan for projected emergency shelter and housing needs.
With state funding, these provisions were acceptable to cities. In addition, the bill requires the Department of Commerce—rather than cities—to provide the inventory and analysis for existing and projected housing needs necessary to address
projected growth, including units for a variety of income levels and for emergency and permanent supportive housing.
Unfortunately, HB 1220 also contained a far-reaching preemption on local authority to site emergency shelters, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing. AWC worked tirelessly with the sponsors and other legislators on amendments
and we feel the result is a significant improvement from where the bill started. While all cities must allow these types of housing in areas directed by the soon-to-be law, cities have two options as to how to accommodate indoor emergency shelters
and housing. Cities can also regulate conditions impacting public health and safety if those regulations don’t cumulatively prevent a city from meeting its projected need of such housing. Here is the final preemption provision:
A city shall not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Effective September 30, 2021, a city shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency
housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, except in such cities that have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one-mile proximity to transit. Reasonable occupancy,
spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed by ordinance on permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, and indoor emergency shelters to protect public health and safety. Any such requirements on occupancy,
spacing, and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each city's projected need for such
housing and shelter under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii).
Direct appeals on land use and administrative law cases
SB 5225 could be described as a unicorn – a bill that sails through the halls of the Legislature
without a single amendment. Its secret? The proposal identified a problem and created a straightforward solution that was agreed to by all affected stakeholders. It may also have helped that it’s the brainchild of the judicial associations and
those testifying in support were judges.
The genius of SB 5225 is its simplicity. As a result of the pandemic, superior courts have a significant backlog of criminal cases because jury trials have not been possible. Meanwhile, most of the cases that arrive at the state’s
appellate court are criminal cases, so those courts have a lighter caseload than normal. SB 5225 solves these two issues by sending appeals of land use decisions and administrative law cases directly to the state’s Court of
Appeals, with consent of the parties. Once signed, the law goes into effect immediately and sunsets in five years.