The House Housing Committee passed amendments to restructure and clarify the exceptionally complex and convoluted transit-oriented development bill. While it has certainly improved from its original version, confusion and consternation remain as the bill is poised for what might be a lively floor debate.

SB 5466 requires a mandated level of “transit-oriented density,” as defined in the bill, to apply to each “station area,” also defined. It’s all based on set “floor area ratios” also separately defined and intertwined with the definition of “transit-oriented density.” Confused yet?  Here’s how that looks put together, and keeping in mind that these definitions will apply to the entire Growth Management Act and not just the new addition on development around high-capacity transit:

Cities must plan for a floor area ratio of 3.0 one-half mile walking distance of a stop on a:

• High-capacity transportation system funded or expanded under chapter 81.104 RCW,
• Commuter rail, and
• Rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways;

Cities must plan for a floor area ratio of 2.5 within one-quarter mile walking distance of a stop on a bus rapid transit route.

A "stop" includes any existing stop and any stop funded for development prior to the earlier of a city's deadline to complete its next periodic comprehensive plan update or its next implementation progress report.

Here’s an updated estimation of what that looks like in the Puget Sound region, although as a crow flies, rather than measured in walking distance: transit buffers

Calculation of a floor area ratio doesn’t include lots with critical areas or their buffers, as well as public facilities including streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.

The bill also:

• Adds a 1.5 floor area ratio to the above for any project that includes affordable housing for those at 60% AMI or less for 50 years or for permanent supportive housing.
• A multifamily housing project that adds three-bedroom units doesn’t count towards the floor area ratio.
• Adds an alternative where cities can apply an average in a station area, where some areas are higher and some lower than the requirement.
• Adds an affordability requirement that requires at least 20% of units constructed in a station area to be affordable to those at or below 60% AMI. The exception is for zones that already required a density that meets the requirements of the bill.
• Prohibits requiring any development regulations in a station area that render it impracticable to build a usable structure at the required density, with exceptions.
• Adds a “substantially similar” compliance pathway that will sound familiar if you have been keeping up with HB 1110, the middle housing mandate. Both require permission from Commerce.
• Adds a categorical exemption.

On a positive note, the bill creates a grant program. Alternatively, the Legislature could just fund a grant program to achieve these same goals.