Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) is the comprehensive land-use planning framework for counties and cities in Washington. The GMA establishes land-use designation and environmental protection requirements for all Washington counties and cities. The GMA also establishes a significantly wider array of planning duties for 28 counties, and the cities within those counties, that are obligated to satisfy all planning requirements of the GMA. These jurisdictions are sometimes said to be fully planning under the GMA.
Counties that fully plan under the GMA must designate urban growth areas (UGAs), within which urban growth must be encouraged and outside of which growth may occur only if it is not urban in nature. Planning jurisdictions must include within their UGAs sufficient areas and densities to accommodate projected urban growth for the succeeding 20-year period.
The GMA also directs fully planning jurisdictions to adopt internally consistent comprehensive land use plans. Comprehensive plans are implemented through locally adopted development regulations, and both the plans and the local regulations are subject to review and revision requirements prescribed in the GMA. When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider various goals set forth in statute.
Comprehensive Plan—Mandatory Housing Element. The comprehensive plan of a fully planning county or city must consist of a map or maps and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the plan. The plan must be an internally consistent document and all elements must be consistent with the future land-use map. Each comprehensive plan must include a plan, scheme, or design for certain enumerated elements, including a mandatory housing element. The housing element must ensure the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods and, among other requirements:
Planning Actions and Housing Action Plans. Fully planning cities are encouraged to take an array of specified planning actions to increase residential building capacity. Specified planning actions include, for example:
In general, ordinances and other nonproject actions taken to implement these specified planning actions, if adopted by April 1, 2023, are not subject to administrative or judicial appeal under SEPA or legal challenge under the GMA.
Fully planning cities may adopt a housing action plan to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for-profit single-family home market. The housing action plan should, for example:
State Environmental Policy Act. SEPA establishes a review process for state and local governments to identify environmental impacts that may result from governmental decisions, such as the issuance of permits or the adoption of land-use plans. The SEPA environmental review process involves a project proponent or the lead agency completing an environmental checklist to identify and evaluate probable environmental impacts.
The information collected through the SEPA review process may be used to condition a proposal mitigating environmental impacts or to deny a proposal when significant adverse environmental impacts are identified. Any appeal brought under SEPA must be linked to a specific governmental action.
State Environmental Policy Act—Exemption from Appeal Based on the Transportation Element of the Environment. A project action pertaining to residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development evaluated under SEPA by a city, county, or town planning fully under the GMA is exempt from appeals under SEPA based on the evaluation of or impacts to transportation elements of the environment, so long as the project does not present significant adverse impacts to state highways as determined by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the project meets certain additional criteria.
State Environmental Policy Act—Rule-Based Categorical Exemptions. Under SEPA, certain nonproject actions are categorically exempt from threshold determinations and environmental impact statement in rule. Examples of categorical exemptions include various kinds of minor new construction and minor land use decisions.
Growth Management Act—Exemption from Review and Appeal. Any action taken by a fully planning city to amend its comprehensive plans or adopt or modify ordinances to implement certain planning actions to increase residential building capacity is clarified as exempt from both review and legal challenge under the GMA. The exemption is made permanent and includes the implementation of strategies adopted within a housing action plan.
State Environmental Policy Act—Exemption from Review and Appeal. Any nonproject action taken by a fully planning city to implement certain optional planning actions to increase residential building capacity is clarified as exempt from environmental and judicial review, as well as administrative and judicial appeal, under SEPA. The exemption is made permanent and includes the implementation of strategies adopted within a housing action plan.
The adoption of development regulations or amendments by a fully planning city that increase housing capacity and affordability and mitigates displacement as required under the mandatory housing element of the city's comprehensive plan, and that apply outside of critical areas, are exempt from environmental and judicial review under the GMA and administrative and judicial appeal under SEPA.
The exemption from appeal under SEPA for any project action related to a residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development on the basis of or impacts to the transportation elements of the environment is clarified as only applying if DOT has not found the project will present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation system. Any project action related to a residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development is exempt from appeal under SEPA on the basis of or impacts to the aesthetics element of the environment if the project is subject to adopted design review requirements at the local government level. Any project action related to a residential, multifamily, or mixed-use development is also exempt from appeal under SEPA on the basis of or impacts to the light and glare element of the environment if the project is subject to adopted design review requirements at the local government level. "Design review" is defined as a formally adopted local government process by which projects are reviewed for compliance with design standards for the type of use adopted through local ordinance.
State Environmental Policy Act—Categorical Exemptions. The Department of Ecology must undergo expedited rulemaking to modify rule-based categorical exemptions to SEPA, specifically:
State Environmental Policy Act--Miscellaneous. Any project applicant under SEPA is not required to file an environmental checklist or any other paperwork to prove that the project is exempt or categorically exempt if the initial project application sufficiently shows that the project is exempt under SEPA or by rule.
The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: The bill decreases barriers to increasing housing supply. It represents a follow-up effort to previous legislation in E2SHB 1923 in 2019 by locking in certain residential capacity incentives. Sometimes environmental laws are weaponized against increased growth, and often neighborhood groups sue on projects to strategically delay them. This causes much needed urban housing to get pushed out to suburban areas, creating more sprawl and commuting. The bill specifically targets the development of smaller homes by providing rule-based exemptions to projects with homes under 1500 square feet. The increase of categorical exemptions for multifamily projects in the UGA is appreciated, as is the transportation and aesthetics element SEPA exemption for project actions. Major project delays often cause increased costs and incomplete projects. Many investors are forced to give up on financing projects due to environmental appeals and associated legal fees. Attorney's fees are already allowed under the appellate level but would be extended at the trial level too. Permitting costs should also be addressed in the bill. There are concerns about the attorney's fee provision and lack of definition of project-specific affordable housing development. The bill should also make the current authority for local governments to provide a SEPA exemption for certain infill development a requirement.
OTHER: Overall, the intent of the bill works. Concerns remain regarding the attorney's fees portion. There is a need to fine tune and perfect language on exemption appeals for mandatory housing element actions. The bill does a good job of removing existing barriers on increased housing and construction in areas where transportation services could be provided. DOT would lose the ability to review rule-based categorical exemptions to assess multi-modal transportation impacts under the bill as written.