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.
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. Comprehensive plans must be reviewed and, if necessary, revised every ten years to ensure that it complies with the GMA. When developing their comprehensive plans, counties and cities must consider various goals set forth in statute.
Mandatory Housing Element. Comprehensive plans must include a housing element that ensures the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods. The housing element must include the following:
Transitional Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. A city or code city may not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zone that residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. A city or code city may not prohibit indoor emergency shelters or indoor emergency housing in any zones that hotels are allowed, unless the city or code city has adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one mile proximity to transit.
A city or code city may impose, by ordinance, reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements on permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, and indoor emergency shelters for public health and safety purposes. Requirements may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, and indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each city or code city's projected need for such housing and shelter under the mandatory housing element included in its comprehensive plan.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) must provide services to facilitate the timely resolution of disputes between a city or code city and:
A city or code city and the applicant or developer may request Commerce to provide facilitation services to resolve issues of concern with a proposed development of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters.
If the dispute resolution process is unsuccessful, the city or code city must submit the following information to Commerce for review:
If Commerce finds that the final decision on the project permit application, a developer agreement, or another permitting process violates current law, or, if applicable, the mandatory housing element of its comprehensive plan, Commerce must reverse the final decision and return it to the city or code city for approval, modification, or further proceedings.
If Commerce finds that a zoning ordinance or development regulations adopted by the city or code city prevents the siting of housing or shelter in violation of current law, or, if applicable, the mandatory housing element of its comprehensive plan, Commerce must issue a determination of noncompliance.
The final decision issued by Commerce may be appealed as a land use decision under the Land Use Petition Act or the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Commerce must notify the state treasurer if a city or code city fails to:
Upon notification, the state treasurer must withhold the following revenues from distribution to the city or code city:
The state treasurer must resume distributions of revenues when the city or code city issues the project permit application or amends its zoning ordinance and related development regulations.
An applicant submitting a project permit application, development agreement, or other documents for permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters may submit a copy of the documents to Commerce. An applicant may request a review of any denial, rescission, or conditions for approval by a city or code city.
Commerce may adopt any rules necessary to implement the provisions of the bill. These provisions expire July 1, 2029.
PRO: This bill is in response to cities that have denied or rescinded permits for affordable housing developments. This bill establishes a dispute resolution process to resolve complaints from developers and providers of affordable housing when a city has denied or rescinded a permit, and that decision is contrary to state law. In these situations, the Department of Commerce would provide arbitration for all parties. This is something the agency already does for disputes between tribal and local governments engaging in local planning decisions. Some developers and providers are experiencing significant pushback from cities when trying to get a permit for their affordable housing developments, and this typically looks like applying local codes or zoning ordinances in inappropriate ways. Providers are currently hiring private legal counsel to try to address the conflict with the city, but the costs of doing so are unsustainable for nonprofits and developers operating on thin profit margins. Affordable housing is an acute need in the state and it is imperative to make sure that all cities are following the housing and land use planning laws. Cities that are planning under the GMA will include an updated housing element in their comprehensive plans that will address some of the affordable housing needs in their jurisdiction, so the bill will expire after all jurisdictions have completed their comprehensive plan reviews and revisions. The existing process is hampering the ability for the region and state to meet the most pressing housing needs facing low income communities, seniors, veterans, and others with disabilities out of homelessness. The bill establishes a plan to immediately address the most critical affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters needs.
CON: Cities can support the idea of targeted dispute resolution within the bill, but the provisions that allow Commerce to determine whether local zoning ordinances and permit decisions are appropriate would have a chilling effect on voluntary negotiations. It is concerning that Commerce could obligate a city to make certain land use planning decisions that might not be best suited for their community. It is also concerning that the bill amends the current judicial process for permitting appeals and places the responsibilities with Commerce. Many of these issues will be addressed through the housing element requirements included as part of the upcoming comprehensive plan reviews and revisions. This bill feels like a retaliation bill after the events that happened in Kenmore, when the city rejected the supportive housing development.
OTHER: This bill could use some friendly amendments. Some communities do not have the capacity to support people in recovery that need shelter. The bill should include a provision that says if a community has a "no sit no lie" policy, the jurisdiction must have a treatment facility and emergency shelters. People experiencing homelessness should be able to recover in places that they are not being gawked at. There are times that this kind of dispute resolution process included in the bill are important and critical in order to meet local housing needs.