Growth Management Act Planning Requirements.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that certain counties, and the cities within those counties, engage in planning for future population growth. Counties that have a population of 50,000 or more and, prior to May 16, 1995, had its population grow by 10 percent or more in the prior 10 years, or, after May 16, 1995, by 17 percent or more in the prior 10 years, are covered by the GMA. So, too, is any county that experiences population growth of 20 percent over a 10-year period. Counties with populations under 50,000, that would otherwise be required to plan, can remove themselves from the GMA's comprehensive planning requirements. Conversely, counties that do not meet the standards for automatic inclusion in the GMA may choose to be included.
Currently, 18 counties are required to plan, 10 have chosen to plan, and 11 are not subject to the full GMA planning requirements.
Whether a county is automatically required to plan under the GMA or voluntarily chooses to, the planning requirements are largely the same, and the comprehensive plan is the centerpiece of the process. The Legislature has established 14 goals to act as the basis of all comprehensive plans. Examples of goals include reducing sprawl, providing for affordable housing, and protecting property rights. The comprehensive plan must address these goals and set out the policies and standards that are meant to guide the city or county's actions and decisions in the future.
Comprehensive Plan Review and Revision Deadlines.
Every 10 years, a county or city that is planning under the GMA must review and revise its comprehensive plan and development regulations to ensure that the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the GMA. This review and revision requires legislative action from the county or city.
The 10-year review and revision deadlines are staggered for different counties. King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, and the cities within those counties, had a deadline of December 31, 2024. Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom, and the cities within those counties, have a deadline of December 31, 2025. The deadlines for these first two groups of counties and cities had originally been set for June 30, rather than December 31, of the year that their plans were due. Both groups of counties and cities, however, received six-month extensions of the due date, with the Legislature extending the deadline for the first group of counties and cities in 2022, and for the second group in 2024.
Of the remaining counties, Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima, and the cities within those counties, have a deadline of June 30, 2026. The last group of counties and cities, Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, and Whitman, and the cities within those counties, have a deadline of June 30, 2027.
The third and fourth groups of counties and cities must review and revise their comprehensive plans 10 years after their current update. The first and second groups have six months less, as the due date for those counties and cities reverts back to June 30 of the year that their next comprehensive plan is due. That means that the next deadline for the first group of counties and cities is June 30, 2034, and, for the second group, June 30, 2035. Subsequent reviews and revisions are due every 10 years thereafter.
Counties and cities planning under the GMA that meet certain population, growth, or density criteria must also submit an implementation progress report on the implementation of the comprehensive plan and compliance with certain legislative directives five years after their comprehensive plan has been updated.
Minimum Urban Density Requirements.
Cities planning under the GMA that have a population of more than 25,000, or that share an urban growth area with a city that is both the largest in the county and has a population of more than 275,000, are required to comply with certain residential density requirements. For example, a city of between 25,000 and 75,000 people must allow for at least two units per lot on all lots zoned primarily for residential use. A city of more than 75,000 must allow at least four units per lot on lots zoned primarily for residential use.
A city subject to the minimum density requirements must comply with the requirements at the latter of:
Design Review Requirements.
Design review is the review of a project for compliance with design standards adopted by a local government. Generally, these standards are meant to ensure that new development fits in architecturally and aesthetically with existing development or with other new development in the same area.
For counties and cities that plan under the GMA, design review outside of historic districts or designated landmarks must be guided by clear and objective development regulations. These regulations must include at least one ascertainable standard by which an applicant can determine whether a building design would be permissible, and the regulations cannot require a reduction of the density, height, bulk, or scale of the building below what is generally allowed in the development's zoning district.
A local government must comply with the requirements for design review beginning six months after its next comprehensive plan update.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements.
Counties and cities planning under the GMA must comply with certain requirements related to accessory dwelling units. For example, counties and cities must allow for at least two accessory dwelling units on all lots within an urban growth area that allow for the development of single-family housing, and cities and counties cannot impose setback requirements, tree retention mandates, or other specified restrictions on accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than those imposed on principle units. Counties and cities must incorporate these requirements into local regulations six months after the county or city's next comprehensive plan update.
The next comprehensive plan review and revision deadline for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima, and the cities within those counties, is December 31, 2026. Thereafter, the next comprehensive plan review and revision deadline for these counties and cities is June 30, 2036, with subsequent reviews and revisions required every 10 years after that date.
A city subject to the minimum density requirements must comply with the requirements at the latter of:
A county or city subject to the design review requirements or accessory dwelling unit requirements must comply with the requirements at the time of its next comprehensive plan update.
(In support) This bill would give a six-month deadline extension, which is consistent with what was done for other counties and cities. Counties are significantly updating their comprehensive plans, as they may not previously have been substantially updated for awhile, and need to make sure that these changes can be fully discussed with constituents and experts to ensure the plan and regulations are fine-tuned. The extra time will be beneficial for many reasons, but particularly for allowing thorough community engagement with residents, to enable smart and sustainable growth, to find consultants, to sync comprehensive plans together with other plans, and to ease the burden on local government resources. This extension will allow the time to complete the complicated update process more thoroughly and will reduce the need for revisions and legal disputes. The bill also changes deadlines for requirements due six months after a comprehensive plan to instead be due at the time of the update in order to account for the change in the comprehensive plan deadline. When the comprehensive plan update is done, counties and cities should have had time to address everything.
(Opposed) None.
Senator Keith Goehner, prime sponsor; Scott Chesney, AICP and Spokane County Building and Planning; and Richa Sigdel, City of Pasco, Deputy City Manager.