Collaborative Roadmap Phase III Final Legislative Report, January 5, 2023
Summary
This Final Legislative Report, prepared for the 2023 Legislative Session and dated January 5, 2023, covers Collaborative Roadmap Phase III. Phase III is a two-year project, funded by the Washington State Legislature during the 2021 legislative session, focused on updates to the state's growth policy framework. It convened a Task Force to make recommendations to the Legislature. The report states that the Task Force's 2022 work produced 12 distinct issues and 15 recommendations, among them annexation incentives, housing tax benefits and incentives, middle housing definitions, and a shoreline master program review schedule. Appendices hold the recommendation sheets, working group consolidated recommendations, and survey results.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Collaborative Roadmap Phase III Final Legislative Report, January 5, 2023.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2023-commerce-reports-collaborative-roadmap-iii-final-68512105-fa43-42-548a4586d0/
, SHA-256 57e340d6853f706620aed5768f7b073e33a6e50659424e52bb4d58f69426cd20.Full text
Final Legislative Report –
Prepared for the 2023 Legislative
Session
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III
January 5, 2023
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
Project Overview and Purpose ............................................................................................ 7
Findings, Concepts, and Recommendations from Recent Reports ...................................... 7
Developing the Scope of Recommendations for 2022 ........................................................ 8
Developing recommendations for 2022 legislative session.................................................. 10
Task Force process .......................................................................................................... 10
Engagement Summary for 2022 ....................................................................................... 12
Legislative recommendations for 2023 ................................................................................ 16
Appendix A: Recommendation Sheets ................................................................................. 17
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #1 – Annexation Incentives ..................................... 17
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #2 – Housing Tax Benefits and Incentives ............... 21
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #3 – Integrating Water, Sewer, School, and Port
Districts in the GMA .......................................................................................................... 28
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #4 – Modify Permit Data Collection Requirements .. 32
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #5 – Modify Permit Process Requirements ............. 39
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #6 – Middle Housing Definitions.............................. 43
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #7 – New Equity and Environmental Justice Goal in
the GMA ............................................................................................................................ 47
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #8 – Partial Planning Requirements for Fully Planning
Cities ................................................................................................................................ 52
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #9 – Shoreline Master Program Review Schedule ... 57
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #10 – Varied Planning Requirements – Buildable
Lands ................................................................................................................................ 59
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #11 – Varied Planning Requirements – City Adoption
of County Critical Areas Ordinance ................................................................................... 64
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #12 – Varied Planning Requirements – Commerce
Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................ 68
Appendix B: Working Group Consolidated Recommendations ............................................. 72
Appendix C: Project Survey Results Summary and Tabulation ............................................. 84
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Figure 1: Project schedule and timeline ..................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Important milestones .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Defining the scope of issues for the Task Force to address ........................................ 8
Figure 4: Topic categories defined ............................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: Task Force meeting and feedback process in 2022 .................................................. 10
Figure 6: Overall process for collaboration between the Task Force, working groups, and the
Legislature ............................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Topics addressed by working groups ........................................................................ 13
Figure 8: Modified consent process illustration ....................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Process to form recommendations ........................................................................... 16
Prepared for:
By:
With our partners:
Photo credit (cover page): LDC, Inc.
Photo credit (page 4): Jim Culp, Flickr, Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 3
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III project (Phase III) is a two-year project, funded by the
Washington State Legislature during the 2021 legislative session, focused on updates to the
state’s growth policy framework. Phase III has three primary objectives:
• Convene a Task Force, which includes diverse perspectives, to make recommendations
to the Legislature regarding needed reforms to the state’s growth policy framework;
• Task Force recommendations shall build upon the findings, concepts, and
recommendations in recent state-funded reports; and
• Include in these discussions the lived experiences and perspectives of people who
have too often been excluded from public policy decision-making and are unevenly
impacted by those decisions.
Project work in 2022 included significant effort by the Task Force, who worked together to
meet the project objectives. Working groups and other outreach efforts helped inform the Task
Force’s discussions and recommendations. This 2022 Legislative Report, provided to the
Legislature prior to the 2023 session, includes significant and wide-ranging recommendations
for changes to the growth policy framework. The recommendations are well balanced across
all focus areas identified in prior reports and studies and in previous deliverables for the Phase
III project. They include ideas that would both enhance the existing framework and right-size
planning requirements. Recommendations focus on making the laws and code governing
growth and development work better and on providing local governments tools to help them
address some of our most pressing issues, such as housing.
This report focuses on the final recommendations from the project Task Force and the
engagement process utilized in 2022, which informed this important process as described in
the Engagement Summary for 2022 in this legislative report. All project reports, Task Force
recommendations, project schedule, meeting videos, and background information may be
accessed via the project website.
We are here
Figure 1: Project schedule and timeline
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 4
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The results of the Task Force work in 2022 include 12 distinct issues and 15 recommendations
across a broad spectrum of the growth policy framework for the Legislature to consider. More
detailed information on each recommendation may be found by clicking below. The process of
how each recommendation was formed is provided in this report.
Annexation Incentives
Housing Tax Benefits and Incentives
Integrating Water, Sewer, School, and Port Districts into the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A)
Middle Housing Definitions
Modify Permit Data Collection Requirements
Modify Permit Process Requirements
New Equity Goal and Environmental Justice Goal in the GMA
Partial Planning Requirements for Fully Planning Cities
Shoreline Master Program Review Schedule
Varied Planning Requirements – Buildable Lands
Varied Planning Requirements – City Adoption of County Critical Areas Ordinance
Varied Planning Requirements – Commerce Technical Assistance
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 5
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
t
Collaborative Roadmap
Figure 2: Important milestones
Phase III – Important
Milestones
2021
Review of Prior
Studies Report
Task Force
formation and
meetings
Preliminary Scope of
Recommendations
Report
2021 Legislative
Report
2022
Ongoing work -
• Legislative session engagement
We Are • Task Force meetings
Here • Ongoing engagement
Final Scope of
Recommendations
Report
2022 Legislative
Report
2023
Ongoing work -
• Legislative session
engagement
Closeout Report
and Final Figure 2: Important milestones
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Recommendations 6
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Project Overview and Purpose
The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (Phase III)
Excerpt from Chapter 334, Laws of
project builds upon the findings, concepts, and 2021
recommendations from recent state-funded reports. (Operating Budget):
Utilizing the foundation of ideas and [Commerce is] to convene a task force
recommendations from previous studies, the project to make recommendations regarding
Task Force focused on making recommendations to needed reforms to the state’s growth
the Washington State Legislature about proposed policy framework […]. The process will
reforms to the state’s growth policy framework. build upon the findings, concepts, and
recommendations in recent state-
Washington’s growth policy framework consists of funded reports […]. The task force must
state laws that govern or influence the strategies involve diverse perspectives including
state agencies and local governments use to plan for, but not limited to representatives of
implement, and manage land use policy, permitting counties, cities, special districts, the
and appeals, infrastructure, and environmental real estate, building, and agricultural
industries, planning and environmental
protections.
organizations, Tribal governments, and
Beyond the Task Force, engaging diverse audiences state agencies. Special effort must be
in developing recommendations for the Legislature made to include in these discussions
the lived experiences and perspectives
was a vital part of this project. This includes people
of people who have too often been
who have historically been overlooked as public
excluded from public policy decision-
policy is developed. making and unevenly impacted by
This report presents the Task Force’s 2022 those decisions.
recommendations for legislative consideration during Chapter 334, Laws of 2021, p. 64 - 65
the 2023 session. It also provides an overview of
engagement conducted in 2022.
Findings, Concepts, and
Recommendations from Recent Reports
To enable the Task Force to build upon past efforts Project Team
and provide additional recommendations for changes • LDC, Inc.
to the growth policy framework, the project team • PRR
(right) reviewed four state-funded reports: the Land • Confluence Environmental
Use Study Commission (1998), Governor’s Land Use • SCJ Alliance
Agenda (2006), A Road Map to Washington’s Future
(2019), and Updating Washington’s Growth Policy
Framework (2021). This important work has been reviewed and summarized as part of the
Review of Prior Studies report, which was issued as part of this project and is available on the
project website.
Recommendations from past studies have resulted in successful legislation over the past two
decades. With renewed attention paid to updating the growth policy framework through the
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 7
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
recent Road Map projects, new legislation has been introduced to address recommendations
and opportunities identified within those reports. In addition, the Legislature acted on some
recommendations from the Task Force’s 2021 work. Those recommendations were included
within the 2021 Legislative Report, which was issued prior to the 2022 session. Some of the
recommendations within this report build on recommendations from last year.
Developing the Scope of Recommendations for 2022
The scope of topics addressed by the Task Force in 2022 builds on the efforts from 2021. This
includes basing the work on prior reports and studies. There are four primary differences
between the topics identified in the Preliminary Scope of Recommendations report issued in
2021 and the Final Scope of Recommendations report, which was issued in June 2022:
• The Task Force made several recommendations to the Legislature prior to the 2022
session. Those recommendations were contained within the 2022 Final Legislative
Report. Where the Legislature took up those recommendations last session, those
topics were considered complete.
• Several bills originating outside of this project were passed during the 2022 legislative
session that implement findings, concepts, and recommendations from recent state-
funded reports were considered complete.
• The project team had additional time to work through the findings, concepts, and
recommendations from recent state-funded reports. This resulted in a much more
refined set of topics for the Task Force to consider in 2022.
• The final list of topics was prioritized to account for the time the Task Force had to
collect feedback on each topic and make recommendations to the Legislature.
Legislation
Findings,
introduced or Task Force 2022 topics for
concepts, and
passed passed recommendaitons
recommendations
during previous addressed durng
2023 legislative
from State-funded session
legislative 2022 sesssion
reports
sessions
Filtering process
Figure 3: Defining the scope of issues for the Task Force to address
To make topics easier to understand as they relate to the growth policy framework, the project
team developed different topic categories. Each issue and subsequent recommendation that
the Task Force has made in 2022 falls under one of the categories on the following page.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 8
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Adaptive Planning
• Addressing varied planning requirements for cities and counties under
the GMA.
• How to make planning processes more predictable and recognize
regional differences.
• Ways to reduce conflicts, gaps, and redundancies within the growth
policy framework.
Integrating Planning
• Link between planning by cities and counties and other important local
and regional service providers and state agencies.
• Recommendations that would add new planning requirements.
• How utility and school districts plan and how they can be better
integrated with city and county planning for population and job growth.
Housing
• Changes to the growth policy framework that encourage a variety of
housing types for all income levels. This includes options for housing
incentives.
Annexations
• Options to encourage annexations in accordance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA) and create processes that sync well with city,
county, and special district planning requirements.
Figure 4: Topic categories defined
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 9
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Developing recommendations for 2022 legislative session
Task Force process
The Task Force is composed of 12 members representing diverse perspectives on growth
policy issues. They met 10 times in 2022 and made 14 recommendations on 12 distinct issues
to inform the Legislature’s work during the 2023 legislative session. Working groups and an
online survey informed the Task Force’s work and their recommendations (see the
Engagement Summary for 2022 for details on specific engagement activities).
August – Task Force
May/June –set 2022 check in - Working October/November – finalize
topics Group progress recommendations to
Legislature
4 5 6 Working
Groups 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
July/August – Working September – refine
Group meetings and draft develop
project survey recommendations
Figure 5: Task Force meeting and feedback process in 2022
The first three meetings of the year (starting with #4, as the first three meetings occurred in
2021) were spent prioritizing the 2022 topics and a schedule. Working groups met throughout
July and August. The Task Force met in August for an update on working group meetings, then
twice in September to begin developing draft recommendations. The Task Force met four
times in October and November to finalize recommendations through a modified consent
process (described in the Engagement Summary for 2022 section).
Subsets of Task Force members and working group participants met multiple times between
Task Force meetings to work through issues on many recommendations. This information was
then brought back to the full Task Force to finalize. Many Task Force members also attended
working group meetings and assisted in forming these important groups.
The Task Force and working groups focused on the scope of topics that resulted from
meetings 4-6. However, additional issues were considered that emerged from working group
discussions. After working group engagement and the survey, the Task Force presents its
recommendations in this document to the Legislature. The Task Force and project team
anticipate serving as a resource to the Legislature on the specifics of these recommendations
as bills are introduced and make their way through the legislative process in 2023.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 10
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 6: Overall process for collaboration between the Task Force, working groups, and the Legislature
Photo: LDC, Inc.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 11
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Engagement Summary for 2022
Washington’s land use policy has not always reflected the interests of people with low
incomes, people who are older, people who use languages other than English, people who are
Black, people who are Indigenous, other people of color, people who live in rural areas, and
people who rent their homes. As directed by the proviso issued by the Legislature in ESSB
5092, the project team prioritized the involvement of these groups in the Collaborative
Roadmap Phase III process.
In 2021, the project team reached out to community-based organizations and legislators who
represent audiences that have too often been excluded from public policy decision-making and
have been unevenly impacted by those decisions. In 2022, the project team used what we
learned in 2021 to include diverse voices in the Phase III work, including:
• Topic- and interest-specific working group meetings, including working groups for
environmental and environmental justice topics and a specific working group for tribal
nations representatives.
• One-on-one support for working group and Task Force members who have been less
involved in this work in the past, connecting issues that affect each audience with land
use policy.
These conversations helped the project team validate planning and land use issues from prior
work and bring new issues to light.
Building on Prior Work
Phase III built upon the findings, concepts, and recommendations in prior state-funded reports,
including the Road Map to Washington's Future by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center in 2019,
the report from the Environmental Justice Task Force issued in 2020, and Updating
Washington's Growth Policy Framework by the University of Washington in 2021. In 2021, the
project team took the following actions:
• Identified and reached out to Community-Based Organizations with valuable input for
the Task Force, including more than 50 human services, affordable housing, and
education organizations to invite them to participate in the Collaborative Roadmap
process and
• Engaged stakeholders and the Task Force on key issues for the 2022 legislative
session.
Read more about the findings from prior phases by reading the reports linked above.
Working Group Approach
Previous Collaborative Roadmap phases generated a host of policy ideas for Phase III
participants to review and transform into recommendations – too much for the Task Force to
work through alone.
To support the progression of recommendations in the Task Force, the project team convened
working groups, which reviewed and provided feedback on the topics being considered by the
project Task Force. This feedback was then provided to the Task Force for consideration as
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 12
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
recommendations were formed. The chart below shows the eight working groups and the
topics they reviewed.
Some working groups centered on a policy area, like environmental topics or issues impacting
special districts. Others, such as realtors and planners, centered on providing broader
feedback. At the request of Tribal nations representatives, a Tribal nations group formed later.
Tribal Realtors Planners Environmental Special Builders State Environmental
nations Groups Districts Agencies Justice
Organizations
Varied X X X X X X X X
planning
requirements
Reduce X X X X X X
conflicts,
gaps, and
redundancies
Middle X X X X X X
housing
definitions
Housing tax X X X X
benefits
Annexations X X X X
– incentives
and special
districts
Integrating X X X X
water, sewer,
port, and
school
districts with
the GMA
Equity and X X X X
environmental
justice and
human health
and wellbeing
in RCW
36.70A
Working groups detailed in the header row considered the topics in the first column as designated by “x” marks
throughout the table.
Figure 7: Topics addressed by working groups
The project team reviewed and prioritized the results of earlier Collaborative Roadmap phases
and identified seven issue areas for further consideration during Phase III (see Figure 7).
Discussions during working group meetings informed the direction for recommendations on
those seven issue areas and identified additional topics for legislative recommendations. The
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 13
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
project team regularly reported on working group progress during Task Force meetings to help
guide policy deliberations. Specific recommendations from the working groups are detailed in
Appendix B.
Findings from the environmental, environmental justice, and Tribal nations working groups are
detailed below.
Task Force
The following representatives have served on the Phase III Task Force in 2022:
Carlene Anders Mayor of Pateros and Disaster Leadership Team
Dave Andersen Department of Commerce
Bill Clarke Washington Realtors
Jeff Clarke Washington Association of Water and Sewer
Districts
Chris Collier American Planning Association – Washington
Chapter
Tim Gates Department of Ecology
Deric Gruen Front and Centered
Jan Himebaugh Building Industry of Washington
Paul Jewell WA State Association of Counties
Carl Schroeder Association of Washington Cities
Mario Reyes CAFÉ
Andrew Strobel Puyallup Tribe of Indians
John Stuhlmiller Washington Farm Bureau
Joe Tovar Washington American Planning Association
Bryce Yadon Futurewise
The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III Task Force included representatives of counties, cities,
special districts, the realty, building, and agricultural industries, planning and environmental
organizations, tribal governments, and state agencies. The project team reviewed prior
outreach efforts with community-based organizations to identify potential Task Force
members that elevate voices from communities who have often been excluded from public
policy creation or unevenly impacted by its implementation. From this group, Deric Gruen of
Front and Centered, Mario Reyes of CAFÉ, Carlene Anders, Mayor of Pateros, and Andrew
Strobel of the Puyallup Tribe were invited to serve on the Task Force to represent these under-
heard voices. Each brings decades of experience and expertise in serving their communities.
Survey
In the summer of 2022, the project team worked with the Department of Commerce to conduct
a web-based survey through the Phase III website. Fifty-seven (57) people answered more than
30 questions about the topics the Task Force was considering, providing valuable perspectives
and suggestions. The survey results (PDF) share these perspectives and highlights that
assisted in development of draft and final recommendations from the Task Force.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 14
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Decision Making Process
To support equity, the project team facilitated Task Force meetings using a consent decision
making process. This process uses an approach of shared tolerance over consensus or simple
majority rule. It also emphasizes the importance of clear, shared understanding of proposals,
and the value of input from all members of the group. The Task Force embraced this method,
which produced results – using it, the Task Force reached consent on 14 recommendations for
2023, with one recommendation not reaching consent but leading to a follow-up
recommendation that did (see recommendation sheet #10).
Once the Task Force agreed on a recommendation, it was recorded in a form which provides
background on the policy proposal, possible affected statutes, and budget impacts. Objections
were also captured, making it clear which groups expressed concerns regarding the
recommendation. The five steps in the modified consent process are described below.
Figure 8: Modified consent process illustration
1. Proposal – project team presents proposals based on previous Task Force work and
research.
2. Clarifying Questions – Task Force members ask clarifying questions (only!) with the
goal being to understand the proposal.
3. Quick Responses – Everyone gets a chance to give their opinion on the proposal,
preferably in five sentences or fewer. Task force members might share supporting data,
propose improvements in wording or even explanations as to why they like the
proposal. Small changes to the proposal are allowed, so long as everyone on the Task
Force is clear on the changes and the changes align with the proposal.
4. Consent Round – now that everyone in the group understands the proposal and has
provided their thoughts, the facilitator asks each person if they have an objection. All
objections should be heard and kept brief. Clarifying questions on each objection is
allowed, but not debate.
5. Resolve Objections – discuss objections individually and attempt to integrate them into
the proposal. If they cannot be integrated, indicate this in the recommendation sheet.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 15
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Legislative recommendations for 2023
The Legislature charged the Task Force with building upon past work to make
recommendations on how to update and reform the state’s growth policy framework. Recent
reports and studies conducted extensive engagement and outlined findings, concepts, and
recommendations upon which to build. Phase III puts a premium on Task Force
recommendations offering specific and actionable recommendations to the Legislature.
Figure 9: Process to form recommendations
Through the modified consent process, the project team developed a recommendation sheet to
summarize the issue, discussion, the recommendation language, where Task Force members
registered their perspective on each issue in the consent process, possible advantages and
disadvantages of the proposal, and potential budget impacts. Recommendations include
background information, context from the Task Force discussion and some include potential
bill language. Where bill language is not included, the recommendation itself should provide
enough specificity that bill language can be put together.
The result of the Task Force work in 2022 includes 12 issues and 15 separate
recommendations across a broad spectrum of the growth policy framework for the Legislature
to consider. Each issue links to the appropriate recommendation sheets that follow.
Annexation Incentives
Housing Tax Benefits and Incentives
Integrating Water, Sewer, School, and Port Districts into the GMA
Local Project Review Act – Permit Data
Local Project Review Act – Permitting Process
Middle Housing Definitions
New Equity Goal and Environmental Justice Goal in the GMA
Partial Planning Requirements for Fully Planning Cities
Shoreline Master Program Review Schedule
Varied Planning Requirements – Buildable Lands
Varied Planning Requirements – City Adoption of County Critical Areas Ordinance
Varied Planning Requirements – Commerce Technical Assistance
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 16
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A: Recommendation Sheets
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #1 – Annexation Incentives
Date 11 09 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Annexations – Special districts – incentive annexations
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation Recommendation one - annexation tax credit: The Legislature
should reinstate the annexation tax credit in RCW 82.14.415 to
provide better geographic access and equity and provide for
opportunities for all affected cities and counties to benefit from
resources provided by the state to incentivize annexations. RCW
82.14.415(1) should be revised to allow any city the ability to make
use of these provisions when all other statutory provisions are met.
RCW 82.14.415(a) and RCW 82.14.415(3)(a)(i) and (ii) should be
revised so that the credit against the state tax under chapter 82.08
or 82.12 RCW is 0.2 percent for annexed areas with a population
over 10,000 and 0.1 percent annexations over 2,000. The sunset
clauses in current statute should be removed.
Recommendation two - determining population of annexed area
after annexation: The Legislature should modify RCW 35.13.260,
RCW 35A.14.700, and RCW 36.93 to allow an optional process
where a city could opt in and rely on population estimates for a
potential annexation area provided by OFM instead of having to
complete a door-to-door census after an annexation.
Federal decennial data should also be able to be utilized with
approval of OFM. This would require the removal of the year 2010
from RCW 35.13.260 and RCW 35A.14.700 and reference that the
data could only be utilized within 12 months of the census if OFM
approves its use.
As this proposal is moved forward into legislation, additional
coordination and collaboration with Boundary Review Boards and
the Office of Financial Management (OFM) should occur to ensure
proposed language can be properly implemented.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote,
Recommendation one - consent but not endorsing any proposal that has a budget impact
not reflected in the Governor’s budget), Jeff Clarke, Chris Collier,
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 17
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette McKague
Members/Alternates (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew Strobel, Bryce
Yadon
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Mario Reyes
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote),
Recommendation two - Task Jeff Clarke, Chris Collier, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
Force Members/Alternates McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew
Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Object –
Abstain – Deric Gruen
Not Present – Mario Reyes
Topic overview Per the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.110(4)), cities are
the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban
governmental services. In practice, this means that cities are
often expected to provide a range of urban services when an area
is annexed from a county. However, not all cities provide all
utilities and services, and special districts (including water and
sewer districts and emergency services) play an important role in
annexations. As outlined with A Road Map to Washington’s Future
(Road Map I), this issue is focused on identifying areas of
agreement for reforming annexation laws in a way that
streamlines the process and removes barriers to annexation of
land adjacent to existing cities, maintains the fiscal sustainability
of counties, clarifies the role of special districts, and reduces
conflicts.
Issue Annexation tax credit
Annexations within urban growth areas (UGAs) are generally
encouraged by the GMA (RCW 36.70A.110). Methods to annex
land vary by city classification and can involve petition, election,
development agreements, or interlocal agreements between
governments.
Cities and towns located in counties that plan under the GMA can
only annex property that is located within their designated UGAs.
In 2006, the Legislature created a sales and use tax incentive for
annexations, codified in RCW 82.14.415. This credit was designed
to facilitate annexation of large blocks of unincorporated urban
area, particularly in King County, as the credit only applied to
cities in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, and only to
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 18
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
potential annexation areas with populations greater than 4,000 or
10,000, depending on the size of the city proposing to annex.
Cities using this credit could receive a credit on the state sales
tax (not an increase in the tax, but a credit back on the existing
sales tax collected city-wide) of 0.1 percent for each qualifying
annexed area (0.2 percent for areas with greater than 20,000
people) with a maximum total credit of 0.2 percent or 0.3 percent
in most cases. The credit ran for 10 years in most cases. The
credit expired on January 1, 2015.
A bill passed in 2021, Chapter 312, Laws of 2021, created an
interlocal agreement pathway for code cities (most cities in
Washington) to annex unincorporated areas. Annexations would
be eligible for the tax credit under this law if it is separately
reinstated by the Legislature.
In 2021, the Task Force made the following recommendation:
The Legislature should reinstate the annexation tax credit in RCW
82.14.415 and revisit options to provide better geographic access
and equity and provide for opportunities for all affected cities and
counties to benefit from resources provided by the state to
incentivize annexations.
The work this year has focused on providing more specificity
about where the annexation tax credit should apply.
Determining population of annexed area after annexation
Once annexations are complete, there is a substantial amount of
information that must be collected and submitted to the Office of
Financial Management (OFM). For large annexations, the process
can be a deterrent to moving forward with the annexation.
RCW 35.13.260 and RCW 35A.14.700 currently requires an actual
enumeration of any population located within the annexed
territory. The cost of performing a door-to-door census is
expensive and time consuming and many jurisdictions may not
have the resources to perform the required census. One option
would be for OFM to provide an alternative process where a city
could opt in to rely on population estimates provided by OFM.
In addition, RCW 35.13.260, and RCW 35A.14.700 currently states
that relevant 2010 federal decennial census data may be relied
upon within twelve months immediately prior to the date of
annexation. If the year was removed from this section, this could
also be utilized. The Task Force felt that modifications could
include that the Federal decennial data could be utilized with
approval of OFM.
The project team has discussed this issue with OFM. OFM has
requested to review any specific language that the Task Force will
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 19
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
be forwarding to the Legislature on annexation population
estimates. The Task Force has reinforced continued collaboration
with Boundary Review Boards and OFM as legislation is prepared.
Possible statutes to be RCW 82.14.415
amended RCW 35.13.260
RCW 35A.14.700
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ Study or Report
previous study? If yes,
which study or report? A Road Map to Washington's Future
(2019)
Working Groups who Tribal nations, planners, special districts, state agencies
provided feedback on this
topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Could incentivize • Annexation tax incentives
recommendation annexations statewide would take state revenue.
• Annexation tax credit • Encouraging annexations
changes could make the with financial incentives
incentives more equitable could, in certain
• 2SSB 5368 (interlocal circumstances, lead to
agreement method of annexations that result in
annexation) anticipated less efficient delivery of
this credit being available services if cities assume
again. the responsibility of
• Utilization of the interlocal delivering services
annexation method and tax currently provided by
credit incentive would be special districts.
equitable to counties given
they would be working
cooperatively with the city.
• Revising RCW 35.13.260
and RCW 35A.14.700 could
make the annexation
process less costly for
cities – would not be a
barrier to taking on the
process.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 20
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #2 – Housing Tax Benefits and
Incentives
Date 10 18 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Housing – tax benefits and incentives
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Task Force The Legislature should consider broader incentives, options, and
Recommendation tools, such as HB 1157, 1128, and 1880 and SB 5861 for cities and
counties to use to encourage a variety of housing types and
infrastructure to support development and redevelopment within
urban growth areas.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Chris Collier, Jan Himebaugh, Jeanette McKague
Task Force (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Bryce Yadon
Members/Alternates
Object –
Abstain – Dave Andersen (state agency vote), Paul Jewell,
Andrew Strobel
Not Present – Carlene Anders, Jeff Clarke, Deric Gruen, Mario
Reyes
Topic overview Housing has been a focus of legislative efforts in recent sessions
and was a topic for both previous Road Map projects. The Road
Map to Washington’s Future (Roadmap 1) and Updating
Washington’s Growth Policy Framework (Roadmap 2) both
highlighted the need to provide fiscal tools for cities and counties
which will encourage and incentivize housing at higher densities
within urban areas. See Recommendation Sheet #2 Attachment A.
The Legislature has recently worked on several bills that could
provide additional incentives, options, and tools for cities and
counties as they work to accommodate a variety of housing types
in compliance with RCW 36.70A.070(1) and (2). Providing
multiple options for jurisdictions helps ensure there are options
that can work in jurisdictions with different housing issues.
Issue Support for new legislation that could encourage jurisdictions to
provide for and accommodate a wider variety of housing types at
higher densities. This includes providing options for jurisdictions
to create housing benefit districts as provided for in HB 1128
(2021-2022) and the ability to retain a portion of the State Real
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 21
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Estate Excise Tax (REET) when providing for higher densities as
outlined in HB 1157 (2021-2022). HB 1880 and SB 5861 also
addressed housing benefit districts. See Attachment B for
additional background on these bills.
Although not specifically included in the recommendation
language, the Task Force would also like the Legislature to
consider providing resources through Commerce or other state
agencies to service providers (special districts) to offset waived
or reduced fees and charges meant to incentive affordable
housing. Unlike cities, water and sewer districts that are not part
of city or county government have no sources of revenue other
than the fees and charges from ratepayers, so incentivizing
housing with waived or reduced fees when services are provided
by special districts is only possible if those waivers or reductions
are offset by grants or other funding from elsewhere.
Background information to HB 1157 - Second Substitute Senate Bill Report (Orig.)
support recommendation
HB 1128 - House Bill Report
HB 1880 – House Bill Report
SB 5861 – Senate Bill Report
Possible statutes to be Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) (new section)
amended
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ Study or Report
previous study? If yes,
which study or report? A Road Map to Washington’s Future
(2019)
Updating Washington’s Growth Policy
Framework (2021)
Working Groups who Realtors, Planners, Builders, and Environmental Justice working
provided broad feedback on groups
this topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Incentivize vs. require • Incentive options could
recommendation higher densities in urban require tax increases or
areas. take revenue from other
• Provides different options sources (such as state
to jurisdictions which may REET).
work in their communities. • Both bills would require
cities and counties to
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 22
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Supports more than one adopt code provisions and
idea which is already in conduct planning to enact
front of the Legislature and the legislation.
has generally been • HB 1128 would require
supported. cities to adopt a Housing
• The real estate excise tax Action Plan (HAP) which
(REET) density incentive in increases residential
HB 1157 would take a building capacity, to utilize
portion of the State portion a Housing Benefit District
of REET, it would also (HBD). Many jurisdictions
encourage jurisdictions to have not adopted a HAP
increase densities which and future funding for this
could result in additional planning has not been
state REET being created provided.
over time. • Some may not agree that
• The portion of REET increasing sales tax to
collected by local support a HBD is proper.
jurisdictions would be • HBDs in HB 1128 would
restricted to focus on require a station plan.
important planning issues Although grants are
such as the Housing included in the bill, the cost
Element under the Growth for this planning could be
Management Act (GMA), much higher.
infrastructure for • There are substantial
moderate-, low-, very low-, requirements for creating
and extremely low-income and facilitating HBDs as
housing, capital facilities, outlined in HB 1128.
and creation of • Incentive-based
permanently affordable approaches are by nature
housing. voluntary and do not
• HBD in HB 1128 could always work. They are not
create substantial revenue equally utilized given some
to be used exclusively to will pursue and others will
implement or reimburse not.
jurisdictions for
implementing the specific
objectives of the district.
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #2)
A Road Map to Washington’s Future (Roadmap 1)
“Participants also suggested evaluating tools and approaches used in other states, for
example, regional tax base sharing, tax increment financing, value-added, personal and
corporate income taxes. For example, some participants suggested amending state law to
enable Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a tool that is available in most other states, including
Oregon. Participants pointed to public parks, utility systems, and housing projects built in
Portland and Lake Oswego, Oregon as examples of what can be achieved with TIF. Some
participants believed that TIF is the only way to create the large amounts of revenue to pay for
large-scale capital projects that will be needed to support growth, particularly in areas that are
rezoned to higher densities but lack adequate water, sewer, roads, parks, or drainage facilities.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 23
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Some suggested that research about the successes and challenges in other states could
inform ways to design a TIF system that is targeted to specific kinds and locations of projects
and is transparent and accountable” (A Road Map to Washington’s Future, p. 44).
“To address housing issues, participants also talked about needing greater collaboration
between the public and private sector, to connect public policy to emerging market trends, and
the need to tap private sector innovation, support, and resources to help finance or underwrite
new housing starts. Also suggested was for affordable housing be treated as public
infrastructure that serves a documented public need, and as such should be publicly funded,
built, and managed, potentially by a regional authority with access to new fiscal tools, such as
tax increment financing (TIF). Preliminary research has been done on both potential revisions
to the MFPTE program and the possibilities for TIF (See UW Fiscal Tools Report in Volume II)”
(A Road Map to Washington’s Future, p. 49).
Attachment B (Recommendation Sheet #2)
House Bill 1157 - Increasing housing supply through the growth management act and housing
density tax incentives for local governments.
Summary of Bill: Real Estate Excise Tax Density Incentive Zones. Planning counties and cities
are authorized to establish REET density incentive zones. A REET density incentive zone is an
area within a UGA where the city or county adopts zoning and development regulations to
increase housing supply by allowing construction of additional housing types as outright
permitted uses.
Upon establishing an incentive zone, the local government receives a portion of the state REET
imposed for sales of qualified residential dwelling units within the incentive zone. A qualified
residential dwelling is either an individual residential dwelling unit or a residential building of
two or more dwelling units constructed within an incentive zone that achieves a net increase in
the total number of residential dwelling units compared to the maximum number of residential
dwelling units that could have been built prior to the adoption of zoning and development
regulations creating the incentive zone. To be included as qualified residential dwelling units,
the units must be restricted from being offered as short-term rentals for more than 30 days a
year for the first 15 years after construction, and the county or city must determine how the
residential dwelling units are to be restricted from being short-term rentals within their
respective jurisdictions. An incentive zone may only be located within a UGA and must allow
single-family detached dwellings at a net density of at least six dwelling units per acre,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, and courtyard
apartments.
An incentive zone may also allow housing types and densities that exceed the minimum UGA
requirements as outright permitted uses. An incentive zone may not be established later than
one year after the date by which a city or county is required to update its comprehensive plan.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 24
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Once an incentive zone is established, a qualified residential dwelling unit may be constructed
at any time. Prior to establishing an incentive zone, the city or county must:
• consider the race and income of existing residents within the area and adjacent
neighborhoods to be designated;
• consider displacement impacts of low, very low, and extremely low-income residents
within the area and the adjacent neighborhoods to be designated; and
• assess the need for antidisplacement policies for high-risk communities within
designated areas and the adjacent neighborhoods and make the assessment publicly
available.
REET collected within an incentive zone is distributed to a county or city as follows:
• for a qualified residential dwelling unit located less than or equal to 0.25 miles from a
mass transit stop, 50 percent of the amounts collected to the city or county where the
dwelling is located; and
• for a qualified residential dwelling unit located more than 0.25 miles from a mass
transit stop, 25 percent of the amounts collected to the city or county where the
dwelling is located.
The distribution to a city or county applies to both the initial and all subsequent sales of a
qualified residential dwelling unit if the residential dwelling unit continues to meet the original
requirements of a qualified residential dwelling unit. Counties must revalidate that the
residential dwelling unit continues to meet the original applicable requirements on each
subsequent sale of the residential dwelling unit. The amounts distributed to a city and county
may only be used for:
• implementation of the housing element of the comprehensive plan under the GMA;
costs for infrastructure, construction, and service support for moderate, low, very low,
and extremely low-income housing;
• construction of capital facilities that promote livable and walkable neighborhoods; or
• creation of permanently affordable homeownership.
House Bill 1128 (same as 1880) - Concerning housing benefit districts
Summary of Bill: The legislative authority of a county or city is authorized to establish a
housing benefit district (District) for the purpose of acquiring, land banking, predevelopment
contracting, selling, improving, funding, and leasing land for the creation of affordable low- and
middle-income housing and community development projects within the District consistent
with any existing state, regional, or county housing plans and the Washington Housing Policy
Act. A District is a municipal corporation with taxing authority and may include two or more
cities or counties or a combination of both.
The governing body of the District consists of the members of the legislative authority
proposing to establish the District, acting ex-officio and independently, constitute the
governing body of the district.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 25
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
For Districts with more than one participating jurisdiction, the District must be governed under
an interlocal agreement with a governing body composed of at least five members, including:
• at least one elected official from the legislative authority of each participating
jurisdiction; and
• any remaining members appointed by the legislative authority of the participating
jurisdictions in a manner determined in the interlocal agreement with expertise in the following
areas:
1. public or private real estate finance;
2. affordable housing development;
3. neighborhood and community planning;
4. design and architecture;
5. transit-oriented development; or
6. economic development.
Alternatively, the governing body of the metropolitan planning organization serving the District
may serve as the governing body, but only if the District boundaries are identical to the
boundaries of the metropolitan planning organization.
The treasurer of the participating jurisdiction proposing to establish the District is the ex officio
treasurer of the District, unless the interlocal agreement states otherwise.
Before forming a District, the participating jurisdictions must adopt a housing action plan as
described in the Growth Management Act that includes at least two actions to increase its
residential building capacity and results in development within the station area producing the
following mix of affordable housing:
• a minimum of 5 percent affordable to extremely low-income households;
• a minimum of 10 percent affordable to very low-income households;
• a minimum of 19 percent affordable to low-income households;
• a minimum of 33 percent affordable to middle-income households; and
• the remainder at market rate.
A station area is an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is zoned to have an
average minimum density of 15 dwelling units or more per gross acre.
A city or county that establishes a District within an encompassing county with a population of
at least 750,000 is required to adopt a station area plan. The plan must be consistent with
accommodating 65 percent of future population growth and must be approved by the Housing
Benefit District Advisory Board before any proposition for tax is submitted to the voters. A
District is eligible to apply to the Department of Commerce for a grant up to $100,000 for
planning assistance.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 26
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
To carry out its objectives, a District is authorized to impose sales and use taxes and property
taxes. Upon voter approval, a District may impose a sales and use tax at a rate not to exceed
0.2 percent of the selling price in the case of a sales tax, or 0.2 percent of the value of the
article used in the case of a use tax. For Districts consisting of a single participating
jurisdiction with a population over 750,000, or Districts with at least two participating
jurisdictions with a combined population over 250,000, the rate of tax may be up to 0.3 percent.
A District may also impose a one-time sales and use tax without majority approval not to
exceed a rate of 0.1 percent. This tax is in addition to any other taxes authorized by law.
Any additional sales and use tax imposed beyond the one-time tax must be approved by a
majority of voters. Beginning with taxes levied for collection in calendar year 2022, a District
can impose a regular property tax up to $1 per $1,000 of the assessed value of property in the
District. The tax may be imposed each year for six consecutive years when specifically
authorized by a majority of voters in the District.
Taxes imposed may not exceed a duration of 20 years. A District is also authorized to issue
and retire general obligation and revenue bonds to carry out its objectives, including:
• the retirement of voter-approved general obligation bonds, issued for capital purposes
only, by levying bond retirement ad valorem property tax levies in excess of the one
percent limitation upon voter approval;
• general obligation bonds without voter approval equal to 1.5 percent of the value of
taxable property within the District; and
• general obligation bonds for capital purposes only and the retirement of those bonds by
excess property tax levies imposed upon voter approval.
The revenue from taxes imposed or bonds issued must be used exclusively to implement or
reimburse jurisdictions for implementing the specific objectives of the District, including:
• station area planning strategies, including creating new or updating existing plans,
identifying a community vision, assessing the current regulatory environment and
identify possible barriers to affordable housing development, assessing displacement
risk for current low-income residents and underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities,
creating a displacement mitigation plan, promoting equitable homeownership
opportunities for underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities, and assessing alternate
pathways to ownership models such as community land trusts and limited or shared
equity cooperatives;
• land acquisition, based on station area plans and working with local jurisdictions and
both nonprofit and for-profit developers to acquire, assemble, lease, land bank parcels,
or sell, in cases where the station area plan clearly demonstrates that it is not
financially feasible to lease all development parcels, with the net proceeds directed to
subsidies for affordable housing and to promote community land trusts and
infrastructure costs; and
• infrastructure development, such as area-wide environmental plans, sewers, and
sidewalks.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 27
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #3 – Integrating Water, Sewer, School,
and Port Districts in the GMA
Date 10 18 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Integrating Planning – water, sewer, schools, ports
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation Recommendation 1: Convene a collaborative process(es) with, at a
minimum, representatives of state agencies, cities, counties,
builders, special districts, Tribal governments, and planning and
environmental organizations that have experience with local and/or
special district planning processes. The process shall focus on
increasing planning between jurisdictions and special districts to
better implement utility and capital facility planning requirements
under the Growth Management Act. The process shall also focus on
methods to help ensure that special districts can more fully
incorporate local comprehensive plans as they plan for the utilities
and capital facilities necessary to accommodate growth during the
planning period. In addition, the process shall focus on identifying
legislative changes that will increase coordination during permitting
processes that impact special districts while limiting new planning
requirements.
Recommendation 2: In the near term, Commerce and other state
agencies should encourage special purpose districts to actively
coordinate with and participate in the comprehensive planning
periodic update process.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Chris Collier, Jan Himebaugh, Jeanette McKague
Task Force (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Bryce Yadon
Members/Alternates
Object –
Abstain – Dave Andersen (state agency vote), Paul Jewell,
Andrew Strobel
Not Present – Carlene Anders, Jeff Clarke, Deric Gruen, Mario
Reyes
Topic overview Cities and counties are not the only service providers for capital
facilities that are necessary to support growth. School districts,
port districts, and water and sewer districts are often distinct
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 28
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
from cities and counties. In many cases they have separate
administrative structures and boundaries that cross multiple city
and county boundaries. Prior reports and studies have pointed to
the need to better integrate water, sewer, school, and port
districts into planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Issue While the GMA requires cities and counties to coordinate with
special district on the development of utilities and capital
facilities plans (RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (4), WAC 365-196-415
and WAC 365-196-420), statutes governing special districts are
not always designed to link with planning requirements cities and
counties perform.
This is currently one of the largest gaps in our growth policy
framework and one of the most important areas where progress
must be made.
There is often a lack of communication and coordination as long-
range planning occurs and when code changes are considered by
a city or county that could impact a special purpose district. As an
example, there is a strong effort to encourage redevelopment in
our urban areas. However, sufficient coordination between cities
and existing utility districts may not be occurring to ensure that
services can support the planned-for growth when it is expected
to occur.
This communication and planning gap does not emerge from a
lack of desire to plan, but rather from a recognition that:
• Many jurisdictions and special purpose districts have limited
staffing/resources to coordinate to a greater degree; and
• In most cases, statutes guiding special purpose districts are
not synced with GMA requirements for planning; and
• Statutes are not synced so there are common goals regarding
planning for utilities and capital facilities as growth occurs;
and
• In many cases, there are many special purpose districts who
provide utility and capital facilities within a particular city or
county.
While the Roadmap Phase III project did convene a Special
Districts working group and the Task Force focused on identifying
options to improve coordination and planning, there is still a lot of
work to be done. Many groups must be involved to a greater
degree as statutory and rule changes are considered. This
includes school districts, ports, utilities, tribal governments, cities,
counties, and state agencies.
Possible statutes to be Several statutes could be impacted (including but not limited to
amended based on a new the following). This could also require corresponding Washington
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 29
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
study (including but not Administrative Code (WAC) updates if legislative changes are
limited to) made.
• RCW 36.70A.070(3-4)
• RCW 36.70A.212
• RCW 57.16 (comprehensive plan – local improvement
districts)
• RCW 57.02 (general provisions, water and sewer districts)
• RCW Title 53 (port districts)
• RCW 28A.525 (school bond issues)
Several of these changes could also require changes/updates to
the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). For example, school
district planning is guided by the Office of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (OSPI) through WAC 392-341-020, which
requires a school district to prepare a study and survey for new
facilities to be reviewed by the OSPI. OSPI produces a manual for
districts that covers advance planning and also produces district-
specific enrollment projections (covered in WAC 392-343-045)
through an official OSPI Cohort Survival Enrollment Projection.
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ Study or Report
previous study? If yes,
which study or report? A Road Map to Washington’s Future
(2019)
Working Groups who Planners, Special Districts, State Agencies
provided broad feedback on
this topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Increased coordination and • New requirements to
recommendation communication as cities better coordinate may be
and counties plan for time consuming and
growth with help ensure costly.
utilities and capital • Many jurisdictions and
facilities are available as special districts have
growth occurs. This is limited resources to
especially important for coordinate to a greater
faster growing cities and extent that is already
counties and for utilities occurring.
and capital facilities which • This effort should be
are not owned by the “right-sized” to ensure
jurisdiction. future legislative changes
can be adequately
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 30
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Increased coordination and implemented by
communication with jurisdictions and special
special districts who purpose districts. The goal
provide services such as is not to produce another
water, sewer, and power is planning process that
important when results in little benefit.
considering increasing
densities (outside of
updating a comprehensive
plan). As an example, a
single-family
neighborhood that now
allows middle housing may
not have the utilities to
support those increased
densities (i.e., size
water/sewer lines).
• Could increase
communication with
school districts so new
schools are coordinated
with where growth is
expected to occur.
• Could better integrate port
plan with planning for
population and
employment planning
which cities and counties
conduct as part of
Comprehensive Planning.
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #3)
A Road Map to Washington’s Future (Roadmap 1)
“Many participants talked about needing better coordination between counties and cities and
special purpose districts. Participants said that excluding special purpose districts from the
GMA framework has spawned confusion, competition, and conflict among counties, cities, and
special districts and made implementation of GMA difficult. They said that special purpose
districts, such as water, sewer, school, and port districts are important components of the
growth planning framework and should be integrated into GMA planning.
• Integrate water and sewer districts, school districts, and port district planning into the GMA”
(A Road Map to Washington’s Future, p. 107).
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 31
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #4 – Modify Permit Data Collection
Requirements
Date 11 28 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Adaptive Planning – Reduce conflicts, gaps, redundancies, and
improve processes – modify 36.70B.080 permit data collection
requirements
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should modify RCW 36.70B.080, as outlined in
Attachment A, to make annual performance report requirements by
certain counties and cities easier to prepare, increase
accountability, and ensure permit data is collected and reported as
required by the current statute.
Annual permit data shall be sent to the Department of Commerce
annually and published annually to increase public accessibility of
permit data. The new requirements should not become effective
until January 1, 2024.
Commerce should also facilitate a study to look at the benefits and
drawbacks of implementing statewide permit process and tracking
software that could be used by cities and counties. Specifically, the
study should look at the benefits and drawbacks to jurisdictions,
permit applicants, those interested in permitting processes, the
cost effectiveness of a statewide system, and the ability to have
consistent permit data.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote),
Task Force Jeff Clarke, Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul
Members/Alternates Jewell, Jeanette McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl
Schroeder
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Mario Reyes, Andrew Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Topic overview RCW 36.70B.080 requires counties and cities within those
counties with a population over 20,000 who are subject to the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 (Review and evaluation
program) to produce an annual permit performance report. The
report generally requires information on permit volumes and
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 32
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
timelines to be compiled and reported on the county/city website.
The report can assist in gauging whether permits are being
processed in a timely and predictable manner as outlined with
Goal 7 of the Growth Management Act and the Findings and
Declarations contained in RCW 36.70B.010.
Counties required to produce an annual report include King,
Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Clark, Thurston, and Whatcom (and
those cities within those counties with a population over 20,000).
In 2021, The Task Force made a recommendation asking the
Legislature to amend RCW 36.70B.080. However, no proposed
legislative changes were proposed. This draft recommendation
provides greater specificity regarding the proposed amendments
(Recommendation Sheet #4 Attachment A).
The proposed amendments would:
• Lessen the amount of data required to be collected annually
by counties and cities subject to these requirements. New
information is focused on time to permit various housing
types.
• Require that annual data be sent to the Department of
Commerce for publishing (in addition to publishing data on
the county/city website). This will increase public
accessibility of permit data.
• Set dates for when data must be sent to Commerce each year
and when Commerce must issue the annual report.
• Provide that Commerce will prepare spreadsheets that local
governments can utilize to prepare annual permit information.
• Delay implementation of new requirements to January 2024
to give counties and cities time to implement these changes.
This will also give Commerce time to prepare.
• Specify that counties and cities that do not prepare the
required information may not be eligible for certain grants as
established in RCW 36.70A.130(9) until such time as the
information is provided. They should be allowed to apply for
those grants but would not be able to receive them until the
permit data is provided.
Issue The Legislature has placed a priority on applications for state and
local government permits being processed in a timely and fair
manner to ensure predictability. This is enumerated in Goal 7 of
the Growth Management Act (GMA), which states, “Applications
for both state and local government permits should be processed
in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.” Goal 7 has
been implemented through RCW 36.70B. Findings and
declarations in the statute focus on the:
• Complexity of permitting as new laws and regulations are
enacted
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 33
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Increasing number of local and state land use permits and
separate environmental review processes required by
agencies
• Regulatory burden and how that has significantly added to the
cost and time needed to obtain local and state land use
permits
• Difficulty for the public to know how and when to provide
timely comments on land use proposals that require multiple
permits and have separate environmental review processes
RCW 36.70B outlines measures to help ensure these issues are
addressed as part of the permitting process. These have been
enacted by cities and counties over the past 27 years. This
includes, but is not limited to:
• Integration of SEPA and other permit applications
• Permit processing procedures
• Timelines for processing permits
• Permit reporting requirements for certain jurisdictions to
better understand how long permit processes take.
While some elements, such as integrating permit
processes/hearings have worked well, other pieces have been
less successful.
In 2001, ESHB 1458 was passed, which created the annual
performance report requirements found in RCW 36.70B.080.
However, for the most part, counties and cities subject to these
requirements have yet to produce annual performance reports
that meet the requirements in statute.
Collecting this information was deemed important by the
Legislature to gauge if permits, especially in our most urban
areas, were being processed in a timely manner. RCW
36.70B.080(1) states in part that “Development regulations
adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 must establish and
implement time periods for local government actions for each type
of project permit application and provide timely and predictable
procedures to determine whether a completed project permit
application meets the requirements of those development
regulations…”
If permit data are not being collected, it is difficult to understand
if permits are generally being issued within established
timeframes.
Counties and cities have voiced that, as written, the data sought is
difficult to collect. The proposed amendments seek to make this
information easier to produce on an annual basis while
strengthening accountability for meeting the requirements.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 34
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Possible statutes to be RCW 36.70B.080 (See proposed changes in Recommendation
amended Sheet #4 Attachment A).
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ This specific topic was not called out
previous study? If yes, specifically in Roadmaps 1 or 2, but
which study or report? removing conflicts, gaps, and
redundancies was a theme for both
Roadmap projects which preceded this
project. This includes permit processing
and timelines for permits.
Working Groups who Realtors, Planners, Environmental Groups, Special Districts, and
provided feedback on this Builders
topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Should make required data • Modifications require
recommendation collection and reporting ongoing assistance from
easier for counties and Commerce
cities subject to these • Given these reports have
requirements. not typically been
• Reporting data to prepared, this will require
Commerce for an annual additional work from some
report will make data more counties and cities.
accessible to those
submitting permits,
interested parties, local
governments, and the state
regarding permit
timeframes associated
permit processes for
housing.
• Provide permit timeframes
for certain permit
processes in counties and
cities in relation to those
established by the
jurisdiction
• Identify counties and cities
whose timeframes are
shorter than established.
Best practices can be
gleaned from those
counties and cities;
• Delayed implementation
will allow counties and
cities time to prepare.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 35
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #4)
draft RCW 36.70B.080 – permit data and collection
Note: a separate draft recommendation has been prepared on time periods for local
government to process permit applications.
Note: the requirements in RCW 36.70B.080(2)(a) apply to counties and cities within those
counties which are subject to RCW 36.70A.215 – Review and Evaluation/Buildable Lands
Program. The task force considered but did not make a formal recommendation on a proposal
to remove this planning requirement. If that occurs, RCW 36.70B.080(2)(a) language would
have to be modified to specifically list the counties subject to the requirements. Currently that
would include King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Clark, Thurston, and Whatcom counties.
RCW 36.70B.080
Development regulations—Requirements—Report on implementation costs.
(1) Development regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 must establish and
implement time periods for local government actions for each type of project permit
application and provide timely and predictable procedures to determine whether a completed
project permit application meets the requirements of those development regulations. The time
periods for local government actions for each type of complete project permit application or
project type should not exceed one hundred twenty days, unless the local government makes
written findings that a specified amount of additional time is needed to process specific
complete project permit applications or project types.
The development regulations must, for each type of permit application, specify the
contents of a completed project permit application necessary for the complete compliance
with the time periods and procedures.
(2)(a) Counties subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and the cities within
those counties that have populations of at least twenty thousand must, for each type of permit
application, identify the total number of project permit applications for which decisions are
issued according to the provisions of this chapter. For each type of project permit application
identified, these counties and cities must establish and implement a deadline for issuing a
notice of final decision as required by subsection (1) of this section and minimum
requirements for applications to be deemed complete under RCW 36.70B.070 as required by
subsection (1) of this section.
(b) Counties and cities subject to the requirements of this subsection also must prepare
annual performance reports that includes information outlining timeframes for certain permit
types associated with housing. Given that permitting for housing includes many submittals
and approval processes, the information collected is not intended to demonstrate the total time
for a project to receive construction approval from a city or county. It will, however, provide:
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 36
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(i) Permit timeframes for certain permit processes in counties and cities in relation to
those established under this section;
(ii) Those counties and cities whose timeframes are shorter than established under this
section. Best practices can be gleaned from those counties and cities;
(iii) Ongoing information to those submitting permits, local governments, and the state
regarding permit timeframes associated permit processes for housing.
(c)aAt a minimum, the following information for each type of project permit application
identified in accordance with the requirements of (a) of this subsection shall be provided:
(i) Total number of decisions issued during the year for the following permit types:
preliminary subdivisions, final subdivisions, binding site plans, permit processes associated
with the approval of multi-family housing, and construction plan review for each of the permit
types above when submitted separately;
(ii) Total number of decisions for each permit type which included consolidated project
permit review (such as concurrent review of a rezone or constructions plans);
(iii) Total number of days from a submittal to a decision being issued. This shall be
calculated from the day completeness is determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a
decision is issued on the application. Number of days shall be calculated by counting five days
per week, excluding holidays;
(iv) Total number of days the application was in review with the county or city. This
shall be calculated from the day completeness is determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the
date a final decision is issued on the application. Number of days shall be calculated by
counting five days per week, excluding holidays. Days the application is in review with the
county or city does not include time periods between where the county or city has notified the
applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application
and when that information is submitted by the applicant. Time periods shall also be stopped
when an applicant informs the local government, in writing, that they would like to temporarily
suspend review of the project permit application.
(i) Total number of complete applications received during the year;
(ii) Number of complete applications received during the year for which a notice of final
decision was issued before the deadline established under this subsection;
(iii) Number of applications received during the year for which a notice of final decision
was issued after the deadline established under this subsection;
(iv) Number of applications received during the year for which an extension of time was
mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the county or city;
(v) Variance of actual performance, excluding applications for which mutually agreed
time extensions have occurred, to the deadline established under this subsection during the
year; and
(vi) The mean processing time and the number standard deviation from the mean.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 37
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(d) Counties and cities subject to the requirements of this subsection must:
(i) Provide notice of and access to Post the annual performance reports through the
county's or city's website; and
(ii) Post electronic facsimiles of the annual performance reports through the county's or
city's website. Postings on a county's or city's website indicating that the reports are available
by contacting the appropriate county or city department or official do not comply with the
requirements of this subsection. Submit the annual performance report to the Department of
Commerce by March 1st each year.
(iii) No later than July 1st each year, the Department of Commerce shall publish a report,
which includes the annual performance report data for each county and city subject to the
requirements of this subsection. The Department of Commerce shall develop a template for
counties and cities subject to these requirements, which will be utilized for reporting data. The
annual report published by Commerce shall also include key metrics and findings from the
information collected.
(iv) Annual reports shall be submitted to the Department of Commerce beginning in
2025. This will require counties and cities subject to these requirements to begin collecting
data consistent with this subsection in 2024.
(v) A county or city subject to these requirements who does not submit the annual
performance report to the Department of Commerce by March 1st each year is subject to the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.130(7)
If a county or city subject to the requirements of this subsection does not maintain a
website, notice of the reports must be given by reasonable methods, including but not limited
to those methods specified in RCW 36.70B.110(4).
(3) Nothing in this section prohibits a county or city from extending a deadline for
issuing a decision for a specific project permit application for any reasonable period of time
mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the local government.
(4)The *department of community, trade, and economic development shall work with
the counties and cities to review the potential implementation costs of the requirements of
subsection (2) of this section. The department, in cooperation with the local governments, shall
prepare a report summarizing the projected costs, together with recommendations for state
funding assistance for implementation costs, and provide the report to the governor and
appropriate committees of the senate and house of representatives by January 1, 2005.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 38
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #5 – Modify Permit Process
Requirements
Date 11 28 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Adaptive Planning – Reduce conflicts, gaps, redundancies, and improve
processes – modify 36.70B.080 permit process requirements
Did the Task Force Yes ☒ No ☐
make a formal
recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should modify RCW 36.70B to increase implementation
and consistency between the statute and Goal 7 of the GMA and the
findings and declarations of the statute. Specifically, amendments should
include:
• Greater clarity regarding project permit application completeness
as outlined in RCW 36.70B.070(2). If completeness goes beyond
the meeting the procedural submission requirements of the local
government, specific language should be provided so this
standard can be applied equally in all local governments.
• Greater clarity in RCW 36.70B.080(1)(a) and (b) regarding how
cities and counties count the number of days to issue a final
decision for a project permit application. This includes when the
days start (before or after completeness is determined), if days are
based on working days or days in a week, and when the time-
period starts and stops (such as when a local government
requests additional information or where an applicant asks for the
review process to stop).
• Amend the one hundred twenty-day permit timeline in RCW
36.70B.080(1)(a) to recognize that while some project permit
applications may take this much time, some applications may take
more or less time to process. Consider providing a table in RCW
36.70B.080 that provides a default number of days for processing
and issuing a final decision for various project permit applications.
• Allow local governments the ability to modify the table as desired
to recognize that each local government is different. The table
would be utilized when not modified by the local government.
• When adopting these provisions, provide a safe harbor from
appeal, except where a local government is proposing timelines to
issue a final decision that exceeds what is provided in the permit
table.
• Continue to allow local governments to exempt certain permits
from these new requirements as allowed in RCW 36.70B.140.
• Amend RCW 36.70B.080 to outline what occurs when timeframes
established by the local government are not met. Currently, the
statute creates an expectation but the only recourse when
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 39
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
established timeframes are not met is a claim under RCW 64.40.
Some accountability measures should be considered so an RCW
64.40 claim is not the only recourse.
• Amend RCW 36.70B.160 to outline additional methods to
encourage or require prompt and coordinated reviews to ensure
accountability. This could include, but isn’t limited to, an emphasis
on collecting permit fees as authorized in RCW 82.02.020 to
ensure proper staffing is provided.
In addition, Commerce should provide upfront and ongoing technical
assistance to local governments to implement the proposed statutory
changes.
Consent Vote Tallies Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote), Jeff
– Task Force Clarke, Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
Members/Alternates McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew Strobel
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Mario Reyes, Bryce Yadon
Topic overview The Legislature has placed a priority on applications for state and local
government permits being processed in a timely and fair manner to
ensure predictability. This is enumerated in Goal 7 of the GMA, which
states that “Applications for both state and local government permits
should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.”
Goal 7 has been implemented through RCW 36.70B. Findings and a
declaration in the statute (RCW 36.70B.010) focus on the:
• Complexity of permitting as new laws and regulations are enacted
• Increasing number of local and state land use permits and separate
environmental review processes required by agencies
• Regulatory burden and how that has significantly added to the cost
and time needed to obtain local and state land use permits
• Difficulty for the public to know how and when to provide timely
comments on land use proposals that require multiple permits and
have separate environmental review processes
RCW 36.70B outlines measures to help ensure these issues are
addressed as part of the permitting process. These have been enacted
by cities and counties over the past 27 years. This includes, but is not
limited to:
• Integration of SEPA and other permit applications
• Permit processing procedures
• Timelines for processing permits
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 40
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Permit reporting requirements for certain jurisdictions to better
understand how long permit processes take.
Please note that permit reporting requirements are addressed in a
separate recommendation.
Issue While some elements of RCW 36.70B, such as integrating permit
processes and hearings, have worked very well, other elements of
36.70B have been less successfully implemented. This includes timely
and predictable timeframes for permitting (in some jurisdictions) as
processes have become more complex. The high and rising cost of
housing in Washington has highlighted this issue. The time it takes to
get housing to market is one factor related to the overall cost of
development.
Although different groups may have different perspectives regarding
timely and predictable timeframes for permitting, there are several gaps
which changes to the statute could help address. This includes
jurisdictions currently interpreting provisions in the current statute
differently. Please note that it is well understood that permit timeframes
vary across jurisdictions and jurisdictional circumstances.
RCW 36.70B provides timeframes to counties and cities to complete
steps in the permit process and issue final decisions for permit
applications. This has been incorporated in county and city development
regulations. While 36.70B sets expectations, actual timeframes for steps
in the permit process and timelines to issue final decisions vary widely.
When time frames exceed those in code and statute, nothing happens.
This has created a circumstance in which state law creates expectations
for predictable permit timelines that do not occur when the law is
implemented. Currently, the only recourse for a permit applicant has is a
damages claim under RCW 64.40, which allows for permit applicants to
seek damages for agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or
in excess of lawful authority. Most applicants, however, are reluctant to
bring such claims, as getting their permits approved ultimately is the
most important aspect despite the clear downsides of long and
unpredictable timelines.
This proposal is written to try to balance the goal of better implementing
Goal 7 of the GMA and the findings and declarations of RCW 36.70B with
the reality that cities and counties must have the tools to effectively
implement and manage any statutory changes.
Possible statutes to RCW 36.70B.070
be amended RCW 36.70B.080
RCW 36.70B.140
RCW 36.70B.160
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 41
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to
have a budget
impact?
Did this issue derive Yes ☒ No ☐ This specific topic was not called out as a
from a previous recommendation in Roadmaps 1 or 2, but
study? If yes, which removing conflicts, gaps, and
study or report? redundancies was a theme for both
Roadmap projects that preceded this
project.
Working Groups who Realtors, Planners, Environmental Groups, Special Districts, and Builders
provided feedback
on this topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Providing greater certainty for • May require local
recommendation permit timelines would help governments to modify
applicants more accurately price codes and processes
in the cost of the permit process. related to permit process
• Improving accountability helps
ensure Goal 7 of the GMA (RCW
36.70A.020) is implemented.
• Providing options and flexibility
for cities will help account for
local variation in process and
permit typology
• Delayed implementation provides
time for communities to comply
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 42
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #6 – Middle Housing Definitions
Date 11 29 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Housing – Defining and applying important terms and parameters
related to provision of middle housing
Did the Task Force Yes ☒ No ☐
make a formal
recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should update RCW 36.70A.030, RCW 36.70A.070(2), and
RCW 36.70A.600 with the following definition of middle housing:
“Middle housing types means buildings that are compatible in scale, form,
and character with single-family houses, and contain two or more attached,
stacked, or clustered homes. This includes multiplexes up to six units,
townhouses, and cottage housing.”
If HB 1782 (or its successor) is re-considered, the Legislature should
consider the following:
• Use housing types as defined above rather than densities when
deciding where and when to require middle housing to be allowed;
and
• Simplify legislation related to where communities would be
required to allow middle housing types.
(See issue overview below for more Task Force discussion of issues
around defining middle housing and major transit stops.)
Consent Vote Tallies Consent – Carlene Anders, Jeff Clarke, Chris Collier, Jeanette McKague,
– Task Force Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Andrew Strobel
Members/Alternates
Object –
Abstain – Carl Schroeder, Bryce Yadon
Not Present – Dave Andersen, Deric Gruen, Mario Reyes
Topic overview Providing for a variety of housing types at all income levels has been a
focus of legislative efforts in recent sessions. This includes providing
middle housing.
In 2019, the Legislature enacted Chapter 348, Laws of 2019, which
established the grant program and statutory requirements for Housing
Action Plans as well as various other code changes encouraged by the
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 43
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
statute. A key requirement of Housing Action Plans is to increase the
supply of housing and the variety of housing types. RCW 36.70A.600 has
been modified by legislation twice since then.
In 2021, the Legislature passed Chapter 254, Laws of 2021, which
updated housing requirements for cities and counties that plan under
RCW 36.70A.040. Among the provisions of the Housing Element is the
requirement that all fully planning counties and cities within those
counties adopt “goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for
the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including
single-family residences, and within an urban growth area boundary,
moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes,
triplexes, and townhomes.” The updated Housing Element requirements
also includes more detailed planning for moderate-, low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income households.
During the 2022 legislative session, additional bills were introduced
related to housing. This includes HB 1782, which focused on the creation
of additional middle housing near transit and in areas traditionally
dedicated to single-family detached housing. A version of this bill and
others may be reintroduced next session.
Issue The Legislature has been working through how and where to encourage
or require housing at densities that would include so-called middle
housing.
The Task Force has been asked to weigh on certain provisions from
recent legislation. This includes defining important terms which based
on how they are defined, could impact the applicability of housing
legislation. This includes terms like middle housing, major arterials,
major transit stops, and other terms that could be used across statutes.
Middle housing definitions – Commerce provided a draft definition of
middle housing that the Task Force revised at a previous meeting on this
topic. The proposed definition in the recommendation removes
references to courtyard apartments and stacked flats and emphasizes
the compatibility in scale, form, and character with detached houses as
the primary definition. The term “multiplexes” is included in the final
recommendation given that it covers all potential small multifamily
configurations up to six units.
In final deliberation and discussion, the Task Force recognized that what
is considered middle housing or high-density housing can vary
substantially by community, and that having one definition that would
apply across multiple statutes might work at cross purposes. It was also
expressed that there are potential bills on this subject already
circulating. This was the source of the abstentions in the consent
process.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 44
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Major transit stops and major arterials – HB 1782 defines major transit
stops as:
(19) "Major transit stop" means:
(a) A stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or
expanded under the provisions of chapter 81.104 RCW;
(b) Commuter rail stops;
(c) Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways;
(d) Stops on bus rapid transit routes or routes that run on high
occupancy vehicle lanes;
(e) Stops for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route
service at intervals of at least 15 minutes for at least five hours during
the peak hours of operation on weekdays; or
(f) Washington state ferry terminals.
The Task Force and working groups discussed this definition. A common
theme from comments included the fact that most of the transit types
included within the definition serve areas where communities should be
focusing on much denser development types, like mixed-use
development and mid-rise apartments.
In addition, since many transit providers adjust their routes and
schedules quarterly, including non-fixed route transit in the definition of
major transit presents a moving target. For this reason, the Task Force is
not providing a separate revised definition of major transit stop. Various
suggestions were offered by Task Force members and working group
participants in lieu of using transit proximity as a locational factor.
Although the Task Force did not express clear support for or opposition
to any of these ideas, the following approaches could be considered:
• If the Legislature wishes to require the allowance of middle
housing based on proximity to transit, it should consider
proximity to a range of services beyond transit, including
commercial services
• Using road classifications (i.e., major arterial) as the locational
factor is an alternate approach, as these are much more fixed
and permanent than bus service that can be changed on a
regular basis
• Using the Oregon and California and simply requiring that any
zone where single-family is permitted to also allow middle
housing types in cities over a certain size
Possible statutes to RCW 36.70A.030
be amended
RCW 36.70A.070(2)
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 45
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RCW 36.70A.600
Do we expect this Yes ☐ No ☒
recommendation to
have a budget
impact?
Did this issue derive Yes ☐ No ☒
from a previous
study? If yes, which
study or report?
Working Groups who Realtors, Planners, Special Districts, Builders
provided feedback
on this topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Having one definition of middle • Requiring or incentivizing
recommendation housing apply across the statutes denser housing types to be
creates internal consistency and allowed across wide
makes complying with statute and swaths of jurisdictions
developing regulatory guidance could lead to service
easier delivery issues for water
• HB 1782 was widely viewed as and sewer providers due to
very complex – moving away from existing infrastructure not
major transit stops as a locational having the capacity for
factor would simplify the law denser development
• Focusing on housing type rather • Having one definition of
than density sidesteps political middle housing that
issues with density applies statewide could
mask important
differences in what is
considered middle- and
high-density housing
across communities.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 46
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #7 – New Equity and Environmental
Justice Goal in the GMA
Date 11 28 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Equity and Environmental Justice – New Equity and Environmental
Justice Goal in the GMA
Did the Task Force Yes ☒ No ☐
make a formal
recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should add environmental justice as a new planning goal in
the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.020) and add definitions
to RCW 36.70A.030 for Environmental Harm and Environmental Benefit.
RCW 36.70A.070 should be amended to implement the new planning goal,
including the identification of overburdened communities and vulnerable
populations and goals, objectives, and measures to reduce environmental
health disparities. The Task Force recommends that equitable engagement
be addressed in the public engagement goal (RCW 36.70A.020(11) and
within RCW 36.70A.140). The state should provide additional resources for
community participation. The Legislature should also provide cities and
counties ongoing funding and resources to ensure the new requirements
are both initially and continuously implemented and provide Commerce
appropriate resources to prepare information and implementation
guidance including models.
Consent Vote Tallies Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote), Jeff
– Task Force Clarke, Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
Members/Alternates McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew Strobel
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Mario Reyes, Bryce Yadon
Topic overview Environmental Justice was a topic in legislative sessions in the past few
years culminating in Chapter 314, Laws of 2021, the Healthy
Environment for All (HEAL) Act, which declared the state’s “compelling
interest in preventing and addressing such environmental health
disparities” and defining environmental justice obligations of agencies.
The 2020 Environmental Justice Task Force commissioned by the
Legislature recommended an environmental justice amendment to the
GMA. A Road Map to Washington’s Future (Road Map I) and Updating
Washington’s Growth Policy Framework (Road Map II) projects
introduced the idea of an equity goal in the GMA. Road Map I
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 47
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
recommended creating an equity goal in the GMA. Road Map II furthered
that conversation to include environmental justice along with equity.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) counties and cities (King, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Kitsap) already implement regional policies on equity
and displacement, which is an adaptive planning approach.
Issue Chapter 314, Laws of 2021, The HEAL Act, addresses planning at the
state level and an amendment to RCW 36.70A that would align that
approach by providing direction for local planning to ensure the state
objective to reduce environmental health disparities.
The Roadmap 1 and 2 language, findings, and recommendations can be
found in Recommendation Sheet #7 Attachment A.
Possible statutes to RCW 36.70A.020
be amended RCW 36.70A.030
RCW 36.70A.070
RCW 36.70B.140
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to
have a budget
impact?
Did this issue derive Yes ☒ No ☐ A Road Map to Washington’s Future
from a previous (2019)
study? If yes, which
study or report? Environmental Justice Task Force Report
(2020)
Updating Washington’s Growth Policy
Framework (2021)
Working Groups who Planners, Tribal nations, and Environmental Justice working groups
provided feedback
on this topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Aligns with state goals and • Creates new tasks for
recommendation objectives to reduce planners that requires
environmental health disparities additional resource and
• The addition of a new goal could capacity to implement
help guide how this could be
further implemented in our growth
policy framework in the future.
• New goal and implementation
would be consistent with NEPA
processes.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 48
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment A: Previous recommendations (Recommendation Sheet #7)
A Road Map to Washington's Future (Road Map 1)
“5.1 Integrate Equity Into Growth Planning
Participants all across the state said an equitable approach to growth and development is
missing, and not addressed in the current growth planning framework. Participants talked
about needing to look at State and local policies, investments, and programs through a race
and social justice lens, to develop more equitable growth planning strategies that do more to
reduce current disparities, and to create new policies and measures to achieve equity. The
desire for equity and social justice was commonly expressed as an element of a desired future
that shifts from an “us versus them” mentality towards relationship building and
understanding.
“Action 5.1 Integrate equity as a goal in growth planning, policies, strategies, and implementing
actions, including adopting it as a goal of the GMA and an adaptive management regionally-
based approach, if developed.
• Advance local, regional, and statewide policies and investments that eliminate inequity.
Develop metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts.
• Develop evaluation tools to determine the impacts of land use, and state and local
transportation investments, on vulnerable populations and disadvantaged communities.
• Provide model community indicators, performance measures, and policy analysis tools
developed by the State to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in addressing race
and social equity in their plans, policies, and projects. Use lessons learned from cities
and counties that apply a race and social justice lens to policies, programs, and
projects” (Road Map Final Report, p. 88).
Updating Washington's Growth Policy Framework (Road Map 2)
EQUITY AND INCLUSION
“According to many participants, social, cultural, racial, gender, and economic diversity is an
important aspect of a desired future, as are social equity and social justice. Participants
expressed this in a number of ways, including desiring a future that addresses income
inequality, distribution of community resources, race and social justice, and gentrification, and
that creates a fair and inclusive society, with opportunities for all. Many Next Generation
participants envisioned a future that included safety nets for low-income residents and
sanctuary for undocumented persons. Many urban, but especially rural participants, long for a
future where youth can stay living and working in the community in which they grew up, and
where the community is not only comprised of older people. Equity was also an important
element of a positive future for participants in the Latinx workshop. Their vision of the future
included less disparity in addressing their basic needs and allocating community resources
including having basic infrastructure, clean water, appropriate street lighting, playgrounds, bike
lanes, and sidewalks. For participants in the Latinx workshop, equity included fair wages,
absence of workplace abuse, and reasonable working hours. The vision for equity also included
a reduction of disparities between communities in eastern and western Washington, and that
resources are better distributed from a macroeconomic perspective. Overall, many participants
envisioned a future where equity is at the forefront of policymaking. Many participants desired
a future that shifts from a “us versus them” mentality toward relationship building and
understanding.” (Updating Washington's Growth Policy Framework, p. 26).
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 49
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Potential reforms to PLANNING GOALS re: EQUITY & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE RCW
36.70A.020 is amended to read as follows: Planning Goal (12) Environmental justice. Promote
environmental justice. Develop and apply fair land use and environmental policy based on
respect and justice for all peoples and seek to eliminate environmental and health disparities.
Potential reforms to DEFINITIONS re: EQUITY & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
RCW 36.70A.030 is amended to read as follows: .(13)“Environmental justice” means the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or
income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations and policies. This includes using an intersectional lens to address
disproportionate environmental and health impacts by prioritizing highly impacted populations,
equitably distributing resources and benefits, and eliminating harm.
RCW 36.70A.140 is amended to read as follows:
Potential reforms to PUBLIC PARTICIPATION re: EQUITY & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Each
county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish and
broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures
providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of
comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The
department shall prepare and disseminate to all local governments best practices to achieve
equitable and inclusive citizen public participation in order to engage those members of the
public and populations who have historically been underserved and under-represented in the
formulation of public policy. By no later than June 30, 2023, counties and cities shall determine
which of these practices to incorporate in updated public participation programs.
Vision 2050
P. 17: “Equity. All people can attain the resources and opportunities to improve their quality of
life and enable them to reach their full potential.”
P. 20. “VISION 2050 works to address current and past inequities, particularly among
communities of color, people with low incomes, and historically underserved communities. It
works to ensure that all people have access to the resources and opportunities to improve their
quality of life. Recognizing that growth will put pressure on communities, VISION 2050 also
seeks to reduce the risks of displacement of lower-income people and businesses through
elevating social and racial equity in regional planning and encouraging integration of equity in
local plans. PSRC will collaborate with its members and community partners to develop a
regional equity strategy to advance this work and create and maintain tools and resources to
better understand how regional and local policies and actions can address inequities.”
P. 32. “All people have the means to attain the resources and opportunities that improve their
quality of life and enable them to reach full potential. Communities of color, historically
marginalized communities, and those affected by poverty are engaged in decision-making
processes, planning, and policy-making.”
State Environmental Justice Task Force Final Report
Incorporate EJ into State Environmental Laws – Model Policy Recommendation
Growth Management Act (GMA): CA Senate Bill 1000 (California Chapter 584, Laws of 2016)
provides an example of incorporating EJ into Washington’s GMA. For example, EJ could be
incorporated as a new mandatory goal. This goal could require identification of overburdened
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 50
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
communities, prioritization of improvements and programs that address the needs of
overburdened communities—including addressing reduction of greenhouse gasses (GHG) that
put communities at risk due to climate change, and affordable housing to combat gentrification
and displacement
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 51
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #8 – Partial Planning Requirements
for Fully Planning Cities
Date 11 09 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Adaptive planning – varied planning requirements – partial
planning requirements for fully planning cities.
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should amend RCW 36.70A.130 to reduce the
planning requirements for very small and slower growing cities
within fully planning counties.
• Should apply to cities with a population of less than 500 or
less.
• Should only apply to periodic updates where the city grew
by less than 50 people in the preceding 10 years.
• The growth rate/population growth shall be reviewed by the
Department of Commerce three years before the periodic
update is due as outlined RCW 36.70A.130(4).
• The determination by Commerce would only apply to one
periodic update. The evaluation of population and growth
would occur three years before each periodic update.
• If a city meets this requirement, they would only be
required to update their critical areas ordinance and capital
facilities plan.
• This would be an opt-in process. Cities could decide to
complete the full periodic update.
• This would not apply to cities which are located within 10
miles of a city with a population over 100,000.
Objections Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote),
Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew
Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Jeff Clarke, Mario Reyes
Topic overview Cities and counties across Washington currently have varied
planning requirements under RCW 36.70A (See Recommendation
Sheet #8 Attachment A). After more than 30 years implementing
the GMA, recommendations on this topic are focused at looking
for opportunities to make planning requirements easier to
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 52
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
implement or to recognize regional differences and needs
throughout the state.
Issue 28 of the 39 counties in Washington are fully planning counties
(See Recommendation Sheet #8 Attachment A). In several of
these counties, there are incorporated cities with very small
populations that also experience little to no growth.
One option would be to allow a very small city in a fully planning
county the option to only have to update their critical areas
regulations and capital facility plan when 1) the city has under
500 people, and 2) experiences very limited growth during the
planning period leading up to the periodic update.
Currently, there are 25 cities within fully planning counties that
have a population under 500 (See Recommendation Sheet #8
Attachment B for details).
The proposal would also exclude cities which are located within
10 miles of a city with a population over 100,000. This is being
proposed to ensure even small cities in fully planning counties
complete a full periodic update when they are near areas
experiencing more growth.
Population Range Count
1-499 25
Possible statutes to be RCW 36.70A.130
amended
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ Study or report
previous study? If yes,
which study or report? A Road Map to Washington’s Future
(2019)
Updating Washington’s Growth Policy
Framework (2021)
Working Groups who Tribal nations, Realtors, Planners, Environmental Groups, Special
provided feedback on this Districts, Builders, State Agencies, and Environmental Justice.
topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Could save budgetary • Could provide fewer
recommendation dollars by providing fewer opportunities for interested
periodic update grants. parties to work with cities
on important planning
issues.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 53
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Could remove planning • A longer period between
requirements that are updating a comprehensive
providing very little value. plan may make updating
• Could focus efforts on the document more
jurisdictions that are difficult in the future if
experiencing growth. required.
• Would still allow cities the
ability to complete a full
update and receive grant
dollars.
• Would not impact the
ability of a city to update
its comprehensive plan on
an annual basis.
• Would still require critical
area and capital facility
planning
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 54
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #8)
Range of planning requirements by county under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 55
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment B (Recommendation Sheet #8)
2022 Office of Financial Management population estimates. Cities in fully planning counties
with a population under 1,500
Population Range Count
1-499 25
Please note that Beaux Arts Village and Hunts Point would not quality for reduced planning
requirements if the provision regarding location in relation to cities with a population over
100,000 is adopted.
Fully Planning County City 2022 Population estimate
Columbia Starbuck 120
Douglas Mansfield 326
Douglas Coulee Dam 200
Franklin Kahlotus 145
Franklin Mesa 390
Grant Hartline 180
Grant Krupp 49
Grant Wilson Creek 205
King Beaux Arts Village 315
King Hunts Point 460
King Skykomish 165
Pend Orielle Cusick 153
Pend Orielle Ione 425
Pend Orielle Metaline 160
Pend Orielle Metaline Falls 275
Skagit Hamilton 295
Skagit Lyman 425
Snohomish Index 155
Spokane Latah 185
Spokane Spangle 280
Spokane Waverly 120
Stevens Marcus 215
Stevens Northport 295
Stevens Springdale 283
Walla Walla Prescott 370
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 56
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #9 – Shoreline Master Program
Review Schedule
Date 11 29 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Reduce conflicts, gaps, and redundancies – Shoreline Master
program review schedule
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should adopt language consistent with HB 1978, to
modify the Shoreline Master Program review and revision cycle
from every eight to every 10 years. This would provide consistency
with the periodic comprehensive plan update schedule in RCW
36.70A.130.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Carlene Anders, Jeff Clarke, Chris Collier, Jan
Task Force Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette McKague (alternate for Bill
Members/Alternates Clarke), Andrew Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Dave Andersen (state agency vote), Deric Gruen,
Mario Reyes, Carl Schroeder
Topic overview The Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58, requires that local
governments develop or amend their Shoreline Master Program
for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent
with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by the
Department of Ecology in accordance with the schedule
established in RCW 98.58.080(4)(b). Currently, these updates are
required to occur every eight years per the schedule in the
statute.
The proposal would modify the schedule to require these updates
every ten years. The schedule would be modified so the updates
would be required five years after cities and counties complete
their periodic comprehensive plan updates. As an example, those
cities and counties with a 2024 periodic update schedule would
have to complete the Shoreline Master Program update in 2029.
The Legislature modified the periodic comprehensive plan
timeframe from eight to 10 years as part of Chapter 192, Laws of
2022. The proposal brings consistency with RCW 36.70A 130. HB
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 57
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1978 passed the House in 2021-22 by a vote of 93-1 (with four
excused). There was no testimony against this bill provided in
either the House or Senate hearings according to the bill reports.
Possible statutes to be RCW 98.58.080
amended
Do we expect this Yes ☐ No ☒
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☐ No ☒ The original version of the 2021
previous study? If yes, legislation implementing the Roadmap
which study or report? recommendation to amend the periodic
update schedule from 8 to 10 years
included companion changes to the SMA
schedule.
Working Groups who None
provided feedback on this
topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Would synchronize • Increases the time periods
recommendation – timelines with the periodic between updates
prepared by project team update schedule
• Given the periodic update
and shoreline master
program update are large
project for many
communities, have them
on opposite schedules can
be helpful to local
governments.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 58
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #10 – Varied Planning Requirements
– Buildable Lands
Date 11 09 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Adaptive planning – varied planning requirements – remove
Review and Evaluation requirements in RCW 36.70A.215. If the
program is retained, modify the program name for clarity and
consistency.
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☐ No ☒
formal recommendation on
this recommendation one?
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
recommendation two?
Recommendation Recommendation one (consent not reached) - The Legislature
should remove the requirements in RCW 36.70A.215, the Review
and evaluation program.
Given consent was not reach on recommendation one,
recommendation two was put forward. Consent was reached.
Recommendation two - The Legislature should change the name of
the Review and Evaluation Program (RCW 36.70A.215), to the
Buildable lands review and evaluation program. This would provide
consistency with the rules in WAC 365-195-315 and the common
terminology applied to the program by counties and cities subject
to the requirements.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote),
Recommendation one - Paul Jewell, Jeff Clarke, Carl Schroeder
Task Force
Members/Alternates Object – Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Jeanette
McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Bryce Yadon
Abstain – Andrew Strobel
Not Present – Mario Reyes
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent – Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen, Jeff Clarke, Chris
Recommendation two - Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
Task Force McKague, Carl Schroeder, Andrew Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Members/Alternates
Object –
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 59
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstain –
Not Present – Mario Reyes
Additional information from While the Task Force members expressed that the requirements
Task Force members who in RCW 36.70A.215 may not be working as intended (described
did not provide consent on further under “Issue” section below), some concerns were
recommendation one expressed with removing the program requirements. Those
included:
• Requirement to identify reasonable measures provisions are
important for those cities and counties not meeting the
development assumptions within their comprehensive plan.
Having reasonable measures identified can assist in holding
jurisdictions accountable during the next comprehensive plan
update.
• RCW 36.70A.130(9)(a) now requires a five-year
implementation report for Comprehensive Plans. Some Task
Force members felt even though there is a five-year check in
that there may still be information gaps provided. It could be
explored, however, to see if there are ways to take some of
the section in .215 and simply add them to 130(9).
• The data collection portions of Buildable Lands provide good
information. Some Task Force members felt it was difficult to
recommend that the program be removed without fully
knowing if data gaps would be created.
Topic overview Cities and counties across Washington currently have varied
planning requirements under RCW 36.70A (See Recommendation
Sheet #10 Attachment A). After more than 30 years implementing
the GMA, recommendations on this topic are focused at looking
for opportunities to make planning requirements easier to
implement or to recognize regional differences and needs
throughout the state.
Issue The Review and Evaluation Program (RCW 36.70A.215) has been
in place since 1997. The program requirements apply to counties
and the cities within those counties west of the crest of the
Cascade Mountain Range with a total population of greater than
150,000 – King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Whatcom, Thurston,
and Clark counties (See RCW 36.70A.215(5)).
The program has two primary goals as outlined in RCW
36.70A.215(1) and (2):
(a) Determine whether a county and its cities are achieving urban
densities within urban growth areas by comparing growth and
development assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in
the countywide planning policies and the county and city
comprehensive plans with actual growth and development that
has occurred in the county and its cities; and
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 60
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(b) Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban
growth areas, that will be taken to comply with the requirements
of this chapter. Reasonable measures are those actions
necessary to reduce the differences between growth and
development assumptions and targets contained in the
countywide planning policies and the county and city
comprehensive plans with actual development patterns. The
reasonable measures process in subsection (3) of this section
shall be used as part of the next comprehensive plan update to
reconcile inconsistencies.
While the intent of the program is important and the reports
produced by jurisdictions subject to these requirements are well
done, the question has been raised of whether the program is
accomplishing the goals set out in the statute quoted here.
The program is focused on how an adopted comprehensive plan
is working. It is looking back, not forward. If growth is not
occurring as planned, local governments make zoning and land
use changes to adjust. These are called reasonable measures.
The issue is that the time between comprehensive plan periodic
updates is only 10 years. Reports under this program are due
three years before the comprehensive plan update and take 1-2
years to produce. This means that the program only captures 3 to
4 years of growth data after a comprehensive plan is updated.
This may not be enough time to determine if a city or county
needs to adopt reasonable measures and make course
corrections.
If this program is removed, it will not eliminate the requirement to
ensure comprehensive plans are being implemented. Chapter
192, Laws of 2022 was passed and modified RCW 36.70A.130. It
requires larger counties and the cities within those counties to
complete a comprehensive plan implementation report after a
comprehensive plan is adopted. The final bill report is online.
In addition, removing these requirements would not alter planning
requirements for updating a comprehensive plan.
The Review and Evaluation Program is expensive, and given the
time between comprehensive plan updates, it has been
determined that the outcomes within RCW 36.70A.215 could be
accomplished in different ways.
Lastly, there are other statutes that refer to the requirements of
this program. If this section is removed, that statues would also
have to be altered. As an example, the requirements of RCW
36.70B.080 only pertain to those jurisdictions subject to RCW
36.70A.215. In this case 36.70B would need to be modified to just
list the counties instead of referring to the statute.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 61
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Possible statutes to be RCW 36.70A.215
amended
RCW 36.70B.080 (if requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 are
removed)
Do we expect this Yes ☐ No ☒
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☐ No ☒
previous study? If yes,
which study or report?
Working Groups who Tribal nations, Realtors, Planners, Environmental Groups, Special
provided feedback on this Districts, Builders, State Agencies, and Environmental Justice.
topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Save funding that could be • The current requirements
recommendation utilized for other important provide useful data on how
planning work. comprehensive plan
• New requirements from implementation is working.
Chapter 192, Laws of 2022 • The current statute
will ensure that provides requirements for
jurisdictions currently cities and counties to
subject to RCW provide reasonable
36.70A.215 provide a measures when growth is
comprehensive plan not occurring as planned.
progress report. Removing .215
• Removing these requirements could lessen
requirements would be accountability to act.
consistent with planning • Although there is a new 5-
requirements for other year check in requirement
fully planning counties for comprehensive plans in
under the GMA. RCW 36.70A.130, it does
• The data collected as part not encompass important
of the program would still provisions of .215.
be required to be collected
as part of comprehensive
plan updates
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 62
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #10)
Range of planning requirements by county under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 63
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #11 – Varied Planning Requirements
– City Adoption of County Critical Areas Ordinance
Date 11 09 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Adaptive planning – varied planning requirements –cities may
adopt county critical area regulations by reference.
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The Legislature should amend RCW 36.70A.060 to allow cities, with
a population of 25,000 or fewer, the ability to adopt the county
critical areas regulations by reference to satisfy their GMA
requirements to protect critical areas.
The intent is that cities engaging in this process, through the
adoption of an interlocal agreement with the county, would
integrate critical area code updates by reference. After adopting an
interlocal agreement, the city would not have to take legislative
action to incorporate the county’s critical areas regulations within
their regulations. Appeals of the critical area regulations would
have to be an appeal of the county adoption of new critical areas
regulations.
Counties should receive the periodic update funding for the critical
area update for cities who will adopt the code by reference.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent –Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote),
Task Force Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
Members/Alternates McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew
Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Object –
Abstain –
Not Present – Jeff Clarke, Mario Reyes
Topic overview Cities and counties across Washington currently have varied
planning requirements under RCW 36.70A (See Recommendation
Sheet #11 Attachment A). After more than 30 years implementing
the GMA, recommendations on this topic are focused at looking
where there may be opportunities to make planning requirements
easier to implement or to recognize regional differences and
needs throughout the state.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 64
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Issue Many cities and counties in Washington have significant
requirements to fulfill under RCW 36.70A and other laws but few
resources to fully implement the requirements. This is not always
a budgetary issue. Often it relates to having a small staff who may
have limited expertise to accomplish all that RCW 36.70A and
other laws require. As an example, many smaller cities may not
have a city planner.
Partially planning cities and counties (See Recommendation
Sheet #11 Attachment A) are only required to plan for
conservation or resources lands (forest, agricultural, and mineral)
and protection of critical areas.
One opportunity to make planning requirements easier to
implement would be to provide the opportunity for cities to adopt
the county critical area regulations by reference. This could
provide efficiencies with the update process and consolidate
grant funding. This process would provide consistency between
codes and an optional process for cities, especially those with
fewer resources, to rely on the Best Available Science (BAS)
review completed by the county.
Other Task Force directions on this topic included:
• Cities should maintain the ability to terminate the
Interlocal Agreement (ILA). If this occurs, then the city
would be responsible for updating their critical area
regulations as part of the next periodic update. If this
occurs, the intent of this recommendation is that the
county’s critical areas ordinance still be utilized until the
city amends its code to create its own critical areas
ordinance.
• Inadequate or inconsistent county critical areas
ordinances and regulations could lead to erosion of
protections in cities that adopt them. Any outstanding
consistency issues or appeals with a county’s critical
areas ordinance would have to be resolved before a city
could adopt that ordinance by reference.
• Shoreline Master Program obligations for cities would not
change under this proposed change. Shoreline
obligations would need to be addressed during the SMP
amendment process before a newly adopted critical areas
ordinance would take effect.
Possible statutes to be RCW 36.70A.060
amended
Do we expect this Yes ☐ No ☒
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 65
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ Study or report
previous study? If yes,
which study or report? A Road Map to Washington’s Future
(2019)
Updating Washington’s Growth Policy
Framework (2021)
Working Groups who Tribal nations, Realtors, Planners, Environmental Groups, Special
provided feedback on this Districts, Builders, State Agencies, and Environmental Justice.
topic
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Would provide an • Would limit appeal options
recommendation opportunity to make as appeals could only be of
planning requirements the county update.
easier to implement for
cities.
• Could provide a county
additional funding for
critical area updates
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 66
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #11)
Range of planning requirements by county under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 67
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Task Force Recommendation Sheet #12 – Varied Planning Requirements
– Commerce Technical Assistance
Date 11 09 2022
MM DD YY
Topic Adaptive planning – varied planning requirements – Commerce
technical assistance
Did the Task Force make a Yes ☒ No ☐
formal recommendation on
this issue?
Recommendation The state should provide cities and counties, especially those with
fewer resources, additional technical resources, on an ongoing
basis. The findings from the Commerce study of planning costs and
comments received from working groups and surveys during this
project should be utilized to assist in prioritizing which technical
resources are most important to provide. The needs of
communities vary, and the options listed below may all be useful to
certain communities.
a. Technical assistance and resources for Tribes, cities, and
counties to better coordinate with each other on specific
planning issues.
b. State development of model code and/or policy language.
c. Mediation and facilitation services.
d. State procurement of and assistance with data tools, like GIS.
e. Technical assistance on specific planning issues to cities and
counties.
f. Assistance with master consultant agreements for planning
services.
g. Expanding the role of regional agencies, such as councils of
government, to provide planning services to member
jurisdictions.
h. Communications and PR expertise for assistance on
complex/controversial issues.
i. Expanding the role of colleges and universities in assisting
local governments with planning activities.
j. Library of case law that local governments can easily locate.
Consent Vote Tallies – Consent –Carlene Anders, Dave Andersen (state agency vote),
Task Force Chris Collier, Deric Gruen, Jan Himebaugh, Paul Jewell, Jeanette
Members/Alternates McKague (alternate for Bill Clarke), Carl Schroeder, Andrew
Strobel, Bryce Yadon
Object –
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 68
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstain –
Not Present – Jeff Clarke, Mario Reyes
Topic overview Cities and counties across Washington currently have varied
planning requirements under RCW 36.70A (See Recommendation
Sheet #12 Attachment A). After more than 30 years implementing
the GMA, recommendations on this topic are focused at looking
for opportunities to make planning requirements easier to
implement or to recognize regional differences and needs
throughout the state.
Issue One way to make planning requirements easier to implement
could be funding, through the Department of Commerce, to
provide greater technical assistance to local governments -
especially those with fewer resources.
As part of the Collaborative Roadmap Phase III work in 2021, the
Task Force made the following recommendation:
The Task force requests that as part of the 2022 work program, the
Department of Commerce outline options for additional services
they could provide to counties and cities including, but not limited
to, developing model policy or code language, especially for new
GMA requirements, and looking at ways to assist smaller counties
and cities with assistance, such as code writing.
Based upon the above request, the Department of Commerce
developed a list of possible options and opportunities for
providing additional services to jurisdictions with fewer
resources.
These options have not only been considered by the Task Force,
but also through working groups and through the survey on the
Commerce website during summer 2022.
Possible statutes to be None
amended
Do we expect this Yes ☒ No ☐
recommendation to have a
budget impact?
Did this issue derive from a Yes ☒ No ☐ A Road Map to Washington’s Future
previous study? If yes, (2019)
which study or report?
Working Groups who Tribal nations, Realtors, Planners, Environmental Groups, Special
provided feedback on this Districts, Builders, State Agencies, and Environmental Justice.
topic
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 69
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Advantages and Advantages Disadvantages
disadvantages of
implementing • Commerce could put • There will be ongoing
recommendation together materials which costs to provide additional
could be utilized by many technical services.
jurisdictions. This could • Funding this work may be
provide efficiencies. difficult to provide over a
• Jurisdictions, especially long period of time given
those with fewer budget conditions change.
resources, will strongly
benefit from being
provided greater technical
resources.
• The options provided
recognize that the needs of
communities vary.
• Through engagement with
working groups, there was
strong agreement to
support this proposal.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 70
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment A (Recommendation Sheet #12)
Range of planning requirements by county under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 71
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix B: Working Group Consolidated Recommendations
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 72
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
Varied planning Amending Countywide Amending Countywide Amending Countywide General comments
requirements – Planning Policy Planning Policy Planning Policy
updating categories requirements in RCW requirements in RCW requirements in RCW Counties should get together
of planning 36.70A.210 36.70A.210 36.70A.210 when they have similar
requirements geographies. Planning can
• Updating Countywide • Require CPP update • Re: CPPs, update happen in a vacuum and isn’t
Planning Policies for BL counties if BL language in RCW coordinated. For example,
(CPPs) is very valuable goes away as a 36.70A.210 so it critical areas are not always
for counties and cities requirement matches requirements designated as the same. Non
– support for making for comprehensive plans fully GMA planning counties
CPP updates more Amending Buildable • Could make sense to have to do resource lands
widespread Lands program require all fully planning and critical areas. One
• Flexibility/incentives requirements in RCW counties to update CPPs, county whose boundaries
for CPPs better than 36.70A.215 but beware of intersect the Yakama Indian
mandate unintended Reservation is not a GMA
• Current language is • Eliminating Buildable consequences (i.e., new county. This causes some
written for creating Lands could unfunded requirements challenges between the
first set of CPPs. potentially be being generated) County and Yakama Nation.
Language should be beneficial, but its
updated to reflect what goal (accountability Reducing Planning
is needed for an for what gets built) requirement for slow
update. should be reflected growing communities
• Could apply to Fully elsewhere
Planning Counties • Eliminate Buildable • Support for allowing fully
• CPP discussion, should Lands requirement as planning county to
include coordinated it exists; replace with complete partially
policies with special more meaningful planning county
districts. mid-cycle check for requirements for one
housing. update when growth
Reducing Planning rates have been minimal
requirement for slow although perhaps not in
growing communities PSRC area
• Commerce and PSRC
• Ability for small, slowly need to work together to
growing cities to opt avoid
out of full update miscommunications
outside of PSRC about budget and growth
counties
• Looking at 10-year Amending Buildable Lands
growth will skew data. program requirements in
• Find simple standard RCW 36.70A.215
for reducing
requirements. Maybe • If Buildable Lands is
cities under 1,000 who retained, terminology
have a small growth should be amended to
rate could skip an be consistent. Clarity
update. Maye they should be provided
would not receive a regarding use of
new growth target. assumed vs. achieved
densities
Amending Buildable Lands • If buildable lands is
program requirements in retained, it needs to be
RCW 36.70A.215 synced better with
annexation policies.
• Buildable Lands is not Unincorporated UGAs
accomplishing its are assigned capacity,
goals, but the data but not all cities provide
urban services to those
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 73
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
collection and analysis UGAs. Annexations are
is valuable. difficult, so the capacity
• Some agreed that the is not truly available.
program requirements • If BL requirements are
could be eliminated. removed or reduced,
Still be an optional staff resources should
program. be shifted to permitting.
• King County rep. stated
she would provide
information on why the
program is important
for King County.
Varied planning • Model or example • Commerce • Regional planning group • A higher level of • Can housing
requirements – elements for new assistance to local assistance through accountability and a affordability grants from
additional resources element requirements governments Council of Governments higher threshold to be Commerce be made
for Commerce (climate change, for explaining benefits of could be helpful more responsive and available directly to
example) programs – for • GIS support additional funding and districts, or indirectly
• Communication and PR example, the benefits • Services that would help resources for smaller through cities and
expertise for of Planned Action jurisdictions implement non-GMA counties to counties? This would
assistance on versus project-based current requirements have equal planning and have a strong
complex/controversial SEPA to sell city and make development consistency. environmental justice
issues councils on the process more efficient • Commerce checklist focus.
• Data tool assistance, benefits and effective should include Chapter • Suggestion to widen
like GIS, for • Support requirement that 252, Laws of 2022 scope of training for
communities that lack all city and county compliance guidance and elected officials,
capacity council members receive requirements commissioners, and
• Health disparities map land use training. Make • Recommendation for staff to include water
being provided this a requirement for future work on these and sewer planning.
statewide would be newly elected officials issues – more time for Note that this is
helpful (already • As part of training engagement not limited consistent with builder
existing). include how special to legislative sessions comment about required
• More resources districts are integrated training.
especially for partially into planning process • Consider doing the
planning counties and (this is from Special same with regard to
cities Districts meeting but is school district planning
• Master consultant consistent with builder and funding
agreement assistance comment.)
• Assistance with
Chapter 252, Laws of
2022 compliance
(tribal participation in
planning under GMA)
Reduce conflicts, • Sync up appeals • SEPA comment • Support previous Task Steve Erickson: The Forest • Underground injection
gaps, and language between periods versus Force recommendation Practices Act governs logging control (UIC) and Low
redundancies SEPA, Shoreline, and underlying to reform permit data on all non-federal lands in Impact Development
Local Project Review applications – should collection and reporting. Washington. It explicitly (LID) standards –
Act where possible have just one. • Two approaches to prohibits local jurisdictions Ecology (ECY) needs to
• Allow higher SEPA Suggest making the substantive review: from adopting regulations enforce the anti-
exemption thresholds Optional DNS (ODNS) o Set minimal criteria regulating logging unless the degradation standards in
for multifamily the default to make for review, or land is being converted to a the WAC and RCW’s. Will
• Revise procedural permit review and o Allow licensed non-forest use, i.e. allow stormwater
completeness comment more stamped plans to development or deforestation. injection wells just about
requirements in RCW accessible have presumption of That is its only interaction anywhere with no notice
36.70B.070. • Eliminating project acceptability with land use planning. If the to the water purveyor.
• Final plat should be specific SEPA review • Pilot program – funds landowner declares their Been trying to engage
administrative across if analyzed in a comp set aside for building intent to convert either before, ECY. Want notification!
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 74
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
the board. Make this plan or subarea EIS permit and subdivision during, or after logging, the Permits are issued and
the default. RCW per statute, but this is applications where county or city can prohibit districts find out after
58.17.170 not in the design by licensed, development for six years the fact. Level of
• Drop the EIS for large- administrative code. stamped professionals beginning on the date when customers relying on
scale projects in favor • Support for changing would be accepted for the Department of Natural groundwater. No
of systemic permit tracking construction subject to Resources (DNR) approved temperature controls, no
environmental review requirements from inspections (could have the logging. That is the only ongoing testing of what’s
(subarea or comp plan Task Force the applicant take on authority local jurisdictions injected. ECY allows UIC,
EIS) recommendation last burden of peer review of can exercise. King County encourages
• Combine SEPA and year reports and plans) The GMA provides a it. Ground will clean
permit application • Planning should • Look for ways to framework for planning and water of most things
comment periods better acknowledge incentivize good requires counties and cities to given enough time, but
• Move preliminary plat market realities (what engineering designers to protect critical areas. Some not when it’s being
approval to hearing won’t sell won’t get serve as reviewers at counties do not meet the injected. Inorganic
examiner – no council built regardless of jurisdictions population increase rates compounds cannot be
option regulatory intent) • Change the permit shot necessary to trigger GMA cleaned naturally.
clock to require decision requirements, but even these • SEPA – well intended but
within 120 days of counties must adopt poorly implemented.
complete application regulations to protect critical SEPA integration that
(Oregon law allows writ areas. Critical areas are contemplates some of
of mandamus to get defined as these issues. UICs or
immediate court • (a) Wetlands; (b) certificates of availability
approval after 120 days) areas with a critical when it comes to SEPA
• Adopt law similar to recharging effect on (ODNS). Availability and
Oregon’s that prevents aquifers used for capacity, as well as
local government from potable water; (c) environmental impacts
having subjective review fish and wildlife of utilities. Maybe the
criteria habitat conservation development itself has
• Look into ability to pull areas; (d) frequently little impact, but an
building permits before flooded areas; and offsite improvement like
final plat is recorded (e) geologically a sewer or water main
once fire flow is hazardous areas. could give someone an
demonstrated There are other problems with opportunity to challenge
• Look into allowing logging in Washington, but a later.
submittal of final plat simple fix here is to amend
once grading permit is the Growth Management and
approved and prior to Forest Practice Acts to make
construction county critical area
• Make unit counts regulations apply to logging
synonymous with land on lands that are not
use decision in SEPA designated as resource
rules forestland.
• Make the current In the group conversation that
available categorical followed, some participants
exemptions the baseline disagreed with some of
requirement Steve’s premises. Some
• Is there a way to specific comments included:
eliminate the MDNS as Implementing regulations on
an option at least for agricultural land has been
some projects? problematic. This proposal
• Get rid of paperwork may cause conflict, especially
requiring an applicant to in consideration of small-
demonstrate that they scale logging operations.
are categorically exempt There are conflicts between
from SEPA. This could the Forest Practices and the
apply to JARPAs as well. GMA.
• Many remaining There are differences in the
two laws and opportunities to
potentially developable
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 75
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
areas in UGAs have make the laws function better
slope issues that require but reconciling them would be
grading. Tree a heavy lift.
preservation A problem statement and
requirements can limit proposal will be circulated at
grading. Tree canopy the last environmental
ordinances are a better working group meeting next
alternative with detailed week (8/23)
landscape plans to
achieve a specific tree
canopy within a certain
time period.
Middle housing • Interest in a clear • Middle housing is • "Major transit stop" • Question assumptions
definitions definition via the state more appropriate for means: about whether middle
of what constitutes areas that are a (a) A stop on a high housing meets goals for
garden apartments quarter-mile away capacity transportation attainability/affordability
• Data on where laws on from 15-minute system funded or • Better regulate sub-
middle housing would headway bus service. expanded under the metering to limit how
Higher-capacity provisions of chapter much landlords can
apply would be very
transit demands 81.104 RCW; charge for water and
helpful
higher densities than (b) Commuter rail stops; sewer compared to what
• Suggest staying away middle housing can (c) Stops on rail or fixed utility provides charge
from density in state provide guideway systems, the landlords (Oregon
laws and sticking with • Reset discussion in including transitways; does a better job of this
housing types – Legislature – (d) Stops on bus rapid than WA)
practicality of discussion of transit transit routes or routes • Early water and sewer
prescribing density availability loses the that run on high availability review needs
types gets tricky purpose of the occupancy vehicle lanes; to be a part of every
• The Oregon model of original bill. (e) Stops for a bus or development review
requiring middle • Simplify language – other transit mode • Education of planners
housing only in cities coded language providing actual fixed on importance of utility
and towns over a makes it difficult to route service at intervals system sizing, financing
certain population participate in of at least 15 minutes for of water and sewer
planning around at least five hours during improvements, and
makes sense.
housing the peak hours of other aspects should be
• Definitions should operation on weekdays;
• Support for strongly considered as
provide a range, to or
discussing types of part of middle housing
allow different (f) Washington state
housing rather than projects
jurisdictions in density ferry terminals.
different parts of the • Support for rural • For the Major
state to fit policy to detached ADUs (is it transit stop
their specific possible to limit their definition:
community. use as short-term o Items a-d and f
• Type of transit is rentals?) should be areas
important. For • Need to ensure where you
example, a park and communities have would see
ride could meet the options for families – densities higher
definition of major when the only transit- than middle
adjacent housing housing
transit even if it’s only
being built is studios o Item e is where
during peak commuter
and 1-bedrooms, higher density
time and only takes
larger households middle house
riders to a heavy rail should be
will have no choice
stop northbound to required such
but to look outwards
Seattle. Bonney Lake, as townhomes
for example, isn’t even
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 76
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
part of the transit o Outside of
district. Unintended areas outlined
consequences of in e, single
designating what family,
constitutes a major duplexes,
transit stop. triplexes, ADU,
ect.. should be
• Trying to build housing
allowed
that is close to transit
• Incorporate density as
options, and different
well as housing type
transit options need
• Encouraging form-based
different housing codes could also help
densities and types. encourage middle
• Like idea of focusing housing.
middle housing around • HB 1782 was too
15-minute minimum complicated and should
headways with at least be simplified. For
5 hours a day of that example, cut out
service. However, minimum lot sizes and
agencies like King use gross minimum
County Metro adjust densities to achieve this.
their schedules and • Look at what Oregon did
routes quarterly. to make the changes
that are needed at the
• Linking middle
legislative level
housing to road
• Provide as much
classifications in
flexibility as possible
comp plans as a way
within the UGA instead
of getting more long- of making transit access
term certainty complex criteria for
• More amenities other applicability
than transit? Originally,
metrics were really
focused on getting
people to their 9-to-5
jobs. 20-minute
communities – places
you can get to with
lots of amenities
(Thrasher’s Corner in
Bothell for example)
• If this idea of
amenities has merit,
also need to think
about food, health
care, housing, other
life essentials and
places that would use
lack of amenities
currently as an excuse
Housing tax benefits • HB 1157 (REET MFTE program for flats or
incentive) is a great condos – is there a way to
idea – hoping for incentivize affordability this
governor’s office way?
support
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 77
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
• Provide menu of
different incentive
options
• Figure out a way to
get people to talk
with their elected
officials outside of
the comp plan
process, especially
regarding paying for
infrastructure that
serves growth
• Commerce help with
planning for comp
plan
• Housing density
zones incentive and
housing benefit
districts support
• MFTE, but for
homeownership
incentive. Portion of
units would be for
homeownership
• Roll several of these
incentives together
into one
recommendation – a
“buffet of options” to
assist in legislative
process
Annexations and • Resources to help • Tribes – annexation • Remove or modify • Alternative annexation
special districts cities understand within boundaries of statement that cities method – OFM
financial impacts of tribal land – tribes are are the preferred supports removing
annexation. Urban3 absent from the process. provider of services in existing language in
land value per acre When dealing with tribal GMA statute related to 2010
analysis in Snohomish lands, is there a process • Annexations should be census and might be
County. Modeling by which tribes can reviewed by the able to support
provides opportunities become party to an question, “what is the language creating an
to model service and interlocal agreement? best way to provide alternative annexation
infrastructure costs. This affects how tribes services to this area?” A method for
• Ability to use US consult with jurisdictions. separate third-party annexations above a
census to not require Especially where tribes entity should conduct a certain size where a
door to door census if also provide services. study as part of a city could choose to
annexed within a • Tribal growth and potential annexation either conduct a
certain period after a development patterns are census OR use an
decennial census or different than what’s OFM-generated
allow OFM to issue conceived of in GMA – estimate for that area
official population more like city-states than with the caveat that
estimates for an area. cities or counties. Some they couldn’t appeal
Please note that the cities avoid including that estimate.
project team has met tribal reservation areas in
with OFM after UGAs. Tribes like Tulalip
receiving this that are adjacent to
comment, see state Marysville can’t get
agencies column at services to the
right. reservation despite being
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 78
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
• No boundary review urban areas adjacent to I-
board review if 5 because Marysville
interlocal method is doesn’t include them in
used their UGA.
• How to tweak the o BRBs are able to
incentive formula to make sure all
make more equitable? communities are at
The areas left to be the table, including
annexed in King those not
County, for example, incorporated with a
are diverse and low charter, can be
income, but the included, which is an
incentive is based on advantage of
sales tax, so boundary review
communities that boards.
collect less sales tax
don’t get as much out
of it.
• King County is working
on an analysis of how
the incentive worked
this summer and will
have
recommendations
later this summer.
• Southwest WA (Clark
Co) and Spokane
County probably have
lots of urbanized areas
in the unincorporated
UGA. Should be
extended to other
large counties in the
state.
• Boundary review
boards are important
for ensuring some
level of equity, but
more specificity from
the state on how to
stop creating smaller
and smaller islands.
• Boundary review
boards are important
for ensuring some
level of equity, but
more specificity from
the state on how to
stop creating smaller
and smaller islands.
• When a city mandates
garbage service and
county doesn’t, but
county is prohibited
from garbage
mandate. Simple
language allowing
counties to mandate
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 79
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
garbage service within
unincorporated UGAs
would smooth
annexation process.
Integration of water, • Special districts for • Agreements with cities –
sewer, ports, and sidewalks? Statewide if a city wants relocate or
schools with GMA sidewalk utility? rebuild within first five
• Special districts should years of its life, it’s on
be brought into the city’s dime. Between
planning process re: 5 and 10 years, split 50-
GMA. APA WA has 50. If after 10 years,
recommended that utility pays for it.
special districts, • ULID utility local
including public water improvement district –
systems, be brought early coordination of
into coordinated growth county talking to districts
management planning since it is not likely to
framework as other happen through the
local jurisdictions. typical process. Other
• Original GMA section landowners don’t’ have
18 mandated that to pay for it.
special districts plan in • ADU Discount based on
conformance with size – 800 square feet
counties. That was and under got 70 percent
vetoed. Now it just says of full fee
counties shall do a CFP • Would be beneficial to
and shall include all have water/sewer
relevant information experts at counties
from other districts. • Nutrient rule from Dept.
This is a big issue when of Ecology – need clarity
cities and counties are on this and coordination
not in charge of those with counties, especially
districts. in King County where the
county is the regional
wastewater provider
Equity and • APA-WA The working group agreed
environmental justice recommended that to recommend new
and human health equity and mandatory planning goals
and wellbeing in the environmental justice for both equity and
GMA should be a part of all environmental justice and
of the applicable goals human health and
in existence, now. Also, wellbeing.
have opportunity for • Justice should not
public participation for be an optional
when county wide element.
updated are adopted • Actionable and
• Support also meaningful
expressed in meeting requirements should
for integrating equity, be recommended to
environmental justice, the Legislature and
and human health and incorporated into
wellbeing into existing local comprehensive
goals/elements or a plans.
new optional element • With new goals and
• Support for defining requirements should
these terms and come new
allowing some
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 80
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
flexibility in how they benchmarks to
are interpreted and measure outcomes.
implemented in • Pollution control is
different communities inconsistent
around the state. between counties.
Perhaps each • It seems like local
community would jurisdictions have
have to define what the choice whether
these terms mean in to prioritize industry
their plans for their or community. Often,
particular community industry comes first.
• The way planning • Current inequities
grants are funded can stem from past
reinforce this – bigger harm; We need to
cities who have more acknowledge that,
resources get more undo that harm, then
money, while smaller set ourselves on the
communities that have path to more
fewer resources get equitable outcomes;
less money we need to use a
• Clearinghouse of racial justice lens.
equity-related data – • The group discussed
including training on the potential to vary
how to use it equity and
• Support for including environmental justice
school district plans and health and
when doing wellbeing planning
comprehensive plan requirements based
updates on the size and
resources of the
jurisdiction.
• There was
acknowledgement of
the difficulty of
giving the
overburdened
counties another
planning
requirements, but
these counties
should not have
lesser equity and
health requirements.
• The group
recommended
mandatory goals
with consideration of
different conditions
and requests
additional resources
for counties to meet
new requirements
• “There has to be a
bar, and it needs to
come with funding”
The group discussed a
potential requirement to
use and respond to
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 81
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
community input across
GMA required planning,
with a potential link to
Chapter 314, Laws of
2021 (the HEAL Act).
• The HEAL Act has
already built
standards, and it is
important for the
GMA to meet these
requirements too.
• This effort might be
more effective if it is
applied more broadly
to Commerce
funding, not only to
the GMA. There are
other funding
mechanisms outside
of comprehensive
planning that could
benefit from these
requirements.
• The group discussed
ensuring that tribal
nations have a voice
in the new
requirements.
“Honor the treaties,
honor the sacred.”
The group discussed the
creation of tools and
distribution of
information that identify
and track areas where
communities experience
health disparities,
mobility challenges,
displacement risk, and
climate risk.
• There is currently a
lack of information
about which
environmental risks
community
members are
exposed to and the
connected health
outcomes.
• The group discussed
efforts to clearly
communicate the
process through
which legislative
decisions trickle
through the county
and city to
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 82
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planners Realtors Builders Environmental Groups Tribal nations Special Districts Environmental Justice State Agencies
exacerbate equity
issues.
• Rural housing is not
being addressed
with a lot of the work
being advanced
through state and
federal programs,
and it is not
compelling to private
developers. Money
for housing should
go to non-profits, not
developers.
• The group discussed
the idea of funding
incentives for
building multi-modal
and equitable
solutions.
The group discussed
developing an approval,
monitoring and
enforcement process to
ensure progress toward
goals.
• “We need to further
develop the carrot
and stick and figure
out how to engage
more people across
the state in this once
in a decade
process.”
• Who decides if a
goal has been met?
Are there markers or
quantitative
measures define
when a municipality
has met a goal?
Could the GMA
include a
requirement that
community gets to
decide those
markers for their
county?
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 83
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix C: Project Survey Results Summary and Tabulation
LEGISLATIVE REPORT – PREPARED FOR 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 84
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III – WEB SURVEY RESULTS
The Collaborative Framework Phase III project builds upon the findings, concepts and recommendations in recent state-funded reports to
make recommendations to the Legislature on reforms to the state’s growth policy framework.
During this phase of work, the project Task Force will make recommendations the Legislature prior to the 2022 and 2023 legislative
sessions. Task Force participants represent a broad range of perspectives. Project engagement will also include a special focus on
Federally recognized Indian tribes and the lived experiences and perspectives of people and communities who have too often been
excluded from public policy decision-making and who are unevenly impacted by those decisions.
In 2021, the Roadmap Phase III Task Force considered five topics and made formal recommendations to the legislature on four of those
topics for the 2022 legislative session. See last year’s legislative report here: Legislative Report for the 2022 Legislative Session
In 2022, the Task Force is considering eight topics for possible recommendations to the legislature:
• Reducing conflicts, gaps, and redundancies
• Varied planning requirements – recognizing regional differences and prioritizing additional resources provided through the
Department of Commerce
• Development of a potential human health and well being goal in the Growth Management Act
• Development of a potential equity and environmental justice goal in the Growth Management Act
• Integrating water, sewer, school, and port districts in GMA planning
• Annexations and special districts
• Middle housing definitions
• Housing tax incentives
The project team developed a web survey on the Department of Commerce website to collect input on these eight topics in the
summer of 2022. Fifty-seven (57) people answered more than 30 questions about these eight topics, providing valuable perspectives
and suggestions. This document reports on the results of this survey.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Who are you?
1. Are you a member of any of the
following groups or communities?
Please select all that apply.
a. City or county government
b. Special districts, like water,
sewer, or school districts
c. Real estate
d. Building industry
e. Agriculture
f. Planning
g. Environmental organizations
h. Tribal Nations
i. State agencies
j. Environmental justice or
social justice organizations
k. Other (includes-
concerned/Interested
citizens, independent county
board: Boundary review
Board, Legal, and Local orgs
advocating for GMA
principles)
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
2. What is the zip code where you live?
Respondents weighed in from zip codes in the counties shown below.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Topic: Varied Planning Requirements
Questions:
1. We are looking at ways the State can provide more assistance to local governments, particularly cities and counties, with
fewer resources.
Which of these options, if any, do you think Washington State
should fund to help local governments plan under the Growth
Other 8
Management Act? Please select all that apply.
a. More technical assistance to cities and counties
None of these 5
b. Model policy language for comprehensive plan
updates Expanding the roles colleges and
universities can play in assisting local 13
c. Optional process of state approval and defense from governments
Communications and PR expertise
appeal for assistance in 16
complex/controversial planning…
d. Allow some portion of comprehensive plan grant
funds to be used for technical assistance Mediation and facilitation services 5
e. Mediation and facilitation services
Allow some portion of
f. Communications and PR expertise for assistance in comprehensive plan grant funds to 26
be used for technical assistance
complex/controversial planning issues
Optional process of state approval
g. Expanding the roles colleges and universities can play and defense from appeal
24
in assisting local governments
Model policy language for
32
h. None of these comprehensive plan updates
i. Other (blank text box)
More technical assistance to cities
38
and counties
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
2. Should more counties be required to regularly update countywide planning policies? (Y/N)
No
37%
Yes
63%
3. Should slow-growing cities and counties that fully plan under the Growth Management Act have fewer requirements if their
growth rate falls below a certain rate in the years leading up to their comprehensive plan update? (Y/N)
No
37%
Yes
63%
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Topic: Reduce conflicts, gaps, and redundancies
Questions:
4. What are specific ideas you may have for how to eliminate gaps, conflicts, and overlaps in State requirements? Please briefly
describe up to three below.
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 1 for response comments.
Topic: Annexations and Special Districts
Questions:
5. Should the State provide financial incentives to encourage cities to annex land in their urban growth area? (Y/N)
No
31%
Yes
69%
6. A State law that created a sales tax incentive for annexations expired in 2015. It only applied to annexations in King, Pierce,
and Snohomish counties, and to areas with at least 10,000 people. It was not an increase in the sales tax, instead,
communities receive back a small portion of the sales and use tax from the revenue that would be going to the state.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Should the sales tax incentive be reinstated? (Y/N)
No
22%
Yes
78%
7. If it is reinstated, should the sales tax credit for annexations be permitted for cities in additional counties? (Y/N)
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
8. Should the amount cities get in the sales tax incentive be increased, even if that means less revenue at the state level? (Y/N)
No
27%
Yes
73%
Yes No
9. Do you have any additional specific feedback on annexations?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 2 for response comments.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Topic: Integrating water, sewer, ports, and school districts into Growth Management Act planning
Questions:
10. Should State laws that guide how water, sewer, school systems, and ports plan for future services be consistent with how
cities and counties plan for growth? (Y/N)
No, 19%
Yes, 81%
Yes No
11. Why or why not?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 3 for response comments.
12. Do you have specific technical information or suggestions that can help us frame how to approach this topic?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 4 for response comments.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Topic: Equity, environmental justice, and human health and wellbeing in the Growth Management Act
Questions:
13. Should cities and counties have to consider equity as they develop specific plans and policies for future growth and change?
(Y/N)
No
44%
Yes
56%
14. Should cities and counties have to consider environmental justice as they develop specific plans and policies for future
growth and change? (Y/N)
No
45%
Yes
55%
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
15. Should cities and counties have to consider human health and wellbeing as they develop specific plans and policies for future
growth and change? (Y/N)
No
24%
Yes
76%
16. When jurisdictions are planning, which of the following planning
areas are most important in relation to equity? Please choose your Parks & Recreation 9
top three.
a. Land use Economic Development 20
b. Transportation
Rural 4
c. Housing
d. Capital facilities Utilities 10
e. Utilities
f. Rural Capital Facilities 11
g. Economic development
h. Parks and recreation Housing 39
Transportation 28
Land Use 27
0 10 20 30 40 50
# Responses
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
17. When jurisdictions are planning, which of the following planning
areas are most important in relation to environmental justice? Parks & Recreation
Please choose your top three. Economic Development
a. Land use Rural
b. Transportation Utilities
c. Housing Capital Facilities
d. Capital facilities Housing
e. Utilities
Transportation
f. Rural
Land Use
g. Economic development
h. Parks and recreation 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
# Responses
18. When jurisdictions are planning, which of the following planning Parks & Recreation
areas are most important in relation to human health and
Economic Development
wellbeing? Please choose your top three.
a. Land use Rural
b. Transportation Utilities
c. Housing Capital Facilities
d. Capital facilities Housing
e. Utilities
Transportation
f. Rural
g. Economic development Land Use
h. Parks and recreation 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
# Responses
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
19. How should cities and counties pay for any new requirements in the Growth Management Act to require more thorough
engagement with groups that are typically underrepresented in the planning process and unevenly affected by its outcomes?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 5 for response comments.
20. How and when can cities and counties best integrate equity in community engagement?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 6 for response comments.
21. Do you have any other specific information we should be considering?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 7 for response comments.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Topic: Housing tax benefits
Questions:
22. Should cities and counties receive state tax incentives to allow more diverse housing types? (Y/N)
No
30%
Yes
70%
23. If yes, should cities and counties receive state tax incentives to allow more diverse housing types, even if that means less tax
revenue for the state? (Y/N)
No
16%
Yes
84%
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
24. Do you have any more specific information or suggestions on what we should consider when looking at financial tax
incentives for housing?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 8 for response comments.
25. Do you have any general perspectives on housing availability and affordability you would like us to consider?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 9 for response comments.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Topic: Middle housing definitions
Questions:
26. Should the State require or incentivize certain housing types or densities when transit service is readily available? (Y/N)
No
22%
Yes
78%
Incentivize densities or types
27. If yes, should the State:
a. Require minimum densities
Require certain housing types to be allowed
b. Require certain housing types to
be allowed
c. Incentivize densities or types Require minimum densities
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
# Responses
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
28. Whether required or incentivized, which of the
following housing types should the state focus on? Courtyard apartments
Please choose all that apply.
Cottage housing
a. Duplexes
Townhomes
b. Triplexes
Stacked flats
c. Fourplexes
Accessory dwelling units
d. Accessory dwelling units
Fourplexes
e. Stacked flats
Triplexes
f. Townhomes
Duplexes
g. Cottage housing
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
h. Courtyard apartments
# Responses
29. Should denser housing options, like larger apartment buildings or mixed-use developments, be required or encouraged when
transit service is more frequent or higher capacity (like light rail or bus rapid transit)? (Y/N)
No
15%
Yes
85%
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
30. If yes, should the State:
Incentivize densities or types
i. Require minimum densities
Require certain housing types to be allowed
j. Require certain housing types to be allowed
k. Incentivize densities or types Require minimum densities
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
# Responses
31. Do you have any specific information you’d like us to consider on middle housing types?
Open-ended question, please see Appendix 10 for response comments.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Appendix 1: Comments for question 4
What are specific ideas you may have for how to eliminate gaps, conflicts, and overlaps in State requirements? Please briefly describe up
to three below.
I don't know
I don't know. But, we definitely need to eliminate the overlaps and duplications in state requirements. These things cost us time and money.
We need to allow local government more flexibility in the planning process. In achieving the goals of the GMA, Commerce should be more aware of
creative solutions to be fulfilling the general intent of the Act.
(1) Exempt infill development from SEPA review (if project is consistent with applicable comp plan and zoning); (2) Need more state mandates to locals
for missing middle and higher density development ("local discretion" resulting in lack of action by cities) is causing GMA to come apart at the seams;
(3) place limits on the authority of local jurisdictions to require tree retention in urban areas outside of designated critical areas
Fewer requirements. Stop micromanaging your constituents!
WSDOT has hosted a Transportation Efficient Communities state team comprised of the Departments of Commerce, Ecology, Health, and
Transportation. This team could be reinvigorated to discuss gaps, conflicts, and overlaps in state requirements that touch these four departments.
VMT Reduction work currently underway and collaboration with Commerce, WSDOT, and others over climate action should generate proposals to
change rules and processes that currently drive greater vehicle miles of travel, which undermine other state policy goals.
This is not a one size fits all. There should be area or site specific metrics applied. Heavily populated areas should not have voting authority over rural
Washington!
model policy language and guidance could help understand when there are multiple policy priorities that are supposed to be balanced together.
Not sure if this actually answers the question or not, but both a city and county plan for properties within a city's UGA that are not yet annexed. I don't
believe a county should allow development in these areas and the properties should have to be annexed prior to development because these areas are
usually built substandard to city regulations and it makes it difficult to correct these issues down the road.
-Gap- Strike "jurisdictions planning under RCW 36.70A.040" and similar wording from all legislation enabling incentives and replace it with " jurisdictions
satisfying their planning requirements under RCW 36.70A.060".
-Gap- Enable more-direct enforcement action from Department of Ecology and Fish & Wildlife or other agencies with more expertise in environmental
compliance. Small, jurisdictions' enforcement can be overwhelmed by political pressure and lack of expertise.
I am a bit new to WA state government so I don't feel I have a great list of what the gaps are in WA state requirements. Oregon yes WA no. :)
Elected official training both on GMA and understanding the roles of other units of government in relation to planning and growth management
Allow cities and counties to eliminate SEPA review when all potential impacts are addressed through existing development regulations.
Provide full authority to cities and counties for all permits and variances under their SMP, rather than some having to be approved by Ecology
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
1) There needs to be a process for addressing communities which greatly undershoot or overshoot their growth targets. In practice the growth targets in
our county are meaningless.
2) There is not enough consideration of transportation in planning for growth. As a community not served well by public transit, is it appropriate for us to
encourage urban scale densities knowing a majority of our commute trips will be SOVs over long distances?
3) Discourage development in Urban Growth Areas outside of cities or greatly encourage cities to annex areas already developed at an urban scale.
Southwest Snohomish County is now rife with urban scale development that is unlikely to ever be annexed.
establish a committee to review laws and issue reports to Legislature with recommendations to address the issues that are noted
in a fast growing economic climate, planning takes to long to address the growth. Maybe have modification that if growth exceeds a certain level,
planning can happen sooner.
Always have an issue with the divergent goal of affordable housing and GMA. by its nature, limiting growth increases costs (land particularly).
1) Require number 'truthing' i.e. compare population growth with actual numbers, put aside actual money on a schedule for capitial facilities to meet the
long term planning needs.
2) Look for ways to reward a 'yes' approach to planning vs. the easier 'no' to everything.
3) Issue guidelines on how long, from start to finish a permit should take. Then we have a context by which to measure performance.
Expand and strengthen Growth Management section of WA Commerce dept with staff to identify conflicts and overlaps and to coordinate among
agencies and jurisdictions. Fund MRSC to assist with this work.
Repeal the Growth Management Act and let Locals plan on their own. Get the state off locals back
If a conflict arises the State requirement should trump local and county.
Need to have a easier more defensible process to convert non viabale Agriculture land to developable property.
the more things done correctly at a state level the less variation at a county and jurisdictional level... right now each jurisdiction does its own thing
Renton only allows detached ADU's and Bellevue only allows attached? doesn't make sense.
Increase buildable areas 2 to 1 for whatever is lost to environmental set asides.
For land use applications that create 30 or less units/lots local municipal regulations and not state regulations will govern the process.
SEPA is already integrated with review of the underlying substantive proposal. Yet, many stakeholders either do not know this or understand how they
are linked. Further, many stakeholders who say SEPA is redundant either do not understand or are misleading in regard to whether meeting an
environmental standard is the same as presenting the potential environmental (and human health) impacts, alternatives and potential mitigations.
Simplify and streamline all processes, eliminating 50-75% of bureaucracy to create a broad base for industry to solve the growth crisis. Too complex for
the average small business to build, engage, or grow. Far too many straws in the river.
Habitat restoration projects often need to be rescoped and decreased due to a range of permitting and other state requirements, not just GMA
requirements but also DAHP, DNR, WDFW, etc., plus federal requirements. Pulling recommendations from the Multi-agency review team might be a good
start to identify solutions to these overlaps.
SEPA in most cases is a duplicative process. The regulatory reforms that have taken place since its inception have added layers of regulation to
address the SEPA related issues on most projects.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
There is so much that needs to happen. Not all GMA goals are created equal in the eyes of the GMHB which is not how the system is designed. GMA
should have an increased standing requirement.
GMA vesting should be restored.
SEPA exemption should not be optional. The state minimums should be applied. Communities should not be allowed to use development regulations to
circumvent density goals. Excessive setbacks, landscape and tree requirements are used to eliminate density. Utility overlay regulations increase project
costs to the point of killing them. Utilities cross with a minor patch (15'-20'). The same crossing for a short plat triggers a 150' patch across a 4-lane
street. These are only small examples
Require coordination with public/private service providers for capacity needs prior to allowing land use zoning designation changes that will increase
development densities.
(1) close annexation loophole. Require that annexations not become effective until any appeal periods associated with related UGA
expansions/modifications have lapsed or been resolved.
(2) Require the expanded use of countywide planning policies to better coordinate planning efforts of cities, counties, special purpose districts, and state
agencies, and to more effectively plan for matters of regional concern.
(3) Ensure consistency between Counties/Cities and state agencies and special purpose districts by subjecting capital plans adopted by stage agencies
and special purpose districts (WSDOT, RTPOs, dike/drainage districts, school districts, sewer/water districts, etc) to GMHB appeal. At present
consistency is required but there is no accountability, leaving cities/counties without any assurance of whether or not urban services will be provided,
when, where, and with what funding.
Adopt common intervals and timelines for plan updates
Where state agencies review/approve plans ensure review is consistent with law and planning requirements (examples include DOH and DOE).
The GMA is supposed to be a planning document and many advocacy groups now are using it as a substantive control tool instead of just a loose held
vision of what local governments would like to see. Local choices are being bull dozed by state requirements. It's time to replace that destructive
tendency by having the Department use more flexible wording in all of its rules.
State requirements that are covered in statutes outside of the RCW 36.70A should not be pulled into planning. For example, water requirements are in
different statutes. Consider removing obligations in the GMA for things that are governed by other statutes.
Integration of service providers (fire districts, school districts) in comprehensive plan updates.
Requirement to update Countywide Planning Policies at the same time as periodic review of comp plan.
Options for tourist-based town to incorporate when the full time pollution is not enough to meet the current threshold.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Appendix 2: Answers for Question 9
Do you have any additional specific feedback on annexations?
No
Obviously, a lot of the challenge is having the proper infrastructure.
There needs to be some assistance to counties for the loss of revenues.
Annexations should still have voter approved aspect to it.
No.
In my "night job" capacity as a city council member (and mayor) I think cities need a financial incentive to annex unincorporated urban areas.
With the right protections, our answers to the preceding questions would be yes. What is being annexed matters. If an area has been developed
at urban densities with a mix of uses and a complete multimodal transportation network, then it makes sense to incentivize that area to be
incorporated into a city. If annexation contributes to a greater sprawling of the city, then it is counterproductive to annex that area. Any incentives
need to be targeted to the context and development patterns and not be a blunt instrument.
Annexation of existing single family neighborhoods is often not financially prudent for many cities. There must be a financial incentive.
To what extent would or could annexations eventually, over time, generate more tax revenue? Is it possible that more intensive development in
annexed areas would improve the tax base?
Again make the tax credits applicable across all of Washington
Annexations are expensive and risky. Cities are better at providing urban services. They should be encouraged. Without a tax incentive, just the
preparatory studies are cost prohibitive, and post-annexation, the ramp-up of services can be a huge hit.
Annexations are a lengthy process for an area of land that is already identified and planned for under the Comprehensive Plan. There should be a
more streamlined process.
Place greater focus on discouraging development outside of city limits, even within UGAs. This will create a market incentive for annexation by
land-owners/developers.
No
Anything that incentivizes cities to annex their UGAs should be considered.
Remove Boundary Review Board review of all city annexations within UGAs, provided the city has an interlocal agreement with affected special
districts.
I have seen good outcomes of local requirements that sewer not be provided outside of City limits. It prevents sprawl and encourages
annexation while giving cities much more control over local development.
It's all about the money, so if the County is less harmed, they shouldn't fight annexation as much.
Ban the use 'Urban Growth Reserve' used by municipalities. It is used to put land in limbo that the municipality doesn't want to be forced to
spend $ for capital improvements because they don't adequately plan for capital facilities when doing comprehensive planning.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Examine sources of city annexation costs that might be reduced, e.g. allowing OFM population estimate of annexed area in lieu of full census.
Convene budgeting experts to seek ways to reduce county revenue loss from annexation, ameliorating one type of obstacle in the way of
annexing.
Why is the state involved in local annexations? Get off the locals back. Olympia and Urban folks done understand local control.
Annexations should be encouraged by the state.
This only helps Commercial annexations. It doesn't provide incentives for much needed residential land.
I have been involved in several annexations across multiple jurisdictions they need to make it easier and a smart thing for cities to do.
Note response above.
Funding for the study of annexation and or incorporating into a city within a county should be funded by the respective county.
Control of annexations and the tax revenue generated should be retained at the local level. The State is a poor steward of funds, and financial
resources applied at the local level are more effective for solving complex issues.
I think that annexations should occur if they are the first step needed to encourage more denser development and missing middle housing in the
UGA. UGAs seem to be in limbo--not quite at urban densities and therefore not able to deliver urban level services (water, sewer, etc) and so they
exacerbate sprawl. Either annexation or intentional rezoning to encourage denser development within the UGA (and service delivery) is needed.
The UGA needs to be expanded
With respect to financial/tax incentives for annexations. These incentives should only be offered if corresponding changes are made to prevent
counties from permitting urban, or quasi urban, levels of development in unincorporated UGAs prior to annexation. Absent effective restrictions
on urbanization in advance of annexation cities will be trapped in an endless cycle of repairing/upgrading inadequate infrastructure and or
attempting to reshape land use patterns authorized by counties.
Also, with respect to annexation. Changes need to be made to annexation laws so that annexation is essentially automatic, and not subject to
voter approval, following the expansion of a UGA. The expansion of an UGA, and the boundaries of the associated City should tied together.
Important pubic policy questions related to where, and how, cities should expand should occur during the discussion of UGA changes.
Cities and Towns do not have enough funding for current services, fix that first. Cities and towns are not always the best provider of other
services (water, sewer, emergency services) due to funding constraints, also may lack expertise or economy of scale to provide these services.
Why is the state bailing out the richest counties in the state instead of all of the counties?
Tax incentives should be narrowly tailored to help pay for permitting staff that works to speed up permitting approvals/decisions rather than
allowing it to go for other types of work. All too often, incentives are crafted in a way that spreads the funding to other interests so that the
stated intent doesn't actually get accomplished.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
1. Cities should only be able to request expansion of their UGA the year following the OFM population forecast is release or at the same time as
their comp plan updates.
2. Cities should be required to have an annexation plan for their UGA and that annexation plan should be updated at the same time as the their
comp plan. If there is no adopted annexation plan then UGA expansion should be prohibited.
3. Cities in many counties adopted very large UGAs years ago because they wanted to grab land when they could and no they realize their UGAs
are too large or in the wrong location (usually because the city won't be able to serve it). We need an easy process for giving back UGA.
Appendix 3: Answers for Question 11
Why or why not should State laws that guide how water, sewer, school systems, and ports plan for future services be consistent with how cities
and counties plan for growth?
If they are not consitent, they will undermine eachothers efforts. Alos, integration will lead to a more holistic vision for the future of our
communities and be more efficient with resources and capacity.
Consistency make for predictability which makes for better services.
The problem is that if this is done state-wide, without a regard for rural vs urban, you will be require too much for planning from small school
systems. Much of this has to do with scale. Ports are usually service-intensive. The planning for the Port of Port Angeles should not be
consistent with the planning for the cities of Forks and Clallam Bay, even though all are in Clallam County.
There is work that needs to be done to better facilitate meeting the infrastructure demands based on state requirements.
Consistency of the planning process would be beneficial for all parties.
Yes, because there is no coordination now. Particularly schools and water.
You have screwed up those laws enough.
Schools are oftentimes built where land is less expensive. The infrastructure isn’t always in place to allow for safe, active transportation or public
transportation options. It’s not safe for biking or walking children and families to site schools in heavy freight or port corridors. It’s important for
how water, sewer, school systems, and ports plan for future services to be consistent with how cities and counties plan for growth.
I'm assuming there would be variations based on density, accessibility, resources...
Consistency across the board
Yes, because service provision is a huge development driver and if they operate outside of planning policies, what's the point of the policies!
All of these items play a part in the growth of a city or county. If all areas are not planned to the same growth numbers it can result in shortfalls.
Development and change are regularly stymied by a lack of across-the-board planning in these areas (particularly water/sewer, schools).
Addressing that would make the planning process more cohesive, and more effective.
A carriage isn't going anywhere if the horses are running in different directions.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Well if laws that guide these services at the state level are not consistent with how cities and counties plan for growth then that could be
problematic from cities, counties, and state perspective, Right? Laws and guidance may be in conflict. That confuses folks. That makes it hard to
know what to do.
They are directly linked
The emphasis should be on planning coordination, not additional planning requisites for special purpose government
In many places, these special districts are the primary provider of essential services that must be addressed in the capital facilities element of
comprehensive plans.
The method for how schools plan for growth always lags behind city issues and it almost always results in schools missing the initial growth
boom. However, I would worry because most districts I have worked with lack capacity and are not very successful at this kind of long range
planning.
we need to stop working at cross purposes.
Caveat is that it should only be applicable to those counties that are having the growth issues, or in other words counties required to currently
plan. Don't make a broad stroke for everyone as the smaller counties should be able to opt out.
Each area is unique and for the legislature to think they can address each unique area is folly
I don't often trus how efficient the state's planning is. The more decision that is left to the local county or city, usually, the better.
Utilities and urban services have been the stepchild of the GMA, having only a secondary role in growth management planning. They should be
fully at the table in CWPPs to ensure that all communities are served, without overlap.
I am broken record. The state should not be controlling local planning or local issues
what ever we do, it needs to remove barriers for expansion of the UGA.
The State should be held to the same standards.
right now there is no coordination, also have alot of small districts that are no cost effective need to look at merging smaller entitites into larger
to get economies of scale.
WSST collected from Growth must be committed to supporting growth.
They should be guidelines but not mandates. However the State should mandate population growth (fair share) and allow cities and counties
first to meet those numbers and the necessary infrastructure to accommodate that growth. If Cities and Counties consistently miss their fair
share the State should be given authority thru GMA to suggest changes and withhold funding until municipalities come back into compliance.
This is for fully planning counties with buildable lands reporting.
It's not "comprehensive planning" without consistency and participation.
This is a major flaw of the growth management act to begin with. Not incorporating infrastructure into the planning of growth is a massive
falacy, and a prime example of why central planning at the State level is flawed and should be avoided where ever possible.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Water, sewer, school systems all drive where development demand is and the development patterns. These should be coordinated and
consistent with county and city plans that include focus on protecting green space, including habitat, ag land, and working forest. (I don't know
enough about ports to comment on them)
these are all imperative to how growth occurs and the main reason GMA is flawed. (proximately to utilities takes developable land in the UGA
out of the mix for property able to develop to its highest and best use due to cost of utility extensions)
State laws should support how the cities and counties plan to expand or infill because otherwise those laws can act as barriers.
It has not been an issue for me . Don't add complexity
As providers of specific urban services, such special purpose districts should integrate their own strategic planning with the underlying
city/county land use planning.
This is a strange question. Has anyone seriously suggested they should be inconsistent? The provision of urban services is one of the most
powerful tools a City/County has to shape, enable, or prohibit growth. In some jurisdictions the majority of services (sewer, water, schools, transit
service, and fire protection) are provided by special purpose districts. Absent consistency with city/county plans there's no way for
cities/counties to plan effectively. For example, designated an area of urban levels of development is meaningless if a sewer district refuses to
provide service or a fire district cannot effectively respond to calls.
These services are essential for growth and must be inline with plan (planning and CIP).
The consistency requirements make it so smaller jurisdictions never get investments they need. Getting rid of the consistency requirements
would provide needed flexibility.
Coordination should be encouraged yet because the plans for growth are not necessarily where property owners actually decide to develop, and
are very slow to be adjusted to the realities, it would be better not to tie down the ability of those who need to deploy services in a manner that
can lead to litigation from people outside of the community.
(And Fire Districts). Yes, because the GMA requires proof of adequate services for growth and development. But the special service districts are
planning for growth the same what counties are and their is a lag.
Appendix 4: Answers for Question 12
Do you have any technical information to share for why or why not should State laws that guide how water, sewer, school systems, and ports
plan for future services be consistent with how cities and counties plan for growth?
no
Have a two or three tier system for planning for growth.
No.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
• School Facilities Manual, Site Selection, Pages 111-119 (http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/pubdocs/SchoolFacilitiesManual2011.pdf)
• Summary Report First Summit on School Planning and Siting in Washington, Highline Community College, February 2007
(http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/Publications/pubdocs/SummitSchoolSitingReportMay2007.pdf)
• US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting (http://www2.epa.gov/smartgrowth/travel-
and-environmental-implications-school-siting)
• Impact of Safe Routes to Schools program on walking and biking
(http://activelivingresearch.org/sites/default/files/ALR_Review_SRTS_May2015_0.pdf)
• US Environmental Protection Agency, Safe Routes to School (http://www.epa.gov/schools/transportation/saferoutes.html)
• US Environmental Protection Agency, Smart Growth and School Siting (http://www2.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-school-siting)
• Schools for Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
02/documents/smartgrowth_schools_pub.pdf)
Probably comprehensive plan reviews, maybe with requirement to sync with UGAs or regional planning goals
In order to receive state funding they would be required to complete necessary plans.
Local political rifts and/or conflict avoidance could derail plan consistency. Establish a professional tribunal/review system within Commerce to
approve/evaluate consistency. In the first case an action to approve or deny would provide some sense of finality. In the second an evaluation
might provide some evidence or presumption to use in an appeal or challenge to the smaller district plans.
Well to be consistent at various government levels, we need to know what each level is doing. So what is happening on local levels like cities and
counties, what are there issues and concerns, what works, what does not. And same for the state. Do we pick easier things first or go for
changing the bigger issues first?
I would frame this as harmonizing the efforts between different stakeholders when it comes to growth.
no
Sorry, no.
Yes, go away
i would look at economies of scale and what the cost for service is for larger entities weather that be cities, water, sewer, school districts. also
they have no accountability for how they spend the money.
I co authored the City of Kirkalnd's 2020 plan in 1995. I was able to forecast and see the results from our state's GMA policies, so i built and
experienced first hand how GMA worked, or acutally, mostly did not work.
167 connection to the Port of Tacoma should have been built 40 years ago. Connecting warehouse infrastructure to the port.
Growth in Pierce County should have occurred in the Rural seperator between Puyallup and Tacoma where the INFASTRUCTURE is. Not pushed
into Graham, Bonney Lake, and beyond. Rezone and Rework.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Properties in the UGA which are not within 300ft of water or sewer mains capable of serving them with standard means shall not be included in
the buildable lands inventory. (or at least discounted by 75% of permitted density to account for likelihood that the parcels will wait for utilities
before development occurs)
Equity question 4, 5 and 6 below should have a (none) option
Demonstration of active engagement with special purpose districts throughout the comprehensive plan update process should be required.
(1) Amend the GMA to unambiguously state that special purpose districts are subject to GMA planning requirements and to explain what their
obligations are.
(2) Amend the GMA to hold special purpose districts accountable, just as cities and counties are, for failing to comply with their obligations
under the GMA. Specifically, they should be required to adopted 6 and 20 year capital plans in coordination with the cities/counties they serve,
and they should be subject to GMHB appeal/sanctions for failing to adopt a required plan, or for adopting a non-compliant plan.
(3) Require that CWPPS be amended to clearly discuss how planing will be coordinated between special service districts and cities/counties. The
CWPPs should address funding, dispute resolution, demand management, and level of service expectations.
Water and wastewater require extensive infrastructure, must have some certainty to fund investments that support growth. Similar for
emergency services I expect.
The Governor in a recent press conference indicated that the state needed to get rid of zoning laws that prevent building residential units to
tackle the homelessness crisis. Consistency requirements curtail the rapid deployment of building that doesn't fit with the comp plan and other
regulations that can stretch back 30 years with only minor modifications.
I think the state should provide specific guidance about how to develop a comprehensive plan and a model plan. The state should also provide
money for districts to hire consultants to help develop the plans.
Appendix 5: Answers for Question 19
How should cities and counties pay for any new requirements in the Growth Management Act to require more thorough engagement with groups
that are typically underrepresented in the planning process and unevenly affected by its outcomes?
Money from the State for outreach and participation
State tax credits and incentives. Permit fees.
I think state resources should be used in to assist, but to be clear they should be doing planning that doesn't unduely impact certain groups.
Cities and counties should not be ignoring or failing to engage with groups because they are typically underrepresented.
Any requirements must be funded by the State in accordance with the RCWs.
with grants from the state which enacted the GMA that imposes these requirements on cities and counties
They shouldn't. GMA is already too cumbersome. It should be pared down.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Funding allocation provided by Commerce that can only be used for that purpose.
They should not have to pay as it is being forced upon us by the state , let the state pay
Through their budgets. State grants are also always welcome. But this is a reasonable requirement, and could have overlap with other city
outreach efforts.
A standard percentage of a city or county budget should be required to be set aside for Comprehensive Planning and the rest should be filled
with a variety of grant opportunities from the State.
Cities and counties should be required to fully utilize their councilmanic authority to increase property taxes up to the 1% limit every year, prior to
receiving any state funding. Copy/paste this statement to every question that touches on "How cities and counties pay for stuff." If you have
banked property tax capacity, come back when you don't.
That said, in Central Puget Sound counties, municipal cost sharing agreements to fund planning work could prove effective in achieving the
desired result while not overburdening city finances. This work could be done by the county, but trust (lack of), turf, and politics get in the way of
that cooperation. A critical problem of collaborative work like this is that, as it currently works, all cities are free to disregard that work because it
isn't responding to statutory requirements.
Other, quasi-governmental entities like housing authorities are another venue for this municipal cooperation to feed through. (Probably want to
consult them and AWHA about it first, though.)
The state can either fill the empty, out-stretched hands with grant funds or put them to work by removing barriers to local revenue generation.
State funding
Through grants awarded by the state or the federal government perhaps.
State grants would be most helpful
Increase the size of commerce grants
State should provide funding
everything about the planning increases costs. That drives inequities in housing options. Workshops could be a step for those interested. This
is somewhat technical in nature and lots of issues, so if you don't deal with it on a daily basis, it is a bit much. Other issue is that if you have
constituents looking for certain items in a plan that are retired or don't work, they have the time for input. Working people that are trying to make
a living are hampered with lack of time to deal with this.
It is already a public process. Just advertise the opportunities more
Opportunity should be equal if the laws are applied evenly.
Expand state planning grants, with requirements to reach out and improve equity (as well as climate mitigation)
If the state mandates anything the state should pay for it
We do not need new requirements. The process is open to everyone currently. All benefit from an increase in availability and supply.
they shouldn't.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
the issue is that we are not paying attention to what is driving the cost of housing which is all these rules and requirements, yes we need to be
mindful of equity and the environment but Olympia and the west side is taking to far they want our one state to solve the worlds problems but it
will lead to lack of housing and attainable housing.
This is a political vague concept and has no concrete bearing on GMA. Equity is the value one builds into thier ownership. Any regulations that
make it harder to build ownership must be reduced.
reduce spending in other areas. Be responsible with the money that is already funneling in through new construction, including sales tax
revenue, permitting fees, impact fees, increased property taxes from appreciation and new homes being delivered. The issue is not a shortage of
funds, it is how the money is spent. A city cannot increase the amount of affordable housing by continually raising taxes and fees. this is
counter intuitive
Land use actions are designed so the public process is respectful to all that choose to participate . All land use regulations should be applied
equally to all segments of the population.
The State should be providing resources for planning and grants for engagement, as Rep Pollet proposed for HB 1981. But, it is a fundamental
duty of local governments to design engagement with all residents, particularly those who are disparately impacted by factors in land use and
planning that impact health and equity.
These requirements should be voided. The best way to provide equity is to open up lands for construction and provide attainable housing. All of
the other pet projects just add more straws to the river, and cause more problems with equity than they solve. These policies funnel money to
politicians, cronies, and consultants. They provide negative positive impact on the communities they serve to aid - when planned at the State
level.
State and federal grants. New taxes on the polluting industries. Reform the tax code so it is a progressive instead of regressive taxes.
general fund budget dollars
Online meetings, make public facilities/computers that already exist available to engage in these online meetings, communications campaigns
to let the public know about the meetings far in advance and also right before the meetings, stakeholder workgroups, and sufficient time during
the meetings for public comment.
State should pay.
This question assumes the situation exists. Every community in 2022 has the opportunity to participate in local issues. I have yet to find that the
groups most often referred to are actually underrepresented. I also find that terms like underrepresented are ill defined, So are words like equity.
These fluffy political constructs do not have a place in growth management. They cannot be measured or justified.
State should fund
I'm not convinced this would necessarily entail a great deal of expense. Instead I'm of the opinion that this requires a change in practices and
mindset. However there could be some expenses, and if additional funding is required it should come from a source that doesn't further burden
those who have be unevenly affected by past planning efforts. Suggestions include: (1) real estate excise tax on luxury homes, (2) windfall tax on
properties recently added to a UGA, (3) luxury vehicle excise taxes.
It should be a effort moving forward, not looking backwards
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
It is sad to watch scarce resources be used on public outreach to groups that don't care enough to get involved. It seems there is an interest in
talking to as many people as possible without bringing facts, figures, and what costs are going to be to do what is being asked. Too many
government agencies are going to groups and saying what do you want without also asking do you want to pay more to do those things? So, of
course, those groups ask for things that the government doesn't have resources to pay for. There is no management of expectations based on
resources.
The equity debate has created division that didn't exist before by not actually providing feasible solutions that help the majority of taxpayers. A
tiny vocal minority is sucking up resources so that the overall quality of life goes down for everybody, including the groups equity is supposed to
help.
Zoom allows for government officials to schedule meetings with interest groups without having to pay for people to drive in a car or stay in hotel
rooms. Use technology to advantage and take some of the dollars out of the travel budget.
Consider reducing the number of public meetings and actually have elected officials go out into the communities they represent and ask for
feedback in a less formal manner. Have them report back at a council meeting.
Grants
I don't think it should require more funding. In my previous job, it was just a shift how we did public engagement not additional public
engagement. There are many existing groups that represent diverse populations - planners just haven't done a good job utilizing those groups.
It's just a matter of identifying them, building relations and go to them for engagement (don't ask them to come to you - go to their meetings, go
to their gatherings.)
Appendix 6: Answers to Question 20
How and when can cities and counties best integrate equity in community engagement?
Look to WA Environmental Justice Taskforce's report from 2019 that includes a whole appendix on community engagement.
GMA should be limited to physical infrastructure, not social engineering.
When they are doing their comprehensive plans and strategic planning. Reach out to all segments of the community.
In understanding the impacts, in outreach, in when to address capital facilities and transportation impacts. So basically it should be addressed
and integrated at all levels.
All planning processes should have community involvement and reflect the demographics and lifestyles of the residents of the planning area.
Let constituents decide where they want to live. Stop trying to micromanage where minority groups live. Let them move where they want to. Stop
being racists.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
When engaging the community, hold outreach/workshops/etc. along bus lines; with childcare options; with accessible sidewalks with ADA
ramps; and provide some sort of refreshments. Also provide materials in any predominant non-English language, and sign language and
interpretation services. Provide incentives for participation. Provide multiple options; utilize technology for remote participation. Don’t assume all
communities have technology when advertising opportunities. Work with community leaders to understand the communities’ needs. Try to find
opportunities to go to where the people you want to connect with already are, rather than asking them to come to you.
Make engagement meaningful, seek out new ways to reach people, practice culturally-sensitive communication, build trust with community
leaders who represent under-served communities.
BY allowing only local voters to have a voice in how their communities are affected.
Through targeted outreach to specific communities at the usual stages of outreach, through early stakeholder groups before scenarios are
developed or before outreach might normally begin.
There should be standardized public engagement platforms that are free to local governments to use, along with the availability of programs to
convert documents into multiple languages.
At plan creation ("Here's our plan, what are your thoughts/changes?") and when nearing plan completion ("Here is what our expertise is telling us
to do, what needs of the community does it miss, what didn't we think of?")
Having designated advocates representing equity interests across many jurisdictions.
Throughout the outreach process. It helps if folks leading the community engagement are from a variety of backgrounds. We know that folks
often engage more/better/differently if they feel they are listened to/have someone to identify with/supported (e.g. child care available etc).
Community engagement is not a one time process. It's like a way of operating and we need to have it in mind all the time.
Early in the process
Early and continuous public participation is required by GMA, and equity should be addressed throughout the process
In reality, the answer is probably at all times. However, the comp plan update process is a great time to focus on equity in community
engagement and to identify stakeholders moving forward.
I have no idea
have specific meetings in under represented areas.
It is already a public process. Just advertise the opportunities more
Opportunity should be equal if the laws are applied evenly.
This is hard to answer during the pandemic. I don't have any good ideas.
Isn't everyone welcome and entitled to speak up? Why are you pushing something that is already a right we have?
All benefit from an increase in availability and supply.
nothing more than posting publicly what is happening and giving people the option to be involved.
make sure all groups are represented but right now the think more regulation and requirements are the answer. make housing attainable to all
regardless of race or anything else.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
By making home and business ownership easier to achieve by those who want to.
Get rid of community input processes that result in disproportionate representation from older whiter wealthier community members.
Voting is community engagement, too.
streamline processes to shorten durations to get projects approved thus reducing development costs and allowing cycle times to be reduced.
this will result in builders and developers to bring more lots and homes on-line at reduced costs to buyers
The public notice mandate allows any and all segments of the population to participate with recommendations. Anyone who chooses to engage
can also do so via local activism,school boards, planning commissions and running for office.
By directly funding and working with community based organizations. Grants from the state should be available to community based
organizations in communities at risk from displacement in order t facilitate engagement and development of plans and policies which will reduce
or prevent displacement and provide new affordable housing for the displaced residents.
Neighborhood and Community meetings handled at the local level can be informative and create project adjustments that integrate equity. State
and National level policies will only serve to continue the cycle of oppression, as has been the case for decades with the equity gap continuing to
widen.
Early in the process. Offer stipends for community engagement. Ask communities what they need before we tell them what we think they need.
Identify strategies to reduce economic displacement.
public hearings and public notices provide sufficient opportunity for engagement
Stakeholder (within the community jurisdiction) workgroups.
Through GMA periodic updates.
Post public notices to the general population. Apply uniform standards for the distribution of notices. Do not apply special standards to any
group or individual.
Active engagement with local organizations representing under-represented populations.
Just as with public participation generally: "early and often". Also, by focusing on the desires of those who show up at public meetings or put
forth proposals the system is inherently balanced towards those who have resources and who are well connected and against the needs of those
who lack the time, resources, and public connections. Paradoxically, addressing the needs of those who are traditionally underrepresented may
mean less traditional public outreach and more efforts to understand the needs of the community broadly.
ensure engagement happens in all impacted communities in the medium/media that reaches that community
See answer to question 7.
Onset of planning
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Continuously. In order to integrate equity, planners need to be building long term relationships with all people in the community. You can't just
drop in and say work with me on this plan. You need to go to their meetings and listen to their concerns continuously so when you need their
input they know you and are likely to engage. This means making sure the jurisdiction's budget reflects the need for on-going community
engagement, not project engagement.
Appendix 7: Answers to Question 21
Do you have any other specific information we should be considering regarding equity, environmental justice, and human health and wellbeing
in the GMA?
Please focus the GMA on housing affordability, including root causes such as infrastructure, density, and increasing the number of homes built.
WSDOT is in the process of responding to the HEAL Act and updating our business processes. We’re happy to collaborate and share with others
as we gain experience.
Keep the big city voters out of rural land use issues
I believe we need to teach children in school more about how local government works and about public engagement. They all learn about Federal
and State Government which is great but most will not be directly involved in these processes. To me citizens can make a larger impact at the
local level. It seems they are more engaged at this level as well because these things are happening in their neighborhood or community.
All covered in item 7.
I think that there are many resources. DNR's policy group has a staff person focused on environmental justice and equity. He may be a good
resource for you.
I think it would be helpful to reimagine SEPA in a way that is less framed as considering environmental impacts (largely address by other
regulations in many jurisdictions) and to create a new statewide framework for noticing and community engagement. This could focus equally
on project actions and long-range actions, which is an area SEPA certainly struggles.
No
Get out of the woke culture and us some common sense.
We need to streamline not add process
Why would anyone expect High Cost Regulations would result in Low Cost Housing?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-government-community-input-housing-public-transportation/629625/
Government creates goals and strategies to achieve. local jurisdictions and people in the organizations often times dont have the same goals or
objectives and thus, the best ideas dont get implemented effectively. often, jurisdictional staff do not support "can do attitudes" and become
obstructions to achieve the goals. Leaders need to lead and motivate staff to achieve desired objectives. Attitude is often more important than
aptitude
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
The growth management act is the largest piece of exclusionary zoning that could have ever been conceived. It is a large contributor to our
homeless problem, and our issue with equity provided to underserved communities.
It's not working folks. Go back to the drawing board and start over.
reduction in zoning restrictions to allow more diverse housing types
Do not move forward with this subject. It will be used as a weapon to support allies of the current political party in power. It will be used as vilify
opponents of the that same group in power. It is a "fluffy" concept that can be molded to be anything you want it to be, and it will never be applied
equally.
no
Cities and Counties should plan for the needs of all people (not just the well connected), public policy should be informed by facts and data, and
there should be a frank and honest exchange of information between people and their government officials. Public participation in the planning
process needs to involve two-way communication, not just soliciting uninformed opinions, or informing people of predetermined actions.
Also, who speaks for future generations?
Community building is unifying and tries to take all viewpoints into consideration and then moves forward with what can be considered the best
of all the options. There are going to be upset people with every government choice.
Government is creating a quagmire for itself by giving the impression that all concerns must be addressed in the manner the underrepresented
and disadvantaged people want (even if it is costly or treats other people more poorly than themselves). It can set itself up for lawsuits when it
does not do what every community interest wants government to do.
Not all communities are the same. In my county the biggest equity issues are related to Native Americans and migrant workers. In my last
jurisdiction the biggest equity issues were related to historic redlining and Black community. A one size fits all for each jurisdiction is not
appropriate. Instead the laws should be that the jurisdiction needs to identify which groups of people have been historically actively removed
from the planning process and engaging with them.
Appendix 8: Answers to Question 24
Do you have any more specific information or suggestions on what we should consider when looking at financial tax incentives for housing?
The multifamily tax exemption is working well for private developers, and land trusts need strong funding for permanent affordable housing.
Reduced REET for those building, and then selling, below market rate housing.
The permitting process and regulatory compliance are significant factors in effecting housing starts. Examining the goals of the regulations and
addressing costs of compliance would be ways to provide incentives.
If you want to make housing more affordable, stop making it more expensive through regulations and restrictive land use policy. Or just reduce
property taxes!
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Provide reduced trip generation rates for transportation efficient locations to reduce impact fees.
I am not sure financial incentives will be enough to sway status quo politics.
To what extent would these tax incentives decrease services and capital investment in more rural, less densely populated areas?
Allow Counties and cities in Rural Washington the chance to determine their own destiny
Cities that plan for growth should be rewarded and others should not be.
To me the issue is not at the city or county level but with the developers. For example a city can codify diverse housing options in multiple zones,
however a developer is going to continue to build the type of housing that makes them the most profit.
Allow cities to collect a portion of State REET funds for middle density housing (meeting state guidelines). In essence, dangle the carrot in front
of cities. Problem: Rich cities won't take it, poorer cities might. Bellevue (probably) won't be moved to take action by some REET rebate money
for staff or other things. Work to address that. In any case, don't heavily restrict what the REET funds can be used for by the city, if possible.
Have various incentives: First portion for community space (garden, green space, trees (thus sidestepping tree canopy and environmental
concerns);
second portion for maximum 1 or 0 parking spaces per unit, whether done by choice by developer or required by city is up to them);
third portion for proximity to areas zoned to allow critical amenities (varied food, healthcare, commercial like legal, accounting, daycare, other
activities);
fourth portion for proximity to transit;
And so on.
Each portion separate from the others and can be mixed and matched, giving cities control over how much money they want to collect. Would
suggest the REET exemption isn't permanent for the property, but persists for X years or Y # of sales of the property (so the state isn't
permanently at the deficit, but the city gets something).
Consider annual population density changes when distributing state funds. If jurisdictions' density decreases, then we should presume they are
developing in unaffordable ways and need an incentive to change.
The State receives more tax benefits from growth than local governments and neighborhoods, even though the State doesn't really have to deal
with impacts/realities of growth at the local level.
Consider looking at what Oregon did for middle housing. I wish had more insight on financial incentives for housing. Again, Oregon might be a
good resource to compare what has worked and not worked. Contact Kristin Greene at DLCD.
cities and counties that are eligible to pass a local housing fund should be required to do so before being eligible for additional housing tax
incentives
I think a lot of jurisdictions allow more housing types, but there aren't many developers who build those units in great numbers. I also think cities
should be focusing on developing those units where they can be efficiently served by transit in those communities which are served. By allowing
them over to broad an area fails to create the pockets of density sufficient for efficient transit operation.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
No
most people prefer single family. Planners love dense multi family, yet based upon a study that I read last year, very few planners live in that type
of housing. Pretty inconsistent in my mind. Laws for Condo's need to be addressed which would help greatly.
"out of the box" thinking and opportunity is what breeds success. If left in the constraints of the state all the time, it will tend to discourage
ingenuity and variation.
2% statewide REET to be blocked granted to counties and/or cities to be used for acquisition and development of affordable housing up to 80%
AMI with option to increase AMI level to 120% upon request to the department of commerce.
Stop giving our tax dollars away to incentivize bad habits
More supply and less process will create incentives
The State already has enormous surpluses; that money should be used as incentives for cities and counties to provide developers incentive to
affordable housing.
single family zoning is racist and should be removed as they have done in oregon and california. allow builders to put in whatever housing
makes sense, ADU's, duplexes, triplexes... missing middle. We need to be able to produce more housing at a lower cost if we are ever going to
get out of this mess.
Reduce the cost of regulations.
Any financial tax incentives for housing should be tied to actual permits issued. Cities should not receive state tax incentives for passing zoning
reform (that should be a requirement). But, it is a good idea to incentivize cities to add new residents.
we have to stop talking about affordable housing and attainable housing in one breath, and continue passing more restrictions and cost
prohibitive policies in the next breath. for every requirement, there is a cost. if you increase permit fees, increase utility fees, add new items to
electrical codes, upgrade entergy requirements, etc. it all piles on top of already costly development costs
6 year tax abatement (Similar to MFTE)for new single family homes/condos/townhomes that are for sale as long as they are at or under median
new home price for the area.
There are both State Constitutional and policy objections to blanket incentives for more housing, rather than targeted incentives for affordable
housing to meet defined needs. for example, it is likely unconstitutional to offer housing incentives that result in developers receiving a tax
benefit for building residences that are owned as investment vehicles or which are used in businesses for short-term rental such as Airbnb.
Incentives don't work. They push outcomes but the inefficiencies forced on the markets counteract the incentives. Avoid central State level
planning whenever possible.
state should raise taxes on second homes, luxury apartments, and vacation rentals to raise funds for housing.
It wouldn't cost the state anything if they would just get a spine and mandate it. local controls are too broad.
The biggest incentives are lowering taxes and reforming regulations that are currently impeding new construction and extensive
remodels/repurposing of buildings.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Housing builds better communities. It drives the economy. The State does not spend its funds well. Taking funds from the State and moving it
closer to the people who pay the taxes is a positive thing. Increased housing opportunity is always a positive.
no
Cities should be required to plan for, and allow, more divers housing types. Counties should focus on managing rural resources (urban growth
should occur in cities). Offering financial incentives won't fix the problem, because this isn't fundamentally a financial issue. Instead restrictions
on diverse housing types are result of exclusionary tendencies/beliefs and the disproportionate influence of the owners of single-family homes.
In fact, in many cases higher density housing and accommodating growth through infill and redevelopment would be more cost effective than
the alternative.
Allow more housing types, ensure zoning permits more affordable housing. Need to allow for things like communal housing µ apartments
The cities and counties should just allow more diverse housing types.
Property owners should be given the incentives to allow development on their land. Builders should be given relief from government fees and
regulations.
We need to support non-profits building, owning and managing housing for people at 50-80% MHI. Helping communities stand-up 501c3's by
providing technical assistance. Providing grants to purchase existing housing stock and turn SFHs into duplexes and triplexes. And making sure
those options are available in struggling small rural communities, not just big cities.
Appendix 9: Answers to Question 25
Do you have any general perspectives on housing availability and affordability you would like us to consider?
Housing affordability needs to be the main focus of the GMA. Don't dilute it with social justice issues.
Affordable Housing needs to consider housing that will be OWNED, and not just subsidized apartments. Different housing types (like attached
housing/zero lotline, need to be encouraged in urban areas--even less dense urban areas.
Currently cities are required to show they are meeting the needs of all income levels. This is a requirements and we shouldn't be giving tax
incentives for doing the law, if it is to assist in meeting the housing needs of the region above and beyond what is allocated there is a
conversation to be had.
Home ownership is the first hurdle to overcome but as one owns a home, they also have obligations and responsibilities. As taxes are
escalating, it also makes ownership more challenging. ,
The majority of the unaffordability in housing is created through regulations, overburdening of government bureaucracies, and artificial land use
policies which tie up otherwise buildable land.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Housing availability and affordability should be considered with multimodal transportation options. Developments should be mixed use and
transit oriented, meaning jobs, essential amenities, and houses should be built near enough to each other that people can walk or bike to them.
Affordable housing should be near transit stops.
Moving from lower to higher uses in developed cities often displaces long established amenities like businesses, services, entertainment. Some
of which effect the livability of our cities. Over emphasizing housing, for example, may adversely effect a neighborhood.
Help roll back some of the overreaching regulatory requirements put upon counties and cities in rural Washington
Housing affordability is a regional and statewide issue, and needs statewide solutions and directives.
The need for housing and different housing types needs to be more widely talked about to the everyday citizen from the state level down.
Currently it is up to each individual city to explain to the citizens why the city is mandated to provide diverse housing types and to accommodate
thousands of new people each year. The current residents then are upset and start saying the City is allowing a certain type of development
because they are being paid off even though that is not the case.
There needs to be some sort of rent control or limits for affordability. Most apartments in my small city rent for twice the amount of my
mortgage on my house. I would be able to rent a 1 bedroom apartment for the same amount as my 4 bedroom 2 bath house on 3 acres that
houses 5 people. I live 1 mile outside the city limits.
The state should follow on the work done by Urban3 in Snohomish and King Counties that demonstrate the financial productivity of middle
housing types, and supplement that work with other considerations (service and utility costs, transit, tree canopy, etc.).
Consider a state-collected "homesteader tax" on second homes as the basis for funding a broad housing attainability program. The program
could provide grants for local government infrastructure, bridge financing for seasonal businesses, and additions to the housing supply. This
may help address the commodification of housing (and subsequent "price-fixing") by corporate interests.
Advocate for federal changes to include rent in income tax adjustments.
In summary-solving the housing crisis will take actions at the local level, the state level, and the federal level. The Growth Management Act
determines how localities act, but is not itself a state-level action. It cannot be satisfied with that as the only effort.
City zoning prohibits lots of types of housing that if allowed, could and would be built, and would be more compact and affordable. City zoning
needs to be reformed to allow more housing in all neighborhoods, rather than sending most new growth to certain areas to spare existing
homeowners.
Having moved from Portland to Olympia... Most people found housing very expensive and hard to get. It's hard to find what they want where they
want it and a price they can afford. Having a variety of housing options is helpful. Duplexes. ADUs. Different styles of houses and apartments.
There needs to be a state or federal level incentive for the development of condominiumized stacked flats or other forms of smaller units which
are offered for sale. There is a lot of discussion about warranty reform or other issues, but the real issue is simply the hurdle presented by the
federal tax code. Without this barrier we would see a lot more of these units developed which fixes a clear need in housing choice.
Government can only encourage private owners to take action. There is a big difference between allowing types of housing to be built and what
actually is built.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
cut down on regulations from the building code council which is predominantly made up of those groups that make money by adding more
regulation, thus more things that need to be added to build a house or building. Again competing aims of affordable housing but all the
regulation increases costs. That is the main problem to be equitable in housing.
We cannot subsidize our way to a home that is affordable across all economic segments. We MUST build more 'missing middle' housing and
that includes multi-family, townhomes, cottages etc.
Please consider legislation annulling the current ratcheting down of energy codes. Most new incentives are not as helpful in curbing energy use,
and it is driving up the cost of construction and appliances greatly.
We can't make housing more affordable by adding state regulations the cost of said regulations go directly into the cost of each housing unit.
Tax short term rentals at the same rate as hotels
Forbid short term rentals in the most dense single family zoning in towns and cities.
We've been looking for single solutions to incredibly complex housing issues. Promoting "middle housing" might help in some cities and
counties, but planners and housing programs must analyze the many housing markets and communities of need, to identify specific programs
for narrow segments.
The growth management act has created the problem of lack of availability and affordability by restricting rural zoning and the underlying basis
that everyone should live in the urban areas
We need more supply and less process. There is a significant shortage of financially viable development land. The process adds cost that
makes what is available unaffordable.
We clearly have a supply shortage of housing, both for-sale and rentals. We are completely missing the entry-level market and those people are
forced to rent, rather than buy. We have to figure out ways to provide affordable housing stock, so the next generation can become
homeowners.
hold jurisdictions accountable to get permits processed in a timely manner. allow all housing types across more areas at least in the cities.
Support the creation of healthy family structrures that can nuture children. Everything follows from that.
The state should set a floor for the types of housing that cities must require. Allowing more diverse housing types should be required, rather than
optional.
simply two items
1) delays and complexity drive cost. onerous durations imposed on builders and developers drive cost. Attitude of staff and alignment to
desired goals is free. Dont let the sideshow run the circus.
2) you have to recognize that all costs compound, and every new idea implemented adds cost. consider the law of diminshing returns and ask
"how does this benefit the customer, and does the cost and impact on affordability have an offset". Energy code changes add significant costs
to construction and remove 10,000's of buyers from the ability to purchase homes. as new construction cost and prices go up, so do resales
homes without the same benefits. The compromise needs discussion
Cities should be mandated by the State to create more zoning for missing middle homes. See below!
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Your middle housing question fails to consider all the equity and environmental justice issues which you have inquired about. There is no
recognition in the survey questions as to whether requirements or incentives for increasing density near transit should: a) be utilized to prevent
displacement of lower income residents and communities of color from areas near the transit that they need due to the economic reality of
greatly increased value and desirability for building high end market housing near transit and other major public infrastructure; and, b) be focused
on ensuring that significant new AFFORDABLE housing is built near transit. This should be closely related to the new mandate from HB 1221
(2021) that local governments must now, for the first time, plan to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the current and future
residents. If minimum standards for affordable housing to meet a portion of regional needs for each economic segment of the population are
not adopted, then economic forces will always result in both displacement and dominance of new housing near transit serving the wealthiest
residents.
It is a serious policy flaw to continue to define this housing policy based on a type of building, rather than the policy of ensuring that affordable
housing for low and middle income households, including families working in public service and service industries, is built near transit. Requiring
a type of housing does NOTHING for affordability. Calling it “middle housing” is a misnomer in that it does not serve people of middle income.
Housing is unaffordable because State regulations add 40% to the overall cost of housing. Too many straws in the river. Take a drive through
Dallas or Houston. They are building great communities and housing options at affordable prices. Rethink your entire framework.
State should reconsider allowing any single family residential zoning in city and UGAs and rethink current minimum lot sizes in cities and UGAs.
State should reconsider taxing frameworks that encourages growth contrary to state and regional goals. State should provide guidance to
jurisdictions on how to reduce or prevent economic displacement.
Zoning is they key. Flexible zoning allows the market to provide diverse housing types in more areas. Furthermore, we will never fix the housing
problem if we hold tight on the urban growth boundary, allow jurisdictions to drag out permit timelines, and don't penalize jurisdictions like
Sammamish that give the middle finger to growth without penalty.
There are buildings that need to be remodeled and zoned differently to provide additional housing. This needs to be an option, along with new
construction that truly provides a portion for lower income folks (and does not expire).
We do not have enough housing in the state. Regulators do not fundamentally understand the housing and development markets.
Development costs making housing unavailable to thousands of people. Development standards circumvent density goals. Development
standards increase costs beyond what would normally be considered reasonable or proportional. Environmental standards have been increased
to a point where new housing cannot be economically provided. The standards in place in the year 2000 did not result in degradation of the
environment. The regulations in place today do not provide a proportional increase in quality as they relate to cost.
no
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Effective growth management is the nexus of land values and regulations. Whether widely acknowledged or not, effective UGAs necessarily
create a distinct break in the land-rent gradient, rendering property within the UGA comparatively more scare/expensive and land outside the UGA
comparatively less scare/expensive. Absent regulatory restrictions, land that is expensive will be used efficiently and developed intensively,
leading to more compact urban areas and less sprawl. Conversely, the combination of cheap rural land and restrictions non-agricultural/non-rural
uses should keep farmers farming and rural areas distinctly rural.
However, in practice, most cities have enacted serve restrictions on what can be built within their UGAs, and have traditionally reserved the
majority of their residential land for single-family homes. As a result, developers have respond by building either more expensive homes (if the
market will allow it) or nothing at all (if the market won't support it). The end result of these policies is a severe shortage of housing for
households who can least afford it.
The solution to this problem is to massively increase what can be built within UGAs. While some might argue for more lenient UGA sizing
regulations, sprawling development patterns impose their own financial burdens on low income households. Generally transportation expenses
are the second largest household expense after housing. Long commutes are a severe financial burden that is largely unaccounted for and nu-
discussed in housing affordability debates.
Need incentives to densify and replace old housing stock in urban centers vs. dense new housing at edge of UGAs.
Housing would be less expensive to build if the environmental and social justice considerations were subject to strict cost-benefit analysis and
provided much less burdensome review and mitigation sequencing. The manuals for compliance are thousands of pages and difficult to read.
The government is not good about constraining itself in its mandates.
The market will continue to drive towards making the most money possible, which is large SFR. We need to use a stick to change zoning that
requires other housing (coupled with funding to help get that other housing developed). Oregon passed a state law prohibiting SFR zoning in the
largest cities - we should consider that. But we need to consider that for smaller cities that are growing at a fast rate so that we build in the
housing diversity as the city grows.
Another thing in larger cities, when transit is more readily available, minimum parking standards need to be replaced with maximum allowed
parking. Parking eats up land that can be used for housing. No more than 2 parking spots per dwelling. (One of our cities requires 3 parking spots
per dwelling even when transit is available.) And instead of garages, dwellings should include a storage area (that's what most people use their
garage for anyway).
Appendix 10: Answers to Question 31
Do you have any specific information you’d like us to consider on middle housing types?
Middle housing should be encouraged and/or required in any area within a walkable or bikeable distance from businesses, services, and other
mixed use destinations, not only in locations with transit services.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE III
Current legislation remains ambiguous about what these things are - what is a stacked flat? What are courtyard apartments? Does a courtyard
have to be apartments or can it be condominiums, too? This needs clarity.
Incentivise instead of require. The market will decide what is in demant and viable.
(1) In mandating densities or housing types flexibility should be provided to cities in recognition of the fact that not all areas are suitable for
intensive development due to infrastructure constraints or the presence of critical areas.
(2) Consideration needs to be given to the mix of nearby land uses. Creating isolated areas of high-density, exclusively residential, development
could create untenable transportation demands and impose excessive transportation expenses on residents.The housing discussion needs to
be about more than just housing.
(3) The terms used to describe "middle housing" need to be reformed. Who in the public actually knows what a "courtyard apartment" is? How
does arranging living units around a central courtyard change anything? How many units can a building contain and still be a "plex"? Isn't a
stacked flat just another way of describing a duplex, four-plex, six-plex, etc.? Perhaps we should just talk about detached, horizontally attached,
and multi-unit buildings?
(4) This shouldn't just a "middle" housing discussion. Most communities only produce/allow one type of housing. Resolving the the current
housing crisis will require a lot or large multi-unit buildings.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III – Web Survey Responses September 2022
File and source
- File
- 2023_commerce-reports-collaborative-roadmap-iii-final-68512105-fa43-4284-9e.pdf
- Size
- 2,521,451 bytes
- SHA-256
- 57e340d6853f706620aed5768f7b073e33a6e50659424e52bb4d58f69426cd20
- Original
- No public link identified.