Bill would let cities create 'housing development opportunity zones' on large commercial sites; advocates praise concept, planners urge fixes

The Local Government Committee on March 19 took public testimony on substitute Senate Bill 57‑49, which would let cities, towns and code cities designate ‘‘housing development opportunity zones’’ in parts of their jurisdictions characterized by large commercial development and existing improvements such as parking and landscaping.

Michelle Rask, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s principal provisions: a designated zone must prioritize housing, use existing project site area and any existing stormwater permits, utilize existing facilities and infrastructure and adhere to originally required development setbacks. Local jurisdictions could waive impact fees for projects in the zone and implement local regulations for the zone without immediate Growth Management Act (GMA) review; those local regulations must be incorporated into the next comprehensive plan. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) must evaluate the number of market and affordable housing units produced in the zones by Sept. 1, 2043; if affordable housing has not increased, the Legislature’s intent is to repeal the authorization for the zones.

Senator Jeff Wilson (19th District), the bill sponsor who testified, said the measure provides a local decision‑making tool rather than a statewide mandate: “The bill simply provides an opportunity at a local decision making, process.” He described the proposal as a way to create housing on underutilized sites more quickly than waiting for a ten‑year comprehensive plan cycle.

FutureWise, an environmental and land‑use advocacy group, testified in opposition but supported the concept in principle. Bryce Yaden told the committee the idea of redeveloping large commercial sites for housing is ‘‘fantastic’’ but flagged several problems he said the bill must clarify: which existing stormwater permits apply when a site has multiple historical permits; how commercial setbacks and development standards translate to residential uses; ambiguity over which infrastructure (transportation, sewer, schools) is meant by ‘‘existing facilities’’; and the bill’s contingency that would cause repeal if affordable housing numbers do not rise despite the bill containing no affordability requirement.

Committee members asked whether subarea planning or phased redevelopment might be a better tool for some sites. Yaden suggested subarea planning and pointed to examples such as Northgate where structured planning around transit or redevelopment sites had produced predictable mixed‑use outcomes. He also said an affordability mandate could be added but warned that stronger mandates or limits could reduce the number of jurisdictions willing to use the tool.

The bill drew limited public testimony at the hearing; committee members and the testifier discussed drafting changes to add flexibility about stormwater and setback language, clarify which infrastructure is eligible, and consider whether to attach affordability requirements or incentives. No votes were taken.

The committee indicated it will consider technical amendments to clarify implementation details, infrastructure scope, and the role of impact‑fee waivers before deciding whether to advance the bill.