Bill would bar jurisdictions from reverting to old plans after Growth Management Act noncompliance finding, proponents say

March 13 — The Senate Local Government Committee reopened public testimony on House Bill 1135, a bill aimed at refining how local comprehensive plans and development regulations are treated after a Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) finding of noncompliance.

Committee staff Karen Epps told members the bill would prevent the GMHB from issuing a finding of compliance unless the county or city has amended the portion of the plan or regulations found noncompliant and "the amendments addressing the noncompliance order are compliant with the requirements of the GMA." The staff summary noted the bill passed the House by a vote of 56 to 40.

Representative Divina Duer, prime sponsor, said the bill addresses what she described as a loophole: jurisdictions found out of compliance can sometimes "revert back to their old codes, which are not up to date with the new regulations." "The language in my bill is negotiated between the cities, counties, and FutureWise, and so everyone's in agreement," Duer said.

Bryce Aden of FutureWise testified in support, saying the group and local governments narrowed the language to require only that the sections of plans or ordinances found out of compliance be brought into compliance rather than dragging in unrelated provisions. Aden offered to provide the committee with two court cases that illustrate the issue: a Snohomish County case from 2023 and a Clark County case from 2017.

Kelsey Hulse, representing the Washington State Association of Counties, urged caution. She said the Growth Management Act's presumption of validity for adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations provides certainty for investment and permitting. "We're concerned that if this bill is enacted, we will inadvertently create situations where there is no valid ordinance or regulation in force since the update is noncompliant and the underlying regulation is noncompliant," Hulse told the committee. She recommended broader, systemwide consideration of changes to the GMA rather than a bill-by-bill approach.

Committee members asked for clarification about the bill's scope and whether it would create uncertainty for periodic updates. Aden and supporters said the aim is narrow: prevent jurisdictions from reverting to older ordinances that are no longer compliant with current statutory requirements when a new amendment is judged noncompliant. Senator Keener and others pressed for examples and legal context; Aden said he would send case details to committee staff.

The public hearing concluded after proponents and opponents both spoke; no committee vote was taken during the public hearing. Staff and proponents noted the Department of Commerce will issue updates to certain planning requirements over the next decade, which proponents said argues for ensuring adopted amendments meet current statutory requirements.

What happens next: proponents will provide court-case examples to committee staff; the bill remains under committee consideration.