Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on SB 5148 spotlights debate over state review of local housing elements
Summary
Senate bill would require Department of Commerce to review housing elements and some development regulations for compliance with Growth Management Act housing element requirements; supporters said it provides accountability and uniformity, while city groups warned of duplication and capacity strain.
The Senate Housing Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 5148, a proposal that would require counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act to submit housing elements and housing development regulations to the Department of Commerce for a compliance determination prior to those elements or regulations taking effect.
Ben Amdahl, staff to the committee, told the panel Commerce must issue a final decision within 90 days of receiving an application and that a final Commerce determination may be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board. The staff summary noted the bill would add the housing element and housing regulations to the list of plan elements that do not carry a presumption of validity; Commerce would issue determinations and could review regulations adopted before the bill’s effective date if necessary. A fiscal note estimates roughly $1.9 million in the 2025–27 biennium and $3.5 million over a four‑year outlook to implement the review and to provide technical assistance.
Bill supporters—including builders, realtors, FutureWise, Habitat for Humanity affiliates and advocacy groups—argued the measure would improve predictability and ensure that jurisdictions follow state housing law and adopted housing policies, helping projects move forward and reducing costly appeals. Alex Hurd of the Master Builders Association said Commerce review provides predictability vital to financing and project feasibility. Bryce Yaden of FutureWise described the current petition‑driven appeal process as time consuming and argued that Commerce review would provide an additional, routine layer of oversight and written guidance.
Cities and counties raised concerns about duplication, staff capacity and local control. Kelsey Hulse, representing the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties, said fewer than 1% of plans are found noncompliant when challenged and warned the bill could create a “belts and suspenders” process that is time consuming and costly for under‑resourced jurisdictions. Carl Almgren, community planning manager for Lynnwood, said Commerce currently receives notice and can provide pre‑adoption feedback; he recommended preserving the local council as the final local decision maker and suggested allowing more time for Commerce’s pre‑adoption review rather than a retroactive approval model.
Mayor Celine Nies of Mercer Island testified in opposition, calling the proposal a centralization of authority that may erode public input and local tailoring of plans.
Supporters noted the bill preserves an appeal route to the Growth Management Hearings Board and compared the approach to accountability systems in other jurisdictions. Committee members closed the public hearing; no committee vote occurred at the session.
