Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opportunity Zones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears mixed testimony on SB 5749 to create local housing development opportunity zones
Summary
SB 5749 would let cities designate commercial areas as 'housing development opportunity zones' with prioritized residential development, potential impact‑fee waivers and GMA revision exemptions; advocates praised its intent, while FutureWise and others urged clearer language on infrastructure, setbacks and an affordability trigger.
The committee also considered substitute Senate Bill 5749, which would allow local jurisdictions to designate 'housing development opportunity zones'—geographic areas in cities or towns where residential development would be prioritized and certain regulatory relief could be granted.
Michelle Rusk, staff to the committee, said the zones must be characterized by large commercial development and existing improvements such as parking and landscaping; housing in the zone would have to use the existing project site area, existing stormwater permits and infrastructure, and comply with initially required setbacks. Local governments could waive impact fees and adopt implementing regulations that are temporarily exempt from immediate GMA review and revision requirements; JLARC must evaluate market and affordable housing outcomes in the zones by September 1, 2043, and the legislature's authorization could be repealed if affordable housing does not increase.
Senator Jeff Wilson (19th District), the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure is optional for local governments and intended to reduce barriers on underutilized properties so cities can create more housing quickly. "This isn't a directive from Olympia," Wilson said, adding that cities could opt in and that the bill includes safeguards to measure outcomes.
Opposition testimony from Bryce Yaden of FutureWise praised the concept but raised several technical and policy concerns: unclear references to which stormwater permits apply when sites have multiple permits from different development stages; rigidity in applying older commercial setback requirements to new residential uses; uncertainty about whether relying on existing transportation infrastructure removes impacts on schools or other facilities; and the lack of an explicit affordable‑housing requirement despite a repeal trigger tied to affordable‑unit increases.
"There is a little bit of rigidity in the bill, which I think is meant to reduce cost but also might limit the ability for flexibility for local jurisdictions to actually use the bill," Yaden said, and urged more flexible language and incentives.
Committee members asked whether subarea planning or affordability mandates could be added; Yaden and members agreed language fixes and incentives could be explored. Risha Sickdale, deputy city manager of Pasco, had earlier supported similar design changes for other bills, and local officials testified in favor of tools to speed redevelopment of underutilized commercial land.
The committee did not vote on SB 5749 during the hearing; members indicated they expected to work on technical clarifications and incentive language before further action.
