HB 1164
In CommitteeHouse
Urban growth area boundaries
Expanding urban growth area boundaries for residential development.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires Washington counties and cities to expand urban growth area boundaries to include qualifying parcels adjacent to existing residential areas with access to urban services, to help increase housing supply. It sets specific protections for environmentally sensitive lands and requires tribal consultation during revisions. The changes take effect for the next comprehensive plan updates after July 28, 2025.
- Requires counties and cities to expand urban growth area boundaries to include parcels that share a boundary with, or are across the street from, residential parcels that already have access to urban services or are approved for residential development.
- Prohibits expansion into certain sensitive areas, including critical areas (except in limited aquifer recharge cases), sole-source aquifers, impaired watersheds, urban separators, split lots, and long-term agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands.
- Mandates that newly included parcels be zoned for residential development at the same density as surrounding urban areas and allows them to connect to existing urban services.
- Amends existing law to clarify that urban growth area revisions can be made without increasing total land area, provided specific environmental and planning safeguards are met—including no net loss of agricultural/forest/mineral lands and no increase in critical areas.
- Requires meaningful consultation with federally recognized tribes before urban growth area revisions and establishes notice and mediation procedures if agreements cannot be reached.
Who is affected
- Counties and cities — Local governments (counties and cities) must expand urban growth area boundaries to include qualifying parcels during their next comprehensive plan update, and must allow residential development at existing densities and access to urban services on those parcels.
- Homebuyers and housing developers — Homebuyers and developers may gain access to more developable land for housing, especially in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods with access to urban services.
- Agricultural, forest, and mineral resource landowners — Farmers, forest landowners, and mineral resource operators may lose or retain land within urban growth areas depending on whether those lands are reclassified or swapped during urban growth area revisions.
- Federally recognized Indian tribes — Tribal nations with reservations or ceded lands in affected counties must be consulted before urban growth area revisions, and may be impacted by changes to land use near tribal lands.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill directly expands the supply of developable land for housing by requiring inclusion of adjacent parcels with existing service access or approved residential uses, and mandates that those parcels be zoned at the same density as surrounding urban areas—this is likely to increase housing supply in high-demand areas and reduce pressure on existing neighborhoods, especially for middle-density housing (duplexes, townhomes).
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 2(3)(a); Sec. 3(1)(3)The bill explicitly prohibits expansion into critical areas (except limited aquifer recharge), sole-source aquifers, impaired watersheds, urban separators, split lots, and long-term resource lands—plus requires no net loss of those lands and limits critical area inclusion to <15%—providing meaningful, though not absolute, environmental protection during UGA revisions.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)-(e); Sec. 3(8)(b)(iii), (d), (e), (i), (j)The bill mandates meaningful consultation with federally recognized tribes and establishes mediation if agreements fail—this strengthens tribal sovereignty and treaty rights recognition in land-use planning, especially where tribal lands or cultural resources may be affected by urban expansion.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(9)(a)-(b); Sec. 3(1)(4)The bill allows inclusion of parcels owned by jurisdictions or where development rights are extinguished for public benefit (e.g., stormwater, habitat), which could enable counties to create new public housing or green infrastructure on land they control—though this depends on local political will and funding.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(10)(b)(iii); Sec. 3(10)(c)The bill requires that urban growth be located first in areas with existing capacity, then in areas where additional capacity can be provided—this supports transit-oriented development and could reduce vehicle miles traveled if implemented alongside regional transportation planning, though it is not enforceable without funding mandates.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(3); Sec. 3(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill allows swapping of long-term agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands outside the urban growth area for parcels added inside it—potentially enabling conversion of high-value resource lands to lower-value urban uses if market incentives favor development over resource extraction, and the swap requirement may be delayed (2-year wait) or waived if no equivalent land is available, weakening environmental safeguards.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(f); Sec. 3(8)(b)(ii); Sec. 3(8)(c)(ii)The bill permits expansion into 100-year floodplains under several exceptions—including where public facilities already exist or where urban development already abuts the floodplain—which increases exposure of new residents to flood risk and may strain emergency response and insurance systems, especially in Western Washington where floodplains are narrow and development pressure is high.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b); Sec. 3(10)(a)The bill mandates inclusion of parcels with access to urban services or where services are *planned*, but does not require immediate infrastructure investment (e.g., sewer, roads), shifting costs to residents via higher utility connection fees, impact fees, or property taxes—and local governments lack enforcement tools to ensure service readiness before development, risking under-serviced neighborhoods.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)(iii), (b)(iii); Sec. 3(4); Sec. 3(10)(b)(iii)(C)The bill allows urban growth area swaps without requiring net gain in developable land, which may reduce overall housing supply if counties prioritize swapping low-value resource land for high-value parcels without adding new land—especially in counties with limited available land, this could constrain supply gains rather than expand them.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(8)(a); Sec. 3(8)(b)(i); Sec. 3(8)(c)(ii)The bill requires parcels to be *approved for residential development* by the county before inclusion, but does not require approval of such development *after* inclusion—meaning counties can include parcels in the UGA but then deny development permits via zoning or site plan review, undermining the bill’s housing supply goal.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii); Sec. 3(1)(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Homebuyers and renters in high-demand urban areas (e.g., Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane) are likely to benefit from increased housing supply, especially middle-income households seeking townhomes or duplexes—though benefits may be delayed by permitting timelines and could be offset by rising land costs passed to buyers.
Local governments face increased costs for infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, schools) to serve newly included parcels, though the bill explicitly states it does not require immediate sewer installation where on-site systems suffice—this reduces fiscal burden but shifts costs to residents via higher impact fees or property taxes.
Large-scale developers benefit most from expanded UGAs, as they can acquire larger contiguous parcels for high-density housing; small developers and mom-and-pop builders may struggle with rising land prices and permitting complexity, especially in competitive markets.
Agricultural, forest, and mineral landowners may lose land to UGA expansion or be required to swap land—though the 2-year swap delay and no-net-loss requirement provide some protection, market pressures may incentivize voluntary swaps, reducing long-term resource land availability.
Federally recognized tribes gain formal consultation rights and mediation recourse, strengthening their role in land-use decisions near tribal lands—though consultation does not grant veto power, and outcomes depend on local political will and tribal capacity to engage.