SB 5699
In CommitteeSenate
Intensive rural development
Concerning limited areas of more intensive rural 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 amends Washington’s Growth Management Act to require counties and cities to update their comprehensive plans with new or expanded elements—including rural development, climate resilience, housing equity, and transportation concurrency—while allowing limited, more intensive rural development in designated areas. It emphasizes environmental justice, wildfire protection, and preventing displacement of low-income residents.
- Requires counties and cities to include a new rural element in their comprehensive plans, allowing limited, more intensive rural development (e.g., villages, crossroads) in designated areas, with strict limits on size and location to protect rural character and critical areas.
- Expands the housing element to include mandatory policies to address racial disparities, displacement risks, and affordability—requiring goals for housing for all income levels, accessory dwelling units, and antidisplacement strategies like inclusionary zoning.
- Adds a climate change and resiliency element, requiring greenhouse gas emissions reduction (especially in transportation and land use) and climate adaptation strategies, with special focus on protecting overburdened communities.
- Strengthens the transportation element by requiring concurrency rules: development cannot be approved if it degrades local road or transit service levels unless mitigation (e.g., transit, bike lanes, ride-share) is provided concurrently.
- Mandates a capital facilities plan element that includes green infrastructure, six-year financing plans, and coordination with state investment programs—and requires good faith efforts to gather data from other public agencies.
- Requires the land use element to include environmental justice considerations, wildfire risk mitigation (e.g., adopting wildfire codes), and groundwater protection.
Who is affected
- Local governments (counties and cities) — Counties and cities required or choosing to develop or update comprehensive plans under the Growth Management Act must add or revise specific elements, including rural, housing, climate, and transportation components, with new requirements for environmental justice, wildfire mitigation, and housing equity.
- Rural property owners and developers — Rural property owners and developers may benefit from new flexibility to allow limited, more intensive development in designated areas like villages or crossroads, but must comply with strict limits on size, location, and environmental protection.
- Low- and moderate-income households — Low- and moderate-income households gain stronger protections against displacement and increased access to housing options, especially in urban growth areas where duplexes, triplexes, and ADUs are encouraged.
- Public utility districts and special purpose districts — Public utility providers and special purpose districts must cooperate with local governments to share infrastructure data, though failure to do so won’t invalidate the local plan.
- Residents in wildfire-prone areas — Residents in wildfire-prone areas benefit from new land use planning tools and standards aimed at reducing fire risk to homes and infrastructure.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandates explicit policies to identify and remedy racially disparate impacts, displacement risks, and exclusionary zoning—directly benefiting low- and moderate-income households, especially communities of color, by requiring inclusionary zoning, tenant protections, and antidisplacement strategies.
HousingPeopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(2)(f), (g), (h)Allows limited, more intensive rural development (e.g., villages, crossroads) to serve existing rural populations—potentially increasing housing and service access in underserved rural areas, while protecting against sprawl through size caps and containment requirements.
HousingPeopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i)(B), (C)Requires climate resiliency planning to address wildfire, flooding, and other hazards with explicit focus on protecting overburdened communities—strengthening community preparedness and reducing disproportionate risk for vulnerable populations in fire-prone or flood-prone areas.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(9)(e)(ii)(C)Requires consideration of housing locations relative to employment and promotes ADUs—potentially increasing access to stable housing near schools and jobs for low-income families, supporting child educational stability and reduced commute times.
EducationPeopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)(iv), (c)Mandates inclusion of emergency housing, shelters, and permanent supportive housing in housing inventories and goals—directly supporting unhoused and low-income residents by requiring jurisdictions to plan for health-related housing needs.
HealthcarePeopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii), (e), (f)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates inclusionary zoning and antidisplacement policies (e.g., inclusionary zoning, land disposition policies) without specifying state funding or technical assistance, potentially imposing unfunded mandates on local governments—particularly smaller or fiscally strained jurisdictions—whose compliance costs may be passed to developers or taxpayers, indirectly raising housing costs.
HousingPeopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(2)(h) & (f)Requires cities to permit duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes in urban growth areas, but does not override local zoning for single-family zones outside UGAs—limiting broad impact and potentially benefiting higher-income suburbs that can still exclude moderate-density housing via narrow definitions of 'urban growth area' or 'essential rural retail service' thresholds.
HousingLean peopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b), (c), (d)(iv)Retail and food service size caps (e.g., 2,500 sq ft new use, 5,000–10,000 sq ft for essential services) may restrict rural commercial development and limit economies of scale for small retailers, potentially reducing local business viability and job creation in rural areas—though intended to preserve rural character.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i)(II)Concurrency requirements (development cannot be approved if it degrades transportation service levels unless mitigated concurrently) increase regulatory uncertainty and administrative burden for local governments, potentially delaying housing and infrastructure approvals—especially in jurisdictions lacking transportation capacity or mitigation resources.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)Requires GHG reductions to prioritize overburdened communities, but lacks enforceable metrics or enforcement mechanisms—risking tokenistic compliance where agencies can self-certify without accountability, diluting environmental justice outcomes.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: RCW 36.70A.070(9)(d)(i)(C)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income households benefit significantly from antidisplacement policies, inclusionary zoning, and expanded housing types (e.g., ADUs, duplexes) in urban growth areas—though outcomes depend on local implementation and funding.
Local governments face new planning mandates and concurrency requirements without guaranteed state funding—increasing administrative burden and legal exposure, especially for smaller or fiscally constrained jurisdictions.
Rural property owners may gain limited flexibility to develop villages or crossroads, but face strict size and location constraints—benefiting those near existing infrastructure or with development capacity, while others face continued restriction.
Wildfire-prone communities benefit from mandatory wildfire risk mitigation planning and protection standards, especially in the WUI—reducing physical risk and insurance costs for residents.
Public utility districts must cooperate in data sharing but face no penalty for noncompliance—minimal burden with no direct benefit or harm to operations.