SB 5733
In CommitteeSenate
Updating comprehensive plans
Concerning updating comprehensive plans.
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 updates Washington’s requirements for how cities and counties review and revise their comprehensive plans—long-term land use blueprints—focusing on accelerating housing development and improving accountability. It creates flexibility for small, low-growth cities while tightening deadlines and reporting for high-growth areas, and adds new tools to fast-track housing-related plan changes.
- Allows small cities (under 500 people, low growth, and not near large cities) to opt out of full comprehensive plan updates but still require updates to critical areas, capital facilities, and transportation elements.
- Requires counties and cities to review and revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations on a 10-year cycle, with specific deadlines based on population and location.
- Permits expedited amendments to comprehensive plans specifically for housing projects, allowing faster permitting of new housing developments.
- Mandates five-year implementation progress reports for larger or high-growth counties and cities, including updates on housing affordability, permit timelines, and climate actions.
- Clarifies that compliance with plan update deadlines is required to qualify for state grants and loans under housing and growth management programs.
Who is affected
- Small cities in rural areas — Smaller cities (under 500 people, not near large cities, with low growth) may opt out of full plan updates but must still update critical areas, capital facilities, and transportation elements.
- Local governments (cities and counties) — Counties and cities must update their housing-related policies and permit processes more quickly to support faster housing construction, especially through streamlined amendment procedures.
- Residents in high-growth counties — Residents in fast-growing areas (e.g., King, Pierce, Snohomish counties) face stricter deadlines and reporting requirements, including five-year progress reports on housing and climate actions.
- Housing developers and builders — Housing developers and builders benefit from provisions allowing faster amendments to comprehensive plans to support housing projects.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Expedited comprehensive plan amendments for housing projects can significantly accelerate permitting timelines—reducing delays that currently contribute to Washington’s severe housing shortage and high rents.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(vi)Standardized 10-year review cycles with clear deadlines improve planning consistency and long-term accountability, helping local governments prioritize housing and infrastructure needs proactively.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a)-(d)Five-year implementation progress reports for high-growth areas mandate transparency on housing affordability, permit timelines, and climate actions—enabling public oversight and data-driven policy adjustments.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(9)(a)-(c)Allowing small, low-growth cities to opt out of full plan updates reduces regulatory burden on resource-constrained rural communities, while still requiring updates to critical areas and infrastructure elements.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)(i)-(iii)Linking state grant/loan eligibility to timely plan compliance creates strong incentive for local governments to prioritize housing-friendly policies—potentially unlocking significant state funding for affordable housing projects.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)(a)
Potential Concerns (4)
Small cities that opt out of full plan updates must still update critical areas, capital facilities, and transportation elements—imposing ongoing administrative burden without full plan flexibility, potentially straining small municipal staff and resources.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)(iii)Local governments risk losing eligibility for state housing and growth management grants if they miss deadlines—even minor delays could disqualify them, creating fiscal pressure and disincentivizing cautious but responsible planning.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)(a)Implementation progress reports require cities/ counties to report on greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled progress, but without mandated mitigation actions or funding, this may become a paperwork burden without meaningful environmental accountability.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(9)(b)(iii)While expedited housing amendments are allowed, the bill does not require or fund infrastructure配套 (e.g., water, sewer, schools), potentially enabling housing density increases without corresponding public investment—risking strain on existing services and quality of life.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)(vi)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents in high-growth counties (e.g., King, Pierce, Snohomish) may benefit from faster housing approvals and increased supply, potentially easing rent pressure—but may also face higher local taxes or fees to fund infrastructure if cities cut corners to meet deadlines.
Small rural cities may benefit from reduced planning burden, but still face costs for critical areas and infrastructure updates—potentially diverting limited staff time from other community priorities.
Local governments gain clearer timelines and potential access to state funding, but face new reporting mandates and penalties for noncompliance—increasing administrative workload and legal risk.
Developers and builders benefit from streamlined plan amendments for housing projects, reducing approval timelines—but may face competition for sites in areas where density incentives are strongest.
Low- and middle-income households stand to gain from increased housing supply and faster permitting, but may be displaced if new development outpaces affordability requirements or rent control measures.