Skip to main content

SB 5885

In Committee

Senate

Housing dev./religious orgs.

Expanding opportunities for affordable housing developments on properties owned by religious organizations.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 11, 2026
Last Action: January 12, 2026
Status: S Housing
Companion Bill:

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill requires cities and counties in Washington to allow religious organizations to build more housing units than normally permitted (a density bonus) on their land, as long as at least 20% of the units are affordable to low-income households and remain so for 50 years. It also updates definitions and procedures across multiple state laws to support these projects.

  • Cities and counties must grant a density bonus (permission to build more units than normally allowed) for affordable housing projects on land owned or controlled by religious organizations, if the project meets affordability and duration requirements.
  • Projects must include at least 20% affordable units for low-income households (those earning ≤80% of the county’s median family income), and these units must remain affordable for at least 50 years, even if the property changes ownership.
  • Religious organizations (or their development partners) must pay all standard development fees, mitigation costs, and charges — no fee waivers are provided.
  • Projects must comply with federal fair housing laws and cannot discriminate against applicants based on protected characteristics.
  • Projects must be located within urban growth areas if under the Growth Management Act (for counties/cities fully planning under that law).
  • Local governments must develop implementation policies upon request and may require more than 20% affordability for bonus eligibility.

Who is affected

  • Religious organizationsReligious organizations can now propose affordable housing projects on their land and receive a density bonus (permission to build more units than normally allowed) if they meet affordability and duration requirements.
  • Local governmentsLocal governments (cities and counties) must create policies to implement density bonuses for qualifying religious-affiliated affordable housing projects upon request.
  • Low-income householdsLow-income households benefit from increased availability of affordable housing units on religious organization-owned land, with protections against discrimination.
  • Housing developers and nonprofit partnersHousing developers or nonprofit partners working with religious organizations may gain new opportunities to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing on religious-owned land.
Effective: March 9, 2026Fiscal impact: The bill does not specify a direct fiscal impact on state or local budgets; however, by encouraging more affordable housing, it may reduce long-term public costs related to homelessness and housing instability.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 9:24 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)
  • Mandates 20% affordable units for 50 years on religious organization land, significantly expanding the supply of deeply affordable housing — especially valuable in high-cost urban areas where land is scarce and market-rate development excludes low-income households.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a), Sec. 2(1)(a), Sec. 3(1)(a)
  • Requires local governments to develop implementation policies upon request, creating a low-barrier pathway for religious organizations to propose housing — reducing bureaucratic delays and increasing predictability for affordable housing delivery.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(2)
  • The 50-year affordability covenant ensures long-term stability and prevents conversion to market-rate units after initial occupancy, protecting against future displacement and preserving public investment in affordability.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b), Sec. 2(1)(b), Sec. 3(1)(b)
  • Religious organizations must pay all standard development fees and mitigation costs, but the density bonus may improve project economics by increasing total units — potentially enabling more nonprofits and faith-based developers to enter the affordable housing market.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 3(3)
  • Uses HUD-defined 80% AMI threshold for low-income households, aligning with federal affordability standards and ensuring units serve households most burdened by housing costs — particularly helpful in counties with high median incomes like King or Snohomish.

    HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b), Sec. 2(6)(b), Sec. 3(6)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • Local governments must implement density bonuses and associated policies upon request, without fee waivers or state funding to offset administrative or infrastructure costs — potentially straining local planning departments and public services like schools, roads, and utilities.

    Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 3(3)
  • While the bill prohibits discrimination in housing selection, it does not override local zoning or land-use authority — meaning religious organizations must still comply with all other land-use regulations (e.g., height, setbacks, parking), limiting the practical impact of the density bonus in highly constrained or NIMBY communities.

    Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 1(1)(c), Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 3(1)(c)
  • The bill applies to rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, but does not mandate new construction or provide direct subsidies — meaning the net increase in units depends heavily on whether religious organizations have available land and capital to invest.

    HousingRef: Sec. 1(5), Sec. 2(5), Sec. 3(5)
  • Requiring projects to be located within urban growth areas supports compact development and avoids sprawl, but the bill does not include additional environmental review or sustainability standards (e.g., energy efficiency, transit access thresholds), limiting co-benefits.

    EnvironmentRef: Sec. 3(3)
  • The bill encourages coordination with transit agencies but does not require or fund transit improvements — meaning new housing may increase demand on undercapacity transit systems without corresponding service upgrades.

    TransportationRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 2(4), Sec. 3(4)

Who Is Most Affected

Religious organizationsPositive Impact

Religious organizations with underutilized land (e.g., churches, synagogues, mosques) gain a new legal pathway to develop or partner on affordable housing — potentially increasing their community impact and fulfilling social missions. However, they bear full development costs and must comply with local permitting.

Local governmentsMixed Impact

Local governments gain a new tool to meet affordable housing obligations under state law (e.g., Growth Management Act), but must allocate staff time and resources to implement policies and review projects — without state reimbursement.

Low-income householdsPositive Impact

Households earning ≤80% AMI (e.g., service workers, teachers, nurses) benefit from increased access to stable, long-term affordable housing — especially in high-cost urban centers where they are most priced out.

Housing developers and nonprofit partnersMixed Impact

Nonprofit housing developers and mission-aligned private developers gain new project opportunities through partnerships with religious organizations, but face competition for limited land and may need to absorb higher soft costs due to fee obligations.

Sponsors

Senator Riccelli(Democrat)District 3Primary
Senator Alvarado(Democrat)District 34Secondary
Senator Bateman(Democrat)District 22Secondary
Senator Frame(Democrat)District 36Secondary
Senator Nobles(Democrat)District 28Secondary
Senator Saldaña(Democrat)District 37Secondary
Senator Shewmake(Democrat)District 42Secondary
Senator Slatter(Democrat)District 48Secondary
Senator Wilson(Democrat)District 30Secondary