[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6322601,"mediaKeyId","2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9","parentId",2347213,"title","Committee hears hours of testimony on eviction reform and tenant-safety bill (SB 5740)","audioSeconds",3602,"startMs",1117505,"endMs",4719710,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9&start=1117&end=4719","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9/thumbnail_1117505.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322601/Washington/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-eviction-reform-and-tenant-safety-bill-SB-5740","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322601-c73c56f9b9a47ab8f925e97601c0b6ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978481&Signature=jP5ipdy3KLnFEOPflkTDoKDu88Ek3o9GhL8~yS6Awi3FgWV4u8mx~b5KhOSGKj37~7Pb7Pw0gLpYec0UlPKUjYlLpO8qqK6UYO2JbC-MYD2BsmZjMmvP33BuYlsEIBtjd-0GzP1r6mrq548SK1rZyOM12izh9Qx-cKkBmbbGtLmQyOsOqmRBN2KtrFyr8tg7-V16a~rwJcrmXp6z~6K4kJzRBgrYHiR4aBY2PftzSIJ4h5Tv-KeVrsvA5eesJ0RlCEsxsDRdFyHx6nIMqtcljivJ-IFCxGW1M~fs5zcLaDTjWg09PJAIexBW2UMDE0USwedDb33G6qecYwq6sECp0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Housing","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Washington State Senate Housing Committee on Feb. 19 heard extensive public testimony and staffing briefings on Senate Bill 5,740, a package of changes labeled “eviction reform and tenant safety” that would allow superior courts to appoint attorneys as commissioners for unlawful detainer actions and alter several procedural and substantive protections in the Residential Landlord Tenant Act (RLTA).

Bill Fosbury, staff to the committee, told members the bill would authorize superior courts to appoint one or more attorneys to act as commissioners in unlawful detainer actions; revise the unlawful detainer summons and the timing and scope of show-cause hearings; impose written-answer requirements on tenants; and change aspects of the RLTA’s just-cause eviction provisions, among other items. Fosbury summarized the bill’s three main components as court-commissioner appointments, changes to unlawful detainer procedure, and modifications to just-cause eviction rules.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. John Braun, said the measure responds to court backlogs and delays that “provide a better way to help provide the resources necessary to manage the backlog.” Braun said the committee had seen “a large backlog and, therefore, a long wait times” in unlawful detainer cases and characterized the bill as a tool to address those capacity issues.

Supporters at the hearing — including multifamily operators and small landlords — emphasized courtroom delays and safety concerns. Audra Riddle, housing director at Goodman Real Estate, said delays can allow balances to grow beyond the point where community aid can help, and that “timelines are the same for both nonpayment of rent as well as life-safety cases.” Corey Brewer, representing small, private landlords, said some eviction cases he has seen took more than 14 months to resolve and left landlords unable to continue operating. Bruce Becker, a Seattle landlord, framed part of his support as a tenant-safety issue and urged the committee to act so “a dangerous person” can be removed faster.

Opponents — including tenant-advocacy organizations, legal-aid representatives and low-income housing advocates — urged rejection or substantial revision. Michelle Thomas of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance said the bill would “roll back core protections for vulnerable renters” at a moment the state is seeing record eviction filings. Carrie Burnside of the Bellingham Tenants Union recounted receiving a retaliatory eviction after reporting code violations and said the bill would enable more misuse of eviction proceedings.

Office of Civil Legal Aid testimony highlighted procedural concerns. Philippe Knabb, eviction defense and reentry program director for OCLA, said several provisions risk increasing defaults or creating administrative impossibilities for the tenant-appointed‑counsel system: requiring full written answers during the appearance period (where oral answers have long been permitted), imposing near‑same‑day counsel-appointment timelines tied to show‑cause hearing notices, and placing onerous eligibility‑verification steps on counsel appointments. Knabb said those changes would increase default judgments and strain counsel capacity.

Legal services advocates also warned of ethical and practical conflicts. Christopher Brunetti of Northwest Justice Project argued that a proposed requirement for attorneys to share client eligibility information with OCLA before appointment could “require them to violate ethical duties, notably the duty to maintain client confidentiality” and could impair the right‑to‑counsel program.

Other concerns raised by opponents included disparate impacts on BIPOC renters, the link between rental instability and homelessness, and a prediction that rolling back tenant protections would increase displacement rather than stabilize housing.

The hearing drew large public interest: committee staff recorded hundreds of sign‑ins (288 pro, 814 con, 3 other). No final committee action on SB 5,740 occurred during the Feb. 19 meeting; the bill remains under consideration and drew a high volume of competing testimony.

Supporters and opponents asked the committee to address court capacity while preserving due‑process protections for tenants. Several witnesses urged complementary policy steps — for example, measures to limit excessive rent increases or to expand rental-assistance funding — rather than procedural rollbacks alone.

The committee suspended and resumed multiple times during the meeting for other agenda items; SB 5,740 remains subject to further amendment and debate in the Housing Committee and its subsequent referral path.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Housing February 19, 10:30 am","oneSentenceSummary","The Washington State Senate Housing Committee on Feb. 19 heard extensive testimony on SB 5,740, a bill that would allow courts to appoint attorneys as commissioners in unlawful detainer cases and would change several procedures and protections in eviction law.","taxTitle","Housing, Senate, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20505,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322596,"Senate committee considers bill allowing community and technical college land to support affordable housing (SB 5725)",3063,541605,3604890,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9&start=541&end=3604","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9/thumbnail_541605.jpg","/articles/6322596/Washington/Senate-committee-considers-bill-allowing-community-and-technical-college-land-to-support-affordable-housing-SB-5725","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322596-a26fe6adb3de378f9dc5c123f8747b9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978481&Signature=MKhI9K0kKMpsNzFpQJUSYrVXu5i8pJigUEZE2QPGhZ7Y34B79vT-PGhb9C9SOzaeNWRc~OddPME8AQgp79yDi2xDTipL4r5qPk0ooTfdoqnvDOCjCo0M~AcwEzHRJbvzFkfp0ykjRyFWokDSYCylIesRDHmgDutfo4wRakcIVkFutIimsdyZoew7YAwYZXwA9DQwlkrL6dc9CJiAJVLGu5YFe3RqgYAdJ8EAFh8gcf8MEPMId79~CRBwzhjQR1dJRGYsEOIekIjIUpBK1cnDdt0vopAcJkT5bagwPPvB9eSG8zmk1PHNlrBj0lZe9dO~udYpXgbuLD-m7KPyUw9xnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Housing Committee on Feb. 19 heard testimony on Senate Bill 5,725, which would explicitly authorize the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (CTC Board) to lease, transfer, assign, pledge or otherwise dispose of underutilized college property for affordable housing purposes and to use long‑term instruments — including up to 99‑year leases — to facilitate development.

Melissa Van Gorkholm, committee staff, summarized the bill and the central changes: the CTC Board would be permitted to use fee transfers or long‑term leases to support affordable housing development on surplus land; leasehold interests used for affordable housing would be exempt from the leasehold excise tax when a lessee commits to renting or selling 100% of units at affordable levels for 99 years; and the bill includes a right‑of‑first‑refusal provision for CDCs (community college districts) and a repurchase‑agreement mechanism allowing a CDC to reclaim land if a project fails to commence construction or secure financing within four years.

Sponsor Sen. Vandana Slatter framed the bill as a tool to expand supply of workforce and employee housing near colleges — citing examples such as a planned 192‑unit partnership at North Seattle College — and said the proposal is intended to make it easier for colleges to repurpose surplus land without returning to the Legislature for each transaction.

Developers and affordable‑housing organizations testified in support, describing financing complexities and asking the Legislature to allow fee transfers or discounted conveyances in addition to leases. Susan Boyd, CEO of Bellwether Housing, said Sound Transit’s surplus‑property program had “allowed us to increase production from 50 homes a year to over 200 homes a year” and urged the committee to permit below‑market fee transfers because “some financing structures do not accommodate long‑term ground leases.” Lincoln Farris, senior consultant to the chancellor and presidents of the Seattle Colleges, said the bill would clarify financing and pledge authorizations that were critical to making projects viable.

College system staff expressed conditional support and flagged concerns. Daryl Jennings, capital budget director for the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, said the board already has broad authority to transfer property and that recent transactions (for example, a North Seattle College conveyance) taught the system operational lessons. Jennings said the current draft could “tie our hands in some situations” and the board requested revised language to preserve needed operational flexibility. Rosie Raimondo Charruzza, chancellor for the Seattle Colleges, described a ten‑year process that culminated in a fee sale (rather than a lease) only after encountering financing and IRS restrictions; she said student‑only housing financed by certain tax credits or bond mechanisms may not qualify for those financing sources, which complicates projects intended primarily for students.

Staff provided a preliminary fiscal estimate items tied to required JLARC review and Department of Revenue changes: a JLARC review cost roughly $15,000 initially and about $10,000 ongoing; Department of Revenue system updates estimated at $6,000; costs to community and technical colleges were listed as indeterminate.

Testimony emphasized two recurring themes: (1) permitting fee transfers or discounted conveyances is sometimes necessary to unlock low‑income housing finance and tax‑credit structures, and (2) legislative text should avoid restricting the CTC Board’s existing authorities or imposing procedural hurdles that would slow transactions. The bill’s advocates asked for explicit permissive language allowing below‑market fee transfers and clarity that colleges can use land as pledged collateral when needed for financing.

The committee did not take final action on SB 5,725 that day; committee staff said sponsors and agency representatives were continuing to negotiate technical fixes.","Senate Bill 5,725 would let the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges transfer, lease or pledge underutilized college land for affordable housing, including long‑term leases and tax exemptions tied to affordability commitments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322580,"Votes at a glance: four housing bills cleared from Senate Housing Committee in executive session (Feb. 19)",55,2134140,2189819,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9&start=2134&end=2189","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9/thumbnail_2134140.jpg","/articles/6322580/Washington/Votes-at-a-glance-four-housing-bills-cleared-from-Senate-Housing-Committee-in-executive-session-Feb-19","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322580-0917ccaace33008de0cde5871c886081/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978481&Signature=Y0rpcIhQjU8aniNlVZzbeY7yPAd1nyXplu8TbI1CFQd9ys61QmvWeNCEQTBG2Kh9ZjdvQ6ISQF5f5NQXWplzMT5752MMpO-kAZSeplAY3HpnrH6d69ktp-x9e5wNTusNUjnk~tLdUrzoS-wB8fMO7oq7GyTB2MiCD31jS-ZdJzPIj0D750D0TL7zhEVX3wVGEC5cMp1iLtZQwzMqOKLWJtWEB884sH7tdz8fP0FPRRgYhhEGBECgn-QyT7bi6QljyiNCCdzA3HWCu4FDOKJks7C4Xj6zPpwZnEkBjESXO5VEPeKN2eMR2p3wqeHiZOpgaldkxoA~AQSZdMi12v8Rcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Housing Committee, in its Feb. 19 executive session, adopted proposed substitutes and voted to advance several bills to the Ways and Means Committee. The committee recorded voice votes and moved each measure forward; specific numeric tallies were not recorded in the hearing transcript.

Key committee actions recorded in the executive session:

- SB 5,222 (rent stabilization; proposed substitute A offered by Sen. Alvarado): The committee adopted the proposed substitute A and then moved that the substitute receive a due‑pass recommendation and be sent to the Ways and Means Committee. The transcript records the substitution was adopted by voice vote and the due‑pass recommendation was approved by voice vote; no roll‑call tally was provided in the record. Staff previously summarized the bill as capping most rent increases at 7% over a 12‑month period, adding a required annual rent‑increase notice form, creating an online landlord resource center, and requiring a social‑vulnerability impact assessment with a revised timeline in the substitute.

- SB 5,686 (foreclosure mediation program expansion; proposed substitute B offered by Sen. Orwell): The committee adopted the proposed substitute B by voice vote, then moved the bill with a due‑pass recommendation to the Ways and Means Committee. Staff briefed the measure as expanding the foreclosure mediation program to include unit owners in properties governed by associations, creating an $80 foreclosure‑prevention fee assessed at mortgage origination (per bill draft), modifying referral timing for delinquent assessments, and changing document‑sharing and confidentiality provisions in the mediation process.

- SB 36 13 (clear and objective residential development standards; proposed substitute C offered by Sen. Solomon): The committee adopted proposed substitute C by voice vote and moved the substitute with a due‑pass recommendation to Ways and Means. Staff described earlier that the bill would direct the Department of Commerce to develop clear and objective standards and a model code, require local regulations to comply by a specified date unless they adopt the model code, and provide limited appeal pathways to the Growth Management Hearings Board.

- SB 56 13 (the transcript references a bill numbered in the 56xx series during executive session and adopted a substitute in the record): The committee adopted a proposed substitute and advanced the bill; the hearing record uses voice‑vote procedures and does not list numeric vote tallies.

For all items above, the committee used voice votes; the record indicates the motions carried and the bills were forwarded to the Ways and Means Committee (or passed subject to signatures where noted). Where the transcript lacked numeric vote counts or named roll‑call votes, the committee record lists only the outcome and that the method of voting was voice vote.

These steps do not represent final enactment; each bill will proceed along the legislative process and may be amended further in Ways and Means or on the Senate floor.","In executive session on Feb. 19 the Senate Housing Committee adopted proposed substitutes and advanced several housing bills to Ways and Means by voice vote; numeric tallies were not recorded on the transcript.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322586,"Bill to limit permit back‑and‑forth and allow certified professionals to 'deem complete' applications draws industry support (SB 5729)",367,3154150,3521870,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9&start=3154&end=3521","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9/thumbnail_3154150.jpg","/articles/6322586/Washington/Bill-to-limit-permit-backandforth-and-allow-certified-professionals-to-deem-complete-applications-draws-industry-support-SB-5729","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322586-2737036b4ad2eb16a5f363b28324fdb0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978481&Signature=jEEjDVkjq4WZvmVs93JrKHiQSPgjxz69WfvulAQhMF6vFp4N9Dj3H2VoEVhW8yRGWBoaun4yprJKWE0oyL2DcfwbRTphksYjcyIRqNHHVjlQMQ4C0eBeMAyQhdvjHAW6LArtyTXROygCYTUYlRtkarlo8KLGDo2Pekpc17ThaozrzxcpLw-Riy69mO-l8ADIXukgX6TTDWyXzmzBTEdHU1x3nXlYHFXe0ByXsZOReMMVfEs~f2kMEOiOfzXTpDrl49vExFxOlCEynQBUhwqFn~doEoEhrJmdoeGqXKh5uS1pwpOR7M5NkdhkIAxVB6hv5tuKN2BpnlSIWfc8S2pUuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Housing Committee on Feb. 19 took testimony on Senate Bill 5,729, which would change how local governments handle building permit completeness and limit the number of review cycles for project permits in fully planning jurisdictions.

Committee staff described the bill: in fully planning jurisdictions, a building‑permit application submitted with plans, computations and specifications prepared, stamped and signed by a licensed professional (architect or engineer) would be deemed complete by the city or county building department. The bill would still allow local governments to review zoning and land‑use compliance, but would limit substantial modification requests and generally cap project permit review opportunities at three requests for additional information. The measure would also narrow certain small projects that local governments must treat as project permits and exempt some minor alterations from the full project‑permit review processes.

Sponsor Sen. Joe Gildan said the bill responds to repeated, iterative review cycles that prolong approvals and add cost. “If you have a certified architect or engineer, you can have up to three reviews. So you get three rocks, not four,” he said, using a recurring industry metaphor about uncertain revision requests.

Builders and real‑estate trade groups testified in support. Riley Bench of Washington Realtors and Alex Herr of the Master Builders Association said the bill would create certainty by limiting the number of review rounds and by empowering licensed professionals to certify elements of code compliance, which could relieve pressure on local permitting staffs and reduce project timelines. Andrea Smiley of the Building Industry Association of Washington said the bill “does not mean that it's approved” when deemed complete and stressed jurisdictions would still review for zoning compliance; she called the change a reasonable mechanism for efficiency.

The Department of Ecology provided technical testimony and suggested the bill could create conflicts with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements, critical‑area protections and local shoreline master programs. Samantha Weinstein, policy manager at Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, said a project approved or excluded under the bill “may conflict with the requirement that local governments document a project's consistency with the SMA” and that Ecology had proposed fix language to staff.

No committee vote occurred on Feb. 19. Supporters asked the committee to consider the measure as part of broader efforts to accelerate housing development by reducing permitting unpredictability; state agencies requested clarifying language on shorelines and critical areas to avoid unintended preemption of protections.","SB 5,729 would deem building permits complete when plans are stamped by licensed professionals and limit local governments to three review cycles for project permits in fully planning jurisdictions.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322591,"Developers and builders back extension of SEPA categorical exemptions for housing as committee weighs tribal‑notification concerns (SB 5612)",416,2766670,3182850,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9&start=2766&end=3182","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347213-44f9f0c8cdce94b33715be165650dad9/thumbnail_2766670.jpg","/articles/6322591/Washington/Developers-and-builders-back-extension-of-SEPA-categorical-exemptions-for-housing-as-committee-weighs-tribalnotification-concerns-SB-5612","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322591-f7bbdf0910ac5dd2c72a3ccd2e47007f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978481&Signature=NfQ6iQtWjdRLjoW~kbsyXmZDJ28wZOtE9weVU7c9WnmJXAxHkTzovokv36ISY1vyOOznaamrPYHKue8HG~09NRx8XirxCtUrC4avv~F8vXyLV~bCjYnUlAKobgXCvvj1q~fWy0eaOVDmCBxsp~v~OpEupa2YA7l~OW75vbdaF~VM8mBUgwPbIIE9xCE82S2Hc96XP9dLs6OWo5Nf4iQOG9PfQA3Inw06K471paK6cd1QwKH3816GIuUcQWcpk9C0wseTcAJqplPy58PNxkSFZssHPXJwumQH9jxo0ci3PkfBu4xxejPS7MY~gfoqV7CtQz9pTWs1NIdAT0pv8Dh6HA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Housing Committee heard staff briefing and public comment on Senate Bill 56 12, which would expand and extend categorical exemptions from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for multi‑unit and middle‑housing projects in incorporated areas and urban growth areas (UGAs).

Ben, committee staff, summarized the bill’s intent: modify and extend a 2023 exemption that had applied in Seattle to additional urban jurisdictions through Sept. 30, 2028; adjust unit thresholds in some locations (for example, limiting certain exemptions to projects of two or more units or, in other provisions, four or more units through Sept. 30, 2027); and require jurisdictions to satisfy criteria such as environmental analysis and notice to federally recognized tribes that may be affected by exempted actions. Staff emphasized the bill does not waive or preempt other state or local land‑use regulations.

Sen. Mark Solomon, the sponsor, said Seattle’s 2023 categorical exemption increased permit activity and argued that duplicative SEPA review in highly urbanized areas can unnecessarily delay multifamily housing that already must comply with local development and critical‑area rules. He acknowledged tribal notification concerns and said the bill includes a clause requiring notice to federall y recognized tribes that may be impacted; the sponsor said committee staff were exploring additional language to preserve tribal notice and review mechanisms.

Alex Harrington of NAHOP Washington State (Commercial Real Estate Development Association) testified in support and described the Seattle exemption as “very successful in reducing cost and time barriers to housing construction” and urged extension and expansion in other urban areas to increase housing production and affordability.

Committee staff reported one panel of public witnesses and a larger sign‑in list overall; several pro‑housing groups supported the extension, while tribal and environmental stakeholders expressed concerns about losing notification or review opportunities that SEPA can trigger. The Department of Commerce or tribal representatives did not submit formal testimony during the Feb. 19 hearing, and committee staff said sponsors were working on language to retain tribal notification while still providing the intended permitting streamlining.

No committee vote occurred on SB 56 12 during the Feb. 19 session; sponsors said they were continuing to refine language to ensure tribe notification and critical‑area protections remained compatible with the exemption.","SB 56 12 would extend and broaden categorical SEPA exemptions for certain multi‑unit and middle‑housing projects in urban areas through 2028. Builders and developers said the Seattle exemption has accelerated multifamily development; tribal and environmental notification concerns remain under negotiation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears hours of testimony on eviction reform and tenant-safety bill (SB 5740)

Senate committee considers bill allowing community and technical college land to support affordable housing (SB 5725)

Votes at a glance: four housing bills cleared from Senate Housing Committee in executive session (Feb. 19)

Bill to limit permit back‑and‑forth and allow certified professionals to 'deem complete' applications draws industry support (SB 5729)

Developers and builders back extension of SEPA categorical exemptions for housing as committee weighs tribal‑notification concerns (SB 5612)