Transcript Highlights:

• This is the one that allows structures up to three stories and six units to be in the IRC.
• And that's been, I think, one of the benefits of the interlocal methods: it provides that structured
• And that's been, I think, one of the benefits of the interlocal methods is it provides that structured
• Was conducted of new shoreline armoring and new shoreline armor on 324 tax parcels measuring approximately
• That's the idea behind shoreline master programs requiring permit review for that.

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the one that allows structures up to three stories and six units to be in the IRC.
• In Island County, a field survey was conducted of new shoreline armoring, and new shoreline... ...was
• That's the idea behind shoreline master programs requiring...
• That's the idea behind shoreline master programs requiring permit review for that.
• Would be to authorize citizen suits for violations of the Shoreline Management Act, shoreline master

Committee: House Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Ryan was a teacher, a Coast Guard veteran, lived in Shoreline, and was a man in his 40s.

Bills: HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1798 , HB1002 , HB1065 , HB1155 , HB1916 , HB2264 , HB1078 , HB1687 , HB1701 , HB1717 , HB1795 , HB1859 , HB2088 , HB2091 , HB2107 , HB2109 , HB2110 , HB2113 , HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2133 , HB2134 , HB2140 , HB2151 , HB2152 , HB2155 , HB2165 , HB2185 , HB2191 , HB2205 , HB2211 , HB2219 , HB2228 , HB2229 , HB2230 , HB2235 , HB2238 , HB2242 , HB2245 , HB2249 , HB2253 , HB2254 , HB2269 , HB2272 , HB2283 , HB2304 , HB2317 , HB2340 , HB2343 , HB2385 , HB2406 , HB2417 , HB2426 , HB2445 , HB2452 , HB2472 , HB2492 , HB2501 , HB2531 , HB2574 , HB2606 , HB2664

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU

Summary: The House considered and passed a series of bills on topics including public employee bargaining communication, condominium and middle-housing development, building code changes for scissor stairs, substance use disorder monitoring for nursing assistants, pet insurance continuity, liquor licensing flexibility, voter registration challenges, concealed pistol license records exemptions, social housing public development authorities, services for people with developmental disabilities, rent increase notices, and unlawful detainer notices. Members repeatedly described the housing bills as efforts to increase supply, improve affordability, and fix prior statutory problems, while the health-related bills were framed as improving patient comfort, provider flexibility, or workforce consistency. Several measures were advanced without amendment, while others were substituted with committee recommendations before final passage. The most debated item was Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1916 on voter registration challenges. Supporters said it would curb mass or frivolous challenges, protect voters, and give election officials clearer standards and more accountability. Opponents argued it would make legitimate voter challenges harder, reduce citizen oversight of voter rolls, and weaken election integrity. Multiple amendments were offered to reduce penalties from felony to gross misdemeanor, allow electronic challenges, remove county-residency limits, and strike sections of the bill; most were rejected, though one amendment removing the same-county requirement was adopted. The bill ultimately passed after a divided vote. Other notable debate included House Bill 2152, which would allow terminally ill patients in hospitals and similar facilities to use medical cannabis; supporters emphasized dignity and comfort at end of life, while one opponent worried about added burdens on rural hospitals. House Bill 2235, concerning Public Records Act exemptions tied to concealed pistol license records and a permit-to-purchase framework, passed with strong support. House Bill 1687 on social housing public development authorities passed after an amendment restored city council involvement in housing cooperation decisions, while House Bill 2249, relating to Washington Technical employees and civil service treatment, passed with a larger number of nays. The House then placed additional bills on second reading and adjourned until the next legislative day.

Bills: HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1798 , HB1002 , HB1065 , HB1155 , HB1916 , HB2264 , HB1078 , HB1687 , HB1701 , HB1717 , HB1795 , HB1859 , HB2088 , HB2091 , HB2107 , HB2109 , HB2110 , HB2113 , HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2133 , HB2134 , HB2140 , HB2151 , HB2152 , HB2155 , HB2165 , HB2185 , HB2191 , HB2205 , HB2211 , HB2219 , HB2228 , HB2229 , HB2230 , HB2235 , HB2238 , HB2242 , HB2245 , HB2249 , HB2253 , HB2254 , HB2269 , HB2272 , HB2283 , HB2304 , HB2317 , HB2340 , HB2343 , HB2385 , HB2406 , HB2417 , HB2426 , HB2445 , HB2452 , HB2472 , HB2492 , HB2501 , HB2531 , HB2574 , HB2606 , HB2664

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU

Summary: The House convened, established a quorum, recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and heard a prayer. Members approved the prior day’s minutes, referred introduction-sheet bills, and later took up several second- and third-reading bills. Early in the day, the chamber also announced that members could wear Seahawks apparel during floor action the next day. The House passed House Bill 1155, which bans non-compete agreements, after adopting amendments clarifying tribal worker relationships, replacing references to “customer” with “patient” in certain contexts, and requiring notice to current and some former employees that non-competes are void. An amendment to exempt senior executives earning over $350,000 was rejected. The bill passed 65-29. The House also passed House Bill 1002, allowing certain coroners and medical examiners to seek workers’ compensation for PTSD; an amendment to isolate costs to their own risk class was rejected, and the bill passed 70-24. House Bill 2264, clarifying unemployment insurance eligibility for workers who voluntarily participate in layoffs, passed unanimously 94-0. Later measures included House Bill 2110, allowing nurses to accompany inter-facility ambulance transports without also holding EMT licenses, which passed 94-0 after an amendment clarifying training; House Bill 2272, a technical update to ski equipment terminology, which passed 94-0; House Bill 2238, creating a statewide food security strategy, which passed 83-12 after a technical amendment narrowing agency scope; and House Bill 2445, aimed at preventing profiteering in probate estates, which passed 67-28 after a technical amendment. The House also passed House Bill 2109 on securing vehicle loads (95-0), House Bill 2492 requiring behavioral and mental health training for construction workers and apprentices (79-16), House Bill 2472 on licensed contractors for fire sprinkler work (92-3), House Bill 288 joining the dietician licensure compact (93-1), and House Bill 2229 updating the Professional Engineers Registration Act and requiring five years of Washington practice for board members after an amendment (68-26).

Bills: HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1798 , HB1002 , HB1065 , HB1155 , HB1916 , HB2264 , HB1078 , HB1687 , HB1701 , HB1717 , HB1795 , HB1859 , HB2088 , HB2091 , HB2107 , HB2109 , HB2110 , HB2113 , HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2133 , HB2134 , HB2140 , HB2151 , HB2152 , HB2155 , HB2165 , HB2185 , HB2191 , HB2205 , HB2211 , HB2219 , HB2228 , HB2229 , HB2230 , HB2235 , HB2238 , HB2242 , HB2245 , HB2249 , HB2253 , HB2254 , HB2269 , HB2272 , HB2283 , HB2304 , HB2317 , HB2340 , HB2343 , HB2385 , HB2406 , HB2417 , HB2426 , HB2445 , HB2452 , HB2472 , HB2492 , HB2501 , HB2531 , HB2574 , HB2606 , HB2664

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU

Transcript Highlights:

• We imagined projects along the shoreline.
• I just wanted to point out that we do have a variety of shorelines around San Diego Bay, armored shorelines
• So we took out the revetment, the rock that's along that shoreline, and put in these tide pool structures
• around San Diego Bay armored shorelines seven We have a variety of shorelines around San Diego Bay,
• So we took out the revetment, the rock that's along that shoreline, and put in these tide pool structures

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on the impacts of rising seas on coastal infrastructure, pollution, public health, access, and local economies, with an emphasis on San Diego and broader statewide examples. Chair Tasha Boerner opened by describing sea level rise, flooding, bluff collapse, and the state’s sea level rise action planning, and noted her prior bills that helped launch a Scripps bluff-collapse early warning pilot. Panel one featured Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps and Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, who described accelerating sea level rise, groundwater rise, flooding, erosion, and risks to sewage, transportation, ports, and contaminated sites. Gibson stressed that agencies are already adapting through permits, climate resolutions, stormwater updates, and infrastructure planning, but said the work will require major funding, better mapping, and streamlined permitting. Members then discussed early warning systems, groundwater inundation, federal funding uncertainty, and how state authority might fill gaps left by changing federal clean water rules. Boerner and Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza highlighted that sea level rise affects inland communities too, and asked about local mapping, long-term planning, and the cost of protecting or relocating vulnerable infrastructure. Former Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina said the city had the maps and plans but needed money, and urged faster permitting and more investment in protective projects. The panel also discussed the tension between environmental mitigation and urgent adaptation, with Gibson suggesting expanded mitigation banks and state revolving fund support, while Boerner and others noted the need to prioritize projects that protect communities and public health over bureaucratic delay. Panel two shifted to public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described outdoor equity work that introduces children and families, especially from historically excluded communities, to the ocean and teaches water safety and stewardship. He said sea level rise, pollution, and access restrictions threaten cultural continuity and free community programs, especially in places like Imperial Beach and the Tijuana River Valley. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission described how sea level rise threatens Bay Area tourism, airports, roads, ports, and neighborhoods built on fill, estimating roughly $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses if no action is taken. She said BCDC is working under SB 272 on regional shoreline adaptation plans, local government coordination, and regulatory innovation, while emphasizing the need for sustained funding and science. In the final panel, the Port of San Diego’s Philip Gibbons began describing the port’s climate adaptation work, including vulnerabilities to king tides, storm drain backflow, and long-term inundation that could affect roads, buildings, terminals, and parks. He said the port is using climate planning to assess risks and prepare for sea level rise while maintaining maritime commerce, recreation, and environmental stewardship. The hearing ended with a shared call for more funding, better data, streamlined permitting, and coordinated state, local, and federal action to protect coastal communities and infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• We imagined projects along the shoreline.
• I just wanted to point out that we do have a variety of shorelines around San Diego Bay, armored shorelines
• So we took out the revetment, the rock that's along that shoreline, and put in these tide pool structures
• So we took out the revetment, the rock that's along that shoreline, and put in these tide pool structures
• This is like literally 150 feet along a shoreline.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on infrastructure, pollution, climate resilience, public health, access, and economic impacts of sea level rise in California, with an emphasis on San Diego and the Bay Area. Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath opened by describing the committee’s purpose, the state’s sea level rise action planning, and the need for better monitoring and early warning systems. She also referenced her prior bills AB 66 and AB 72, which supported Scripps research on coastal bluff collapse warning capabilities. Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza later joined and emphasized that sea level rise affects not only coastal communities but inland areas as well, and that the issue should inform future legislative and budget decisions. In the first panel, Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps Institution of Oceanography described observed sea level rise of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 feet since the early 1900s, with acceleration expected by mid-century and potentially much greater rise by 2100 depending on emissions. He highlighted flooding, groundwater rise, beach and cliff erosion, salinization, and risks to transportation, sewage, ports, and national security. Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board discussed how sea level rise affects wastewater systems, stormwater, contaminated sites, wetlands, and coastal groundwater basins, and said the board is requiring climate adaptation planning, updating stormwater permits, and seeking more flexible state permitting and mitigation tools. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better mapping, more monitoring, and more state funding, especially if federal support from NOAA and other agencies declines. The second panel addressed public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described how sea level rise, pollution, and access barriers threaten the Tijuana River Valley and Imperial Beach, especially for underserved communities and youth programs that rely on safe, welcoming access to the ocean. He stressed the cultural and spiritual importance of coastal access and the need for water safety and environmental education. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission explained that the Bay Area faces major economic exposure from sea level rise, citing a regional estimate of $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses from inaction, and said BCDC is working with local governments under SB 272 on shoreline adaptation planning, funding, and regulatory innovation. Members discussed the tension between environmental permitting and the need to move projects faster, including the possibility of planned retreat in some areas and the use of simultaneous permitting and longer-term state authority to streamline adaptation work. In the final panel, Philip Gibbons of the Port of San Diego described the port’s climate adaptation efforts and its vulnerability assessments under AB 691. He said the port manages state tidelands, supports maritime commerce and recreation, and is already seeing flooding at king tides and during El Niño events, including storm-drain backflow and damage to bikeways and parks. He explained that future sea level rise could inundate major port areas and disrupt operations, underscoring the need for continued planning, mitigation, and infrastructure investment. The hearing did not take formal votes, but it concluded with a clear call for more science, funding, coordination, and regulatory streamlining to prepare California’s coast and nearby communities for worsening sea level rise impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a historic home few feet from the shoreline, built in 1902.
• And then the Eco Park around that structure will be restored to shoreline marsh to improve the water
• And then the Eco Park around that structure will be restored to shoreline marsh to improve the water
• And then the Eco Park around that structure will be restored to shoreline marsh to improve the water
• uh will be restored uh to that structure uh will be restored uh to shoreline<00:08:44.120><c> marsh<

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• non-exclusive easement covering a portion of state submerged lands at Kikiwoa Kaha Kawaii for a shoreline
• protection structure and for use, repair, and maintenance of the improvements constructed thereon.
• </c> Kikiwoa Kaha Kawaii for a shoreline Kikiwoa Kaha Kawaii for a shoreline protection<00:10:03.839>
• <c> structure</c><00:10:04.240><c> and</c><00:10:04.480><c> for</c><00:10:04.640><c> use</c><00:10:04.959
• ><c> repair</c> protection structure and for use repair protection structure and for use repair maintenance

Committee: House Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is really about placing sand on an eroded beach with stabilizing structures.
• This is more commonly known as shoreline hardening.
• ><c> as</c><00:57:06.799><c> Shoreline</c><00:57:07.760><c> hardening</c> commonly known as Shoreline
• hardening commonly known as Shoreline hardening just<00:57:09.000><c> yesterday</c><00:57:09.559><c>
• </c> remind us all that hardening shorelines remind us all that hardening shorelines significantly<00

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearings Board hears and decides appeals of shoreline building and construction permits and penalty
• orders issued under the Shoreline Management Act. hearings board.
• orders issued under the Shoreline Management Act.
• From our perspective, the strength of this bill is its structure.
• So improving the efficiency of the customer structure, the residence, is important.

Summary: The committee first waived the five-day notice rule for several House bills, then took up public hearings on HB 2426, HB 1742, HB 2215, HB 2575, HB 1903, and HB 2606. HB 2426 would allow the Pollution Control Hearings Board, with party consent and board approval, to hear permit appeals in alternative smaller compositions to improve efficiency; the sponsor and supporters from Greater Grays Harbor and FutureWise said it would speed up reviews without harming environmental protections, while the bill was described as cost-neutral. HB 1742 would create a Center for Environmentally Sustainable Urban Design at Ecology to promote sustainable building and design competitions; the sponsor emphasized regenerative, biophilic design and a proposed showcase project, and the bill was presented as budget-neutral through outside funding, though the fiscal note was still pending. HB 2215 would tighten Climate Commitment Act compliance for certain newer fuel suppliers by lowering the emissions threshold for post-2023 suppliers, exempt lubricants, and add procurement and transparency requirements. The sponsor said the bill targets “paper distributors” and loopholes used to avoid coverage; Ecology supported closing the loophole but raised concerns about reporting thresholds, implementation, staffing, and rulemaking. Testimony was mixed: the propane association and Washington Oil Marketers Association were concerned about the two-tier threshold and urged stronger upstream enforcement instead, while Climate Solutions and Washington Conservation Action supported the bill as a way to prevent gaming and strengthen climate policy. HB 2575 would reduce several environmental and energy reporting obligations, including less frequent utility reporting under the Energy Independence Act and state energy strategy updates; Commerce and the sponsor said the changes would reduce duplicative reporting and save money, while preserving core protections and oversight. HB 1903 would establish a statewide low-income energy assistance program in the Department of Commerce, phased in by 2027, to supplement existing utility programs and target households with the greatest energy burden. The sponsor and many advocates described the bill as an affordability measure to address a large unmet need, while community action agencies, utilities, and rural representatives supported the goal but asked for clearer language on voluntary utility participation, funding sources, allocation formulas, and how the program would interact with existing utility and weatherization efforts. Several speakers stressed that the program should not replace local assistance and should be designed to avoid shifting costs onto ratepayers. HB 2606 would update the Office of Privacy and Data Protection’s duties and reporting requirements, including adding review of agency AI projects and aligning the office’s work with JLARC recommendations; the chief privacy officer testified in support, explaining that the bill would formalize AI risk review, human oversight, and existing privacy/security review processes, with no fiscal impact. No votes were taken on the bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> definition of regional uh shoreline definition of regional uh shoreline management<00:11:02.000>
• </c> deal with shoreline deal with shoreline uh<00:12:43.440><c> encroachment.
• That can approach the different shorelines in the ways that are appropriate for those shorelines, right
• That can approach the different shorelines in the ways that are appropriate for those shorelines, right
• Can approach the different shorelines in the ways that are appropriate for those shorelines, right?

Bills: SB2606 , SB3253 , SB237 , SB3252 , SB1178 , SB2322 , SB2019 , SB3043 , SB3014 , SB2972 , SB1190 , SB2488

Committee: Senate Water, Land, Culture and the Arts

Summary: The committees heard testimony on several measures related to wildlife, conservation, shoreline adaptation, and climate governance. On SB 2606, which would establish the Freshwater State Recreational Area Wildlife Sanctuary Corporation, the Department of Land and Natural Resources said it had concerns about employee eligibility and was not yet prepared to comment further on the bill’s ramifications. After testimony ended, a senator asked DLNR to follow up with more detail, and the department said it would relay the questions to leadership and respond later. No vote was taken on the measure during the excerpt. On SB 3253, which would create the Hawaii Conservation Sanctuary as a nonprofit entity to work with DLNR, the department said it supported the bill. In discussion, DLNR said Hawaii has not done anything like this before, described a similar model in New Zealand, and estimated that developing such a sanctuary could cost millions of dollars. Members also discussed whether the concept would fit with existing efforts such as Hakalau, and DLNR said the bill could apply to private or state lands depending on the site. No action was taken. The most extensive discussion was on SB 237, which would expand state and county authority to develop adaptation pathways for relocating infrastructure away from sea level rise and coastal flooding areas. DLNR supported the bill, saying it prioritizes public trust resources over economic development or private property. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee and the Shoreline Preservation Coalition opposed the measure, arguing it was too focused on managed retreat and should include a broader range of shoreline responses, such as erosion mitigation, groins, sand nourishment, and other interim protections. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development said it appreciated the bill’s intent but wanted broader language that would allow more tools in the toolbox. Members debated whether retreat is inevitable, whether different shorelines require different approaches, and whether the bill should be more flexible. No vote was taken. The final measure discussed was SB 3252, which would amend the powers and duties of the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, create a coordinator position, and appropriate funds. The commission’s coordinator testified in support, while OPSD opposed the bill, saying it would remove the two cabinet-level co-chair positions, raise accountability concerns, and duplicate some of OPSD’s functions. In questioning, members debated whether the current commission structure has been effective, who would appoint or confirm the coordinator, and whether the bill would improve transparency and implementation. OPSD said it supported more statewide interdepartmental funding for climate planning and staffing, but had concerns about the proposed governance changes. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• With us moving the ownership structure to our balance sheet effectively.

Bills: HB2007 , HB2462 , HB2621 , HB2921 , HB3187 , HB3331 , HB3332 , HJR144 , HB3514 , HB3528 , HB3539 , HB3563 , HB3720 , HB3726 , HB3751 , HB3859 , HB3947 , HB4148 , HB4164 , HB4337 , HB4346 , HB4368 , HB4706 , HB4916 , HB4950 , HB4967 , HB5177 , HB5603

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: commercial signs, county approval, transportation code, regulations, road signage, high occupancy vehicle lane, pregnant operators, transportation, parental rights, motor vehicle regulations, live video feed, state agency, transparency, public safety, confidentiality, personal information, local government, airport data, public records, regional transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> things that come from the shoreline things that come from the shoreline rather<00:07:41.280><c>
• </c> uh stuff seaward of the shoreline uh stuff seaward of the shoreline under<00:34:43.679><c> certain
• </c> protects our shoreline area and that protects our shoreline area and that protection<00:38:27.840
• So, the shoreline parcels, most of those, they include a shoreline setback.
• </c><00:48:14.560><c> or</c> you know, demolition of structures or you know, demolition of structures

Summary: The committee first heard HB 649, which would create a small boat harbor commercial vessel special fund and raise mortgage fees on commercial vessels to fund harbor improvements. DLNR stood on written testimony in support, while the Ocean Tourism Coalition, Activity and Attractions Association of Hawaii, Calypso Charters, and a local commercial operator all opposed the bill, arguing that the fee increase would burden thin-margin businesses without fixing procurement and staffing problems and that the bill’s fee language and fund allocations were too vague. A DLNR witness also noted a prior bill, HB 2477, had sought to broaden the fee base to more ocean operators statewide rather than increase the percentage. No vote was taken on HB 649 during the portion shown. The committee then heard HB 2599 on aquatic protection, which would prioritize ecosystem integrity and use of best available science in managing aquatic resources and set coral reef resilience goals. DLNR supported the measure, and a testifier from the public urged stronger coral goals for Oahu and a broader framework including water quality, herbivore management, fishery management, enforcement, and coral restoration. There was no opposition or vote shown on HB 2599 before the committee recessed to a joint hearing. In the joint Economic Development and Tourism / Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts hearing, members heard HB 2118 on transferring the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and the King Kamehameha Celebration Commission from DAGS to DBED, HB 2474 on authorizing non-binding international cooperative agreements, HB 1863 on creating an honorary ambassador to Canada, HB 1943 on out-of-state DBED offices and export promotion, and HB 2604 on a performing arts ticket surcharge. Testimony was generally supportive for HB 2118, HB 2474, HB 1863, and HB 1943, with questions focused on agency placement, sister-state relationships, and the rationale for overseas offices. HB 2604 drew opposition from the Tax Foundation and others, who argued the surcharge functioned as a tax and would make arts participation more expensive; the chair recommended deferring it. During decision-making, both committees passed HB 2118, HB 2474, HB 1863, and HB 1943 with amendments, including technical changes and revised effective dates. For HB 2474, the amendments were described as clarifying definitions for sister-state and international cooperative agreements, allowing relationships with national governments, and preserving legislative approval and transparency. HB 1943 was amended to require an office in Laoag City, Philippines, rather than a non-existent DBED Philippines office. HB 2604 was deferred. After the joint session, the Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts committee resumed and heard HB 2395 on permits for taking marine deposits and HB 2361 on administrative support for the Kahului Bay Regional Council, both of which drew only DLNR written testimony and no further action in the excerpt. The committee then began HB 1823 on Coastal Zone Management Act exemptions, with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs testifying first, but the transcript cuts off before further testimony or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many of the shoreline protections that municipalities have adopted in their local zoning.
• Projects are meant to replace obsolete or deteriorated structures.
• The average age of those structures is north of 45 years old.
• </c><01:46:00.960><c> along</c> replacing a lot of the structures along replacing a lot of the structures
• </c><01:46:05.920><c> is</c> the average age of those structures is the average age of those structures

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• zoning, and we will have Hanukkah von Dersen from the city of Chattanooga followed by the city of Shoreline
• There's a lot of different ways to structure it, but they all basically come down to this.
• And then the blue text on the right is specific to new structures.
• What does the legal structure look like?
• So you can have many different structures, but like for Sandy's, it's a simple 3% year over year.

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee heard presentations on several housing finance and permitting tools. Chattanooga described its payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) affordable housing program, which ties property tax abatements to the number and affordability level of units provided, using a calculator based on market rents and HUD affordability levels. Senators asked about the 15-year term, auditing, and whether the program was attracting private market-rate developers; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would include 278 units with 42 affordable units and that annual compliance monitoring is conducted. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary housing approach, emphasizing that longer 20-year exemptions helped make projects pencil out and that most recent development has clustered around light rail station areas; city staff said they will study whether the program should be adjusted further and noted the importance of the new state inclusionary housing law. The Department of Commerce and MRSC discussed tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and the CHIP program. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, parks, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, but jurisdictions should only use it when development is likely to occur and the public benefit justifies the investment. On impact fees, Commerce said fees should be proportional to the actual infrastructure demand of a project and based on capital facility plans; it also noted that fee reductions for affordable housing must be backfilled through CHIP. Senators asked for more information on CHIP funding levels, project selection, and how much of it supports affordable housing. Commerce also presented the first annual permit-timelines report under the 2023 permitting reforms, saying 2024 data showed timelines still exceeding statutory goals and that future reports will examine factors such as paper versus electronic processing and local reform efforts. Auburn and Bellevue highlighted local permitting innovations. Auburn said it has moved to fully electronic review, uses MyBuildingPermit.com, has internal performance standards, and offers a stock-plan program that can cut later review to about a week; staff said most stamped plans still require at least two review cycles and that the city is watching how middle-housing code changes affect development. Bellevue described a pilot with GovStream AI to use artificial intelligence for pre-application assistance, document triage, and plan-review support, with the goal of reducing back-and-forth and improving application quality. Finally, Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would finance, build, and manage backyard ADUs for homeowners, with the owner eventually buying out the partner; senators raised questions about rent-setting, management fees, liability, and what happens if a homeowner sells early. The committee also heard from community land trust representatives, who explained how ground leases and resale restrictions keep homes permanently affordable and allow public subsidies to serve multiple generations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So within Shoreline, we have nine designated MFTE zones, and as you can...
• So within Shoreline, we have nine designated MFTE zones.
• There's a lot of different ways to structure it, but they all basically come down to this.
• The blue text on the right is specific to new structures.
• What does the legal structure look like?

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard presentations on a range of housing finance, permitting, and affordability tools. Chattanooga described its affordable housing PILOT program, which uses a per-unit property tax abatement tied to the rent loss from providing affordable units, with a 15-year term and annual compliance monitoring. Committee members asked about the program’s structure, whether it had been used elsewhere, and who was participating; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would bring 278 units with 42 affordable units and that the model was attracting private market-rate developers. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary zoning approach, emphasizing that longer tax exemption periods and station-area zoning changes had helped spur development, with most current pipeline projects concentrated near light rail stations. The committee also heard from the Municipal Research Services Center and the Department of Commerce on tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and permit timelines. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, while proportional impact fee guidance is intended to help jurisdictions charge fees more closely aligned with actual project impacts. On permit timelines, Commerce presented its first annual report under recent law changes, using 2024 as a baseline year and noting that reported timelines were generally longer than statutory goals; members asked about outliers, paper versus electronic processing, and whether back-and-forth between applicants and staff was driving delays. Commerce said it would follow up with more data, including on CHIP funding and permit reform practices. Several local governments then shared permitting process improvements. Auburn reported relatively short review cycles and described its move to fully electronic permitting, internal performance standards, and a stock plan program that speeds review for repeated home designs. Bellevue described an AI permitting pilot with a local startup to help with pre-application questions, document triage, and plan review, aiming to reduce incomplete applications and revision cycles. Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would help homeowners split lots, finance, build, and manage ADUs, with the homeowner eventually buying out the partner and retaining ownership; committee members asked about rent setting, management fees, and default risk, and staff said they would follow up. The committee also heard brief overviews of community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives as permanent affordability models, with presenters urging continued state and local funding support and policy recognition for these approaches.

Transcript Highlights:

• So Representative Dye is referring to a shoreline protective structure that's built on the Green River
• Representative Dye is referring to a shoreline protective structure that's built on the Green River that's
• So Representative Dye is referring to a shoreline protective structure that's built on the Green River
• Representative Dye is referring to a shoreline protective structure that's built on the Green River that's
• structures.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three main bills. House Bill 2284 on reducing litter would remove a scheduled increase in plastic bag thickness, preserve the existing penalty on thicker bags, and create a litter solutions task force to use existing data and recommend further actions. Supporters from business, retail, agriculture, food industry, and the Department of Ecology said the bill takes a data-driven approach and could help reduce litter without imposing a full bag ban, while Ecology noted it already has a statewide litter study underway and raised cost and membership concerns. Opponents and other commenters generally favored the bill’s direction but emphasized the need for more study and careful implementation. No vote was taken. House Bill 1652 would require certain ocean-going vessels in Washington waters to use fuel with no more than 0.1% sulfur, with recordkeeping, Ecology oversight, penalties, and a substitute clarifying vessel coverage and exemptions. The prime sponsor and environmental and public health advocates said the bill would reduce air and water pollution from scrubbers and protect the Salish Sea, orcas, salmon, and nearby communities. Ports, shipping interests, and industry groups raised concerns that the bill could effectively discourage scrubbers, create burdens for irregular callers and cargo traffic, and affect port competitiveness, while some said the bill should be narrowed or further stakeholdered. The hearing also included discussion of a proposed substitute and possible impacts on vessels and port operations. House Bill 2367 would end special coal-related exemptions by limiting the cap-and-invest exemption to pre-2026 emissions, removing limits on additional greenhouse gas regulation for the coal plant, and repealing coal sales and use tax exemptions. Supporters said the bill would align state law with the planned closure of the Centralia coal plant, reinforce Washington’s climate policies, and remove outdated carve-outs. Business and petroleum representatives warned that if the plant were brought back into the cap-and-invest program, the allowance market could be affected and Ecology might need flexibility to adjust the program. The committee heard extensive testimony on all three bills but took no recorded votes or final action in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the Chrissy Field of the East Bay Shoreline.
• There are other ways to structure GGRF.
• There are many different ways to structure it.
• There are other ways to structure GGRF.
• There are many different ways to structure it.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to move the alignment of the structure to move the alignment of the structure further<00:49:24.599
• We have been undertaking studies of regional shoreline erosion and options.
• </c><01:09:44.000><c> setbacks</c> and because of the shoreline setbacks and because of the shoreline
• I live in the Holani Condominiums along the Kahana Bay shoreline.
• I urge you to take immediate action to protect Kahana Bay and the shorelines.

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard SR 18, which asks DLNR to transfer active agricultural land leases to the Department of Agriculture to support agriculture. DLNR, through Don Chang, opposed the resolution, saying the department has already been transferring parcels by mutual agreement and should not be required to transfer lands it does not consent to. Ranchers and agricultural advocates strongly supported the measure, arguing that the lands are active production areas, that partial transfers would undermine ranching operations, and that water infrastructure built by ranchers must be protected. Testimony from the Hawaii Farm Bureau and others emphasized the importance of preserving agricultural land for food production, wildfire management, and long-term ranch viability. Committee members pressed both sides on acreage, specific parcels, and whether negotiations were still ongoing, with DLNR later clarifying that some parcels remain under negotiation and that some proposed transfers have been narrowed or adjusted. Several specific ranches and parcels were discussed, including Batello, Diamond B, Delo, Nobriga, and Kapala Ranch. Witnesses described the operational importance of water systems, grazing areas, and access routes, and said that losing productive acreage would threaten business viability. Some members expressed concern that the proposal appeared to transfer productive land while leaving less useful land with ranchers, and urged the department to continue transparent negotiations and consider the practical impact on agriculture and conservation. A DLNR representative said some transfers were tied to other needs, such as transportation mitigation, and not to a broader effort to take more land. The Department of Agriculture later stated it supports the intent of the measure, but suggested its concerns would likely be addressed if the resolution were narrowed to the specific parcels at issue. The chair also announced that the related House bill on the same subject remains alive and will be heard by Water and Land on Thursday. After concluding SR 18, the committee moved on to SCR 51 and SR 33, which seek a working group to evaluate establishing and administratively placing an Office of Resilience and Recovery. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development indicated support for the concept, noting the office’s value in Maui wildfire recovery efforts.