By Cindy Alia 1/26/26
SB 5609 Regarding cultural resource protection for certain land use activities that are categorically exempt from the state environmental policy act. Send a comment to your legislators here. Or call 800 562 6000 and register your comment.
This bill reduces exemptions that have been in place for development of private property, expanding the types of projects that will need extensive evaluation before permitting would be allowed.
Bill Overview
Purpose: Adds a new section to RCW 43.21C (SEPA) requiring cultural resource protections (archaeological, historic, tribal sites) for certain categorically exempt land use activities (e.g., housing/infill under RCW 43.21C.229 & .240, Growth Management Act projects, future exemptions).
Key Mechanism: Exempt projects must undergo SEPA cultural review unless the agency has:
Data-sharing agreement with DAHP.
Qualifying local ordinance or DAHP-approved cultural resource management plan (DAHP sets minimum standards for ordinances per subsection 2).
Written consultation agreement with affected federally recognized tribes.
Sponsors: Senators Kauffman, Hasegawa, Lovelett, Nobles. Introduced Jan 31, 2025.
Current Status (as of late Jan 2026): Referred to Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee; public hearing scheduled for Jan 27, 2026.
Economic Impact Assessment (Including Housing-Specific Concerns & Uncertainties/Costs for Small Projects)
Elements of the bill that increaase expenses:
Jurisdictions that do not currently have agreements/plans/ordinances related to the bill would need to create and go through the procedures to gain exemptions. initailly increasing time for permitting and delaying it.
Negative Elements:
Housing Supply & Targets: Reintroduces partial SEPA reviews on previously exempt projects → slows progress on state/local housing goals (urban infill, middle housing), reduces overall units built, and delays affordability improvements in Washington's housing shortage.
Development Costs & Prohibitive Expenses: Non-compliant areas require added cultural surveys/studies (Phase 1 surveys often $5,000–$20,000+ for small sites; higher with mitigation/consultations) → total costs $10,000s–$100,000s per project, disproportionately prohibitive for smaller-scale developments or individual property owners (e.g., home additions, small infill lots) who lack resources to absorb fees, redesigns, or lost time.
Permitting Delays & Uncertainties: Extra reviews extend timelines (weeks to months); lack of uniform methodology leads to subjective/variable assessments (professional judgment on significance, tribal input variability) → increases unpredictability, risk, and potential for disputes/delays. For example, a a report for over 500 sq ft of ground distrurbance does not speed of housing production and increases costs substantially.
This will also create a significant burden on local governments to now administer DAHP reveiws for nearly all permits.
Uneven Effects: Hits smaller/rural jurisdictions and non-compliant areas hardest → creates disparities in housing feasibility and growth.
Overall: Low direct state costs (minimal agency workload per fiscal note). Primary burdens fall on local governments, developers, and property owners in non-compliant areas, with amplified risks for small projects/individual owners making some exempt activities uneconomic.
Developers and builders (especially for housing/infill projects): Face higher costs, delays, and uncertainty in non-compliant jurisdictions → reduced project feasibility and profitability.
Individual property owners and small-scale applicants: Bear disproportionate burdens from added expenses/surveys/consultations on minor exempt projects (e.g., additions, small lots) → potentially prohibitive costs/delays that deter or prevent improvements.
Housing seekers / general public (in high-growth areas): Slower housing production and supply increases → sustained high prices/rents and delayed progress on affordability/housing shortage goals.
Non-compliant local governments (especially smaller/rural): Higher administrative burdens and potential disparities in development activity.
Implementation, Standardization, and Review Concerns
Standardization: DAHP must develop "minimum standards" for local ordinances → promotes consistency in compliant jurisdictions' protections; DAHP-approved plans offer an alternative pathway.
Subjectivity Risks: No detailed statewide methodology for cultural evaluations (relies on DAHP guidelines + professional/tribal judgment) → assessments can vary significantly, increasing unpredictability, delays, and disputes in triggered reviews.
Companion/Related Bills (2025-26 Session)
No formal companion for this bill but pay attention to:
Related (overlap on SEPA exemptions/housing streamlining):
SB 5612: Expands exemptions for attached/middle housing.
HB 1749: Modifies SEPA environmental elements, Climate Committment Act.
SB 5466: Energy/infrastructure exemptions.
Context: Builds on (and potentially counters) prior pro-housing exemption expansions (e.g., SB 5412 from 2023).
January 26, 2026