Legislative Conference Session Report-out

By Robin Proebsting, Nabil Kamel, and Brooke Eidem

At October’s APA WA Conference, the Legislative Committee (LC) held a session that flipped the script on attendees and asked for their knowledge and expertise to educate the LC.

Session attendees participated in breakout groups to discuss five topics that were the subjects of bills from previous legislative sessions. These bills did not pass, but they are expected to be re-introduced again in future sessions.  The five topics discussed in the session were:

1. Hearing examiners (ESSB 5719)
2. Clear and objective standards (E2SSB 5613)
3. LAMIRDs (SB 5471, SB5699, and HB 1695)
4. Subdivision Standards (SB 5633)
5. Shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive (STEP) housing (HB 1195)

Proactive involvement by planners in state legislation is important—without it, planners could find themselves having to implement bills that add time-consuming procedures, are confusing, or worse, are contrary to the priorities of the chapter. As one of the LC’s longstanding members says, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”.

Session participants were asked for ideas on how to frame the problem statement, think of options for solving the problems, and provide recommendations to the LC on how to respond to future bills.  We summarized key takeaways from each of the discussion groups.

Group 1: Reducing subjectivity and politics from permit decisions by using hearing examiners (ESSB 5719).

This bill would shift decision-making authority to hearing examiners for plats and other quasi-judicial land use decisions, which would reduce the risk of decisions being made based more on politics than code criteria.

The LC heard that this idea should generally be supported, although there could be challenges to implementing it, such as a shortage of hearing examiners and the cost to local governments of hiring hearing examiners. Participants suggested that the shortage of hearing examiners could potentially be remedied with trainings by area organizations potentially like universities, MRSC, and lawyers’ associations. Costs of holding hearing could be offset by sharing hearing examiners among local governments and utilizing video conferencing platforms to provide flexibility for geographically spread-out jurisdictions. There was debate about how much of the state this bill should apply to (e.g. central Puget Sound vs. statewide).

Group 2: Requiring local governments to adopt clear and objective standards for development regulations and design standards (E2SSB 5613).

This bill aims to address concerns expressed in the development community about lack of clarity on how to comply with codes. Participants identified several challenges in implementing the bill and also pointed out ways in which the bill might not solve its stated problem.

Participants expressed a concern that adopting clear and objective standards would require a major overhaul of codes, taking significant time. While the Department of Commerce could issue guidance to help local governments, such guidance doesn’t always arrive in time for local governments to meet state-mandated deadlines. Additionally, important procedural steps like genuine public engagement, planning commission review, and legal review etc. take time, therefore years could be needed to adopt new standards.

Participants also pointed out to ways in which the bill might not do what it is intended to do. Project applicants often request flexibility from code standards, which would not be compatible with clear and objective standards. Engineering standards can also pose challenges, and revising land use and zoning standards alone would not solve these.

Participants recommended that the LC focus future bill comments on the standards that pose the “biggest tripping points that slow down the process” (rather than all development regulations), such as standards for dimensions, landscaping, and nonconformances. Participants suggested that LC should advocate for requiring a model code from the Department of Commerce well before the adoption deadline, along with expanded capacity at Commerce to audit local codes and give advice.

Group 3: Allowing LAMIRD regulation that provides flexibility in development standards to serve those communities, without opening them up for extensive, possibly urban-level development (SB 5471, SB5699, and HB 1695).

Participants noted that LAMIRDs can be difficult to regulate, because they vary widely—some are close to being urban development, some are basically a crossroads near a large agricultural facility—and different development patterns will require a different level of services. There is also a tension between creating development dense enough to provide a customer base for local businesses without requiring urban services (e.g., sewer).

Participants suggested that an effective way to structure regulations might be through creating different categories of LAMIRDs, thereby avoiding one-size-fits all standards. They also suggested that regulatory standards should also prevent urban sprawl and take natural hazards into consideration.

Group 4: Revising subdivisions standards. A recently-introduced bill (SB 5633) would have overhauled subdivision standards (chapter 58.17 RCW) to expedite and streamline the subdivision process, changing approval procedures to fully administrative decisions and to allow early review of construction drawings.

Participants noted that there is a trade-off between a quick process and one that provides genuine public input. Requiring an expedited review process also does not account for application quality. Additionally, consolidating the land division process with the construction phase could cause complications, such as when a deviation from standards is requested.

Participants suggested that non-legislative solutions may help expedite the subdivision process, such as trainings for project applicants or addressing development costs.

In future bill comments, participants recommended the LC focus on right-sizing the approval process based on the size of subdivision and/or the size of the local government. If affordability is the goal, requiring a portion of the lots be affordable should be considered.

Group 5: Shifting decision-making away from elected officials for shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing (STEP housing) and disallowing local governments from prohibiting these housing types. A benefit of a state mandate is that it would take political pressure off local governments.

Participants noted that it is important to have funding to run STEP housing well. STEP housing typically lowers property values, so it is important have equitable distribution of this housing, otherwise it will tend to go where land values are lower, concentrating the lowering of property values.

Participants proposed exploring regulating STEP housing as Essential Public Facilities. It should also consider having hearing examiners resolve disputes between local governments and applicants rather than the Department of Commerce.

The LC thanks everyone who attended this conference session and offered their expertise. Our strength and our effectiveness in Olympia comes from you. If you’re interested in continuing these conversations by joining the LC, please reach out at [email protected].