Bill to require clear, objective residential development standards advances amid debate on local flexibility
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Bill 5613 would have the Department of Commerce develop model clear-and-objective standards and allow cities/counties to adopt only clear-and-objective requirements for residential development under certain conditions; supporters argued it would reduce delay while counties and planning groups warned about one-size-fits-all rulemaking.
Senate Bill 5613 would direct the Department of Commerce to convene a stakeholder group and adopt by rule a model code of clear-and-objective standards, conditions and procedures for residential development. Under certain conditions the bill would allow cities and counties under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to adopt and apply only clear-and-objective rules for residential development; the bill also sets definitions and a process for the Growth Management Hearings Board to review compliance.
Proponents including home builders, Master Builders, and several land-use attorneys said clearer, objective standards reduce subjective, multi-round reviews and lower time and cost to build housing. "Regulatory clarity and consistency should be the standard," attorney Dean Williams told the committee, adding that vague provisions such as "to the greatest extent possible" lead to multiple rounds of review and delays. Sightline Institute and other witnesses said a statewide model would provide predictability for builders, local government staff, and neighbors.
County associations and planning directors supported the goal of predictability but raised concerns that a model adopted as a rule could produce a one-size-fits-all approach that would not accommodate local circumstances. The Washington State Association of Counties noted the bill’s requirement that Commerce adopt the model by rule could reduce local flexibility; county planning directors said they needed more time to analyze possible local impacts. Sponsor Senator Solomon said the bill intentionally creates a stakeholder process and a model safe harbor so that courts and localities do not develop the doctrine piecemeal through litigation.
The committee received many pro testimonies (vice chair reported 50 signed pro, 19 con, 1 other) and several builders and attorneys recounted multi-year, multi-round reviews of single-family projects as evidence for the need for clearer rules. Sponsor Senator Solomon emphasized he sought to avoid Oregon-style litigation outcomes by using a stakeholder-developed model code as a predictable safe harbor for jurisdictions that adopt it.