The Senate Local Government Committee on Monday held a work session on ‘‘clear and objective’’ development standards, hearing from Oregon officials, Washington state staff and local practitioners about how rules that are precise and predictable can affect housing production and commercial development.

Chair Jesse Solomon opened the session by telling members, “Next, we're gonna have a work session on clear and objective development standards.” The committee heard from Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development officials who outlined Oregon’s multi‑decade statutory approach, then from Washington’s Department of Commerce on possible implementation methods, followed by developers and economic development officials who described how subjective code language and uneven permitting timelines can delay projects.

Why it matters: supporters of clearer rules say detailed, ascertainable standards reduce delays and litigation and make it easier for builders and employers to decide where to invest. Opponents and some local planners warn that rules must preserve needed flexibility for unique sites and local contexts.

Oregon’s approach and lessons
Ethan Stuckmeyer, housing services division manager at the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), summarized Oregon’s statutory history and practical experience. He said the state’s land‑use framework dates to Senate Bill 100 (1973) and that ORS 197.307 (originally enacted in the 1980s) required clear-and-objective standards for “needed housing.” More recently, he said, Senate Bill 1051 (2017) extended that mandate to all housing and House Bill 3197 (2023) clarified application in some circumstances.

Stuckmeyer said the statutory phrase in Oregon requires that “local governments may only adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing,” and that the law nevertheless allows a parallel discretionary pathway that developers may choose instead of the objective route. He and a DLCD colleague also told the committee that leaving key terms undefined has produced a substantial body of court and board decisions that, in turn, shape local practice and produce a highly litigated but well‑documented landscape.

DLCD presenters noted several practical lessons: local governments often need technical assistance and grant funding to update older codes; state agency post‑acknowledgment review provides a compliance check on local code amendments; and courts have continued to refine how objective standards are applied in areas such as building permits, public‑works standards and how the rules work outside urban growth boundaries.

Washington implementation choices
Dave Anderson, managing director of the Growth Management Program at the Washington State Department of Commerce, described statutory and administrative tools Washington already uses, including the Growth Management Act framework and the Local Project Review Act (which sets timelines and reporting duties). Anderson summarized techniques planners use to make standards clearer: numeric limits (setbacks, heights, lot coverage), graphical examples in code, statements of intent, and optional or voluntary measures that allow limited flexibility while preserving an objective baseline.

He also noted tradeoffs: increasing clarity can reduce flexibility for unusual sites, and producing a statewide model development code would be time‑consuming and require ongoing updates to keep pace with case law and statute changes. Commerce has provided grants and technical assistance tied to periodic plan updates and the Local Project Review work, and Anderson said state support can help jurisdictions modernize permit systems and development regulations.

Developer and local perspectives
Attorney Josh Friedman, who practices land‑use law in Washington, gave two project examples where subjective standards stalled progress. One nonprofit senior‑housing project received a requirement to “ensure that the final site plan will enhance and reinforce the character of the park,” language Friedman called inherently subjective and a barrier to approval. He said, “Simply put, employers and builders have less incentive to invest their resources in locations where land use rules are unclear and processes are unpredictable.”

Franklin County Commissioner Stephen Baumann, a private land developer, told the committee, “We can build it faster than we can permit it,” describing a housing project whose permitting process took about 15 to 16 months while construction has proceeded rapidly once permitted. He and other local speakers pointed to inconsistent traffic‑study requirements, unclear mitigation expectations, and variable review timelines as particularly costly uncertainties for builders.

Stephen McFadden, director of economic development and marketing at the Port of Pasco, said the business community consistently asks for predictability: “When they need to construct a new building, they have a vision of how that experience is gonna go. The more experienced they are, they begin to understand that... they should wisely anticipate delays, unforeseen costs, and they should also make room to plan for some frustration and disappointment.” McFadden added that predictable permitting and clearer rules help recruit large private investment that creates local jobs.

Examples and data presented
Oregon presenters cited planning figures, noting an estimated need to add roughly 500,000 housing units over 20 years to meet demand and a current shortfall they described as about 128,000 affordable units below 50% area‑median income and roughly 170,000 units overall; DLCD framed those as context for why clear standards matter for production and equitable access.

Local practitioners described concrete project impacts: a nonprofit senior housing project of roughly 100 units delayed by subjective design review language; a private redevelopment where a vague requirement to “promote the health, safety, and welfare” blocked a concept plan; and a Franklin County housing project whose permitting phase lasted roughly 15–16 months while construction reached about 90% completion after breaking ground in February 2024.

Outcome and next steps
There were no formal votes or legislative actions at the hearing. Committee members and presenters discussed potential next steps, including drafting or adapting model code language, investing in technical assistance and grants for local code updates, clarifying certain state statutory provisions, and considering pilot programs for urban infill. Chair Solomon signaled there may be follow‑up legislation during the session.

No formal decisions were made at the hearing; the session served to collect practical lessons from Oregon’s long experience with clear‑and‑objective mandates and from Washington practitioners on how to balance certainty and local flexibility.

Ending
Committee members said they plan to review the testimony and staff materials; several legislators signaled interest in exploring legislation or targeted guidance and in preserving local flexibility while improving predictability for housing and economic development projects.