Lawmakers consider bill to require "clear and objective" residential development standards

Senate Bill 5,613 was heard by the House Housing Committee on March 20. The bill directs the Department of Commerce to create a stakeholder work group to analyze development regulations that create barriers to housing, produce a model code of clear-and-objective standards for residential development, and require fully planning cities and counties to adopt only clear-and-objective regulations for residential development within urban growth areas by January 1, 2029, or face a statutory cause of action.

Sponsor Senator Jesse Solomon described the intent as reducing permit uncertainty caused by subjective or inconsistent development regulations: "What we are often faced with when people try to build homes is a system of local development regulations that are unclear, hard to understand, hard to predict," Solomon told the committee. He said the bill would create a stakeholder-driven model code and a safe harbor for jurisdictions that adopt the model or substantially similar regulations.

Proponents, including industry representatives Andrea Smiley (Building Industry Association of Washington) and Alex Herr (Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties), said clear-and-objective standards create predictability for builders and can reduce cost and delay. Planning and permitting professionals, including Joseph Tovar, supported the bill's definition of clear-and-objective as rules not requiring personal or subjective judgment and said the bill preserves an option for applicants to use an alternative, subjective review process if the applicant chooses it.

Local-government representatives raised concerns. Curtis Steinhauer of the Washington State Association of Counties and Carl Schroeder of the Association of Washington Cities said a one-size-fits-all model code would be hard to apply across diverse jurisdictions and could create legal exposure for cities that retain locally tailored standards (Steinhauer asked that certain conditional-use-related regulations be exempted). Cities and counties also questioned whether the model code could reasonably provide a safe harbor for both Seattle-sized cities and very small rural jurisdictions.

Committee members sought details about how the Commerce-led stakeholder process would interact with local code updates and with other bills in the committee that tackle model codes and housing element reviews. Witnesses and sponsors said the model-code work would be coordinated with Commerce and stakeholders and that the bill was designed to make compliance easier rather than impose unfunded mandates.

No committee vote was taken; stakeholders said they would continue to work with the sponsor on technical clarifications, including exemptions for certain environmental or conditional-use processes.