Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenmore council remains neutral on House Bill 1195 after debate over local control and administrative permitting
Summary
After an hour of questions and statements about local control and public hearings, the Kenmore City Council voted 6-1 to remain neutral on House Bill 1195. Council members and the city's lobbyist debated whether the bill would shift siting decisions for certain housing types from council hearings to an administrative process.
The Kenmore City Council voted 6-1 to remain neutral on House Bill 1195 after hearing staff and lobbyist briefings and an extended council debate about local control over land-use decisions.
Why it matters: Council members said the bill, as currently drafted, could remove opportunities for public hearings and city-council decisions when projects seek deviations from local zoning. Supporters of neutrality argued the bill is still under revision and that the city should wait for a clarified version before taking a firm position.
Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director Debbie Bent introduced the item and noted the bill is still evolving. Lobbyist Shelley Holder of Gordon Thomas Honeywell told the council that the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) is currently opposed to the bill because the present text is unclear.
"AWC is currently opposed to the bill, not because ... they're not opposed to finding a path forward on this particular policy to ensure that there is a little bit of streamlining of permitting for supportive housing," Holder said. "They're concerned with this specific version of the bill. It's really confusing. It's not exactly clear what the intent of the bill is."
Holder said the bill is in the House Rules Committee and that a revised version likely will be published if and when it moves to the floor. Bent told the council staff had not received direction from the council on a formal position and that staff had been presenting a "no position or neutral" stance to legislators.
Council debate Council member Sassen moved that the council remain neutral; the motion carried 6-1 after discussion.
Council member Marshall opposed neutrality and urged the council to take a stand. "This legislation would shut out the public from going to a hearing," Marshall said, arguing the bill would remove council-level review for projects that seek deviations from local code.
Other council members said the draft language is unclear about whether requests that currently require development agreements or council action would be converted to an administrative decision. Several members — including Council members Shrevnick and Lutzes — said they preferred to wait for a revised text and to hold public comment opportunities before taking a formal city position.
Council member Culver said he preferred neutrality at this stage because the bill appears likely to change and constituents should take their concerns directly to the state legislators handling the bill.
Roll call and outcome The clerk recorded the vote as: Council member Culver ' yes; Council member Marshall ' no; Council member Shrevnick ' yes; Council member Lutzes ' yes; Council member Sassen ' yes; Deputy Mayor Mary O'Kane ' yes; Mayor Nigel Herbig ' yes. The motion passed 6-1.
What to watch next Holder said she expects a new version of the bill to appear if the measure is pulled from House Rules and brought to the floor. Council members asked staff to return with more information once the bill text is clarified and suggested allowing public comment before the council adopts a formal position.
Ending: For now, the city is conveying a neutral position to its lobbyists and state legislators while monitoring revisions to House Bill 1195 and the Commerce guidance that could follow if the legislation proceeds.
