Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners briefed on new state permitting clocks under House Bill 5290 and local code implications
Summary
Staff reviewed House Bill 5290 implementation: new calendar‑day review clocks (65/100/170 days depending on permit type), reporting requirements to the Department of Commerce, and fee‑refund provisions when the city misses deadlines; commissioners discussed stop‑the‑clock exceptions and next steps for code and fee updates.
City planning staff reviewed a state law change that took effect Jan. 1 and described local code changes, time clocks and operational adjustments the Planning Commission will consider this year.
Kate and Hannah summarized House Bill 5290 (referred to by staff as the new local permitting law), emphasizing three calendar‑day review categories: administrative permits without notice (65 days), administrative decisions with notice but without a hearing (100 days), and permits requiring notice and a public hearing (170 days). Staff said the law uses calendar days and that the new clocks apply once an application is deemed complete.
Staff explained consequences for missed deadlines: the city must refund portion(s) of collected fees (a percentage varies by which clock is missed and by how much). Staff said the city can still reduce up‑front fee collection or hold back a portion of a fee, but if the jurisdiction misses a clock the statute requires partial refunds. Kate said staff will need to amend Title 3 (fees) and other code sections to comply with the new law and to set internal procedures for reporting to the Washington State Department of Commerce.
Commissioners raised practical questions about how the clock interacts with existing statutory review periods that already apply to some items (for example, final subdivisions have a 30‑day clock and preliminary subdivisions a 90‑day clock). Staff said the new law does not supersede those existing timelines in all cases and that they will include footnotes in the proposed code to reflect the interaction between old and new timeframes.
Staff also described stop‑the‑clock situations that remain in current practice: staff can stop the clock to request missing information, to address required corrections during a notice of application period, or where the applicant needs to resolve issues. Kate said those exceptions persist, but there are new reporting obligations and a requirement to refund fees when the city misses statutory timeframes.
Staff recommended some internal permit‑type reclassifications to align with the new law and improve transparency. Examples included moving administrative interpretations to a noticed decision (so neighbors can be alerted when an interpretation could affect a property), creating an express SEPA‑exempt site‑plan path for straightforward site plans, and treating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) reviews as a simpler Type 1 action where possible now that state ADU requirements have loosened.
Hannah and Kate said the department is preparing required reports to the Department of Commerce summarizing 2024 land use permits and processing times, and that staff will return with proposed code language and fee changes for the commission’s review.
Commissioners asked whether missing the time frame causes automatic approval; staff said missing a statutory decision deadline can lead to “deemed approval” under existing state law for some permit types, and that the new law focuses on refunding fees rather than removing the city’s ability to continue substantive review in all cases.
