Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynnwood holds public hearing on SB 5290 permit-processing timeframes; staff says amendments merely align city code with state law
Summary
City staff presented a brief amendment package to align Lynnwood’s permit processing timeframes with state law (SB 5290); staff said no public comments were received and council closed the hearing after clarifying questions about penalties and reporting.
Rebecca Sami, a planner with the Department of Business Services, told the City Council the proposed ordinance changes are administrative updates intended to bring Lynnwood into compliance with state law on permit-processing timeframes. “All amendments that are proposed and on the screen tonight are to comply with state law,” Sami said, adding the draft ordinance appeared in the council packet and staff were available to answer questions.
Sami explained the change moves some permit-review deadlines previously set at 120 days to the new timeframes established under the state statute and that the city selected three optional measures to avoid fee-refund penalties: nonmandatory pre-application meetings, on-call consulting services for peak volume and a policy on reasonable fees. Chief planning staff were identified in the presentation as available to help implement the revised timelines.
Council members asked how the state would enforce the new deadlines and what penalties might apply if the city did not meet them. Sami said the statute provides for reporting requirements and possible refunds of up to roughly 20% of an application fee in certain circumstances but that Lynnwood had already adopted many of the best practices now being codified.
No members of the public testified either in person or via Zoom, and the mayor closed the legislative public hearing after council questions. Staff said they would incorporate the ordinance as drafted and follow up with any clarifying edits requested by council.
The hearing was procedural: no final ordinance vote was recorded during the public comment segment; staff and council indicated next steps would follow the normal ordinance adoption schedule.
