The Growth Management Act.
?
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that certain counties, and the cities within those counties, engage in planning for future population growth.? Currently, 28 counties, and the cities within those counties, are required or choose to plan under the GMA, while 11 counties, and the cities within those counties, do not fully plan under the GMA.? For planning counties and cities, the centerpiece of the planning process is the comprehensive plan.? Comprehensive plans must be updated every 10 years.? Planning counties and cities that meet certain population, growth, or density criteria must also submit an implementation progress report on the implementation of the comprehensive plan and compliance with certain legislative directives five years after their comprehensive plan has been updated.
?
Design Review.
?
Before developing land, a developer must obtain permits from the local government allowing the development.? The required permits can include land use permits, environmental permits, building permits, and others.
?
One aspect of the permit review process may include design review.? During design review, projects are reviewed for compliance with design standards adopted by a local government.? Generally, these standards are meant to ensure that new development fits in architecturally and aesthetically with existing development or with other new developments in the same area.
?
For counties and cities that plan under the GMA, design review outside of historic districts or designated landmarks must be guided by clear and objective development regulations.? Clear and objective regulations must include at least one ascertainable guideline, standard, or criteria by which an applicant can determine whether a building design would be permissible, and the regulations cannot require a reduction of the density, height, bulk, or scale of the building below what is generally allowed in the development's zoning district.
?
The process for conducting design review can vary. ?In some counties and cities, the design review is conducted by design review boards, and can include public hearings.? No more than one public design review hearing can be required in counties and cities that plan under the GMA.? In other cities or counties, or for other projects, the design review may be conducted administratively.? Under administrative design review, an application is reviewed by the planning director or a designee based on objective design and development standards, and does not include a predecision public hearing unless required by state or federal law.??A city may, however, use a public hearing?or a design review board to consider requests for variances from the applicable design review standards.?
?
For those counties and cities planning under the GMA, only administrative design review can be required on middle housing development projects.?
?
Architectural drawings are often required to be submitted along with a development permit application.? These drawings can include site plans, floor plans, and elevation drawings, among others.? Multiple copies of the drawings may be required to be submitted with the application.
Clear and objective design review standards must include one or more standards by which an applicant can determine whether a building design would be permissible.? Under administrative design review, an application must be reviewed based on clear, objective, and ascertainable design and development standards. ?A county, as well as a city, may use a public hearing or?design review board to consider requests for variances or design departures from applicable design review standards.?
?
When reviewing a housing development permit application, counties and cities planning under the GMA may not require more than administrative design review, unless additional review is required by state or federal law, or the development involves the alteration or removal of a structure that is a designated landmark or within a historic district. ?Counties and cities planning under the GMA must comply with this limitation within six months of their next comprehensive plan update or implementation progress report, whichever is sooner.
?
Counties and cities planning under the GMA may not require the submission of more than one architectural drawing set of one design concept as a prerequisite to the review of a housing development permit application.
Compared to the original bill, the substitute bill:
(In support) This bill seeks to acknowledge that we're in a housing emergency and takes a step to fix that.? The permitting process can take years, and with high interest rates, it is obviously less likely that housing will be built when there is more uncertainty or more steps in the process.? There are sometimes dozens of meetings held on an application to try and reach an agreement.? Design review should be done administratively, which helps advance the GMA's goal of permitting predictability, which serves residents and applicants alike.? Developers have resorted to paying cash or handing out vacations in order to try and convince residents to drop objections, which is not what we want when we're trying to get housing built.? This bill would have design standards applied by professional staff, and would remove one element of uncertainty to help housing be built.? This will help increase the supply and density of housing while respecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods.? The bill would also require that only one set of architectural drawings would need to be submitted, as boards now can require three sets of drawings.? Much of what is included in design drawings isn't needed for design review.? The portion of the bill dealing with requiring objective design standards should be retained, but should remove the reference to guidelines, as those can be subjective.? The term "design departure" should be used instead of "variance."
?
(Opposed) There is concern that the language about clear and objective standards is being removed.? The intent of the bill is good, as it is addressing housing challenges, but the clear and objective standards are needed to allow builders to hold cities accountable.
?
(Other) There is support for the intent of the bill, but there is concern about the recent legislation about objective design review standards that is being struck by the?bill.? Hopefully that language can be restored.? Design review results in better outcomes, especially if it is more than just administrative design review.? Only allowing administrative review disincentivizes local participation in government.? The opportunity for design review should be increased to allow for more local participation.
(In support) Representative Amy Walen, prime sponsor; and Joseph Tovar, American Planning Association Washington Chapter.