Title
Amendments to the Municipal Code related to project permitting timelines - Hearing
Recommended Action
Hold a public hearing on proposed changes and if the Commission has sufficient information, deliberate and formulate a recommendation to the City Council.
Report Issue:
Discussion of potential minor amendments to the Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) to bring the code into compliance with new State law regarding permitting processing timelines. The new law breaks timelines into “buckets” based on required public process allowing more time for land use processes with more community input opportunities and vice versa for those with less. Draft changes are similar to those identified in the update but in some cases are slightly longer to accommodate for Olympia’s robust public engagement process that far exceeds state law.
Staff Contact:
Nicole Floyd, Principal Planner, Community Planning and Development, 360.570.3768
Presenter(s):
Nicole Floyd, Principal Planner, Community Planning and Development
Background and Analysis:
In 1995 the State underwent regulatory reform which resulted in significant changes to the way all jurisdictions in Washington perform Land Use Review. Reform included standardized timelines for permit processing, including total time allowed, which until now has been set at a standard of 120 days. Most jurisdictions, including Olympia, have struggled meeting this seemingly arbitrary numerical standard, especially as the technical challenges of developing the remaining vacant sites has increased. Tracking and reporting on compliance has always been required, but rewards and repercussions have been absent until now which is likely to affect the approach many jurisdictions take.
Olympia has a long-standing commitment to tracking, measuring, reporting, and most importantly improving our permit processing timelines. Timeline efficiency is a long-standing metric within community planning. Several process improvement initiatives have occurred over the years. In 2015 the City engaged outside consultants resulting in a sophisticated and efficient process for permits. Increased improvements occurred through the move to an entirely online permit system in 2018. The permit software advances allowed increased accuracy and ability of data allowing us an ability to focus on specific information and to further refine our understanding of the time-consuming parts within a permit life cycle. In 2023 The City adopted code amendments that consolidated and updated permit processing chapters to improve readability. Part of those updates was to move to the same permit typing newly adopted by the state. In this way, Olympia is further ahead of most Washington jurisdictions.
Senate Bill 5290 attempts to update the Local Project Review Act to reflect a more modern approach and an emphasis on housing development. Some of the bill focuses on ways to help jurisdictions create a digital permitting system, update permitting structures, or assistance with reporting; all of which Olympia has already implemented. Included in the bill that is applicable to Olympia are requirements for:
1) Details regarding what exactly completeness means and what days are included in the review timeline. Staff recommends minor clarifying language in code, but the change does not affect existing process.
2) Sets a range of timelines from 65-170 days depending on permit type.
a. Type I (no public process): Recommendation of 65 Days.
b. Type II (public comment period): 100 days
c. Type III (public hearing): 170 days.
Olympia generally exceeds (does not meet) these timelines. Nevertheless, staff recommendation is to apply the state suggested timelines for all but type II permits which should be increased by 20 days. Additionally, a 70 day timeline addition should be applied to particularly complicated sites where critical areas and stormwater design issues require increased review time.
3) New refund potential of 10%-20% when timelines are not met, and incentives to exempt jurisdictions from refunds when implementing best management practices for efficient project review practices. Olympia already implements several of the incentive actions listed in the bill and therefore refunds would not be applicable at this time. The bill also includes language that slowly raises the bar so that in the future refunds could be required if compliance is not met.
Ensuring all projects meet the timelines proposed will be difficult and is not guaranteed, even with the increased time on type II permits. One of the most significant factors is outside the City’s control. The adequacy of the permit plan set upon submittal is the single largest predictor of a permit’s speed through the review system. Multiple errors can cause major site design changes and project review slowdowns. Each time an applicant asks for another round of review, the City’s clock starts again. A review cycle by the City, typically takes three to six weeks. To meet the timelines outlined above no more than two cycles can occur. Often, applicants request a third or fourth round of review because it is less time consuming and less expensive than re-applying for a new permit. Many of the projects that go over the timeline do so because of extra rounds of review. Without meaningful repercussion for exceeding the timeline, the City has often allowed for additional review cycles because it is seen as better customer service. The increased emphasis on meeting timelines within the state law will result in a more rigid review cycle policy. The proposal to allow an additional 70 days for complicated sites is in anticipation of the need for a third round review on sites where coordination with outside agencies is commonly necessary.
Additional time is warranted for Type II permits because of the City’s commitment to increased public involvement in permit processing that is well in excess of what is typical of other jurisdictions or required by the State. The default timeline provided in SB 5290 simply does not account for Olympia’s process. The staff proposal includes an extra 20 days beyond the State’s recommendation which ideally will allow for the additional timelines created by project information meetings, additional public comment periods, expanded notification practices, and coordination with parties of record. If closer compliance with State recommended timelines is warranted, reduced public engagement would also be necessary.
Climate Analysis:
This proposal addresses procedural aspects of the City’s development code and will not likely result in physical changes to actual construction that would create or reduce climate impacts.
Equity Analysis:
Access to information about permits is most conveniently available through the City’s on-line permit portal. This generally provides advantages to those who have phones and computers, however those without can still access information in person at City Hall. Processing permits faster is intended to help address the housing crisis by adding to the housing supply as quickly as possible. There is a balance between speedy permit review, quality of the review, and opportunity for public input that factors into what is equitable and for whom.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
Community members typically want a robust public process and opportunity to make comments on projects. Careful balance between speed and public engagement opportunities is critical to government transparency.
Options:
1) Recommend adoption of the draft amendments to City Council as proposed.
2) Recommend adoption of the draft amendments to City Council with revisions.
3) Recommend denial of the draft amendments to City Council.
Financial Impact:
None, processing of these amendments is covered by the department’s annual budget.
Attachments:
Draft Amendments
Permitting Data