Planning and Development in Washington State

Abstract / Executive Summary

Planning and development review processes vary significantly by local jurisdiction. This report explores each segment of those processes.  

‍

Highlights

• Counties tend to employ double the planning and review staff that cities employ.
• Most jurisdictions reported having minimum lot size requirements.  
• No consistency in jurisdictions’ permit or zoning change review processes.  
• With some exceptions, the larger the jurisdiction, the more inspections they require per project.
• Impact fees vary widely throughout jurisdictions and can be changed at any time during the year.  
• Classification of “missing middle” housing types (condos, townhomes, etc.) are not applied consistently across jurisdictions.

‍

In the remaining pages, readers will develop an understanding of the differences between jurisdictions, how changes to laws and regulations impact review times, and ways applicants and other state agencies may help streamline these processes.

‍

Background

‍

BIAW invited every city and county in the state to respond to the survey, Planning and Development in Washington State, A Survey of Cities and Counties. Of 320 jurisdictions in the state, 66 responded.  

‍

The information in the following pages are self-reported data points and personal perceptions of respondents who work in departments such as planning, community development, and code administration. For purposes of this study, we were not interested in gaining perspectives of elected officials of the jurisdictions surveyed.

Methodology

‍

To begin this study, BIAW utilized the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index survey questions devised by Professor Joseph Gyourko of the Real Estate Department of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Gyourko is a well-known and respected professor and researcher, with multiple academic papers published in the National Bureau of Economic Research.  

‍

From this starting point, we added a series of questions BIAW staff are continually asked throughout the year. A few examples include:  

‍

• How many inspections do jurisdictions require?
• How long does it take to process a permit in each jurisdiction?
• How can the building industry better support the jurisdiction in their permitting and planning review process to reduce project delays?
  ‍

For a full list of questions posed to jurisdictions, please refer to Appendix: Exhibit A.  

‍

BIAW staff compiled email addresses from each municipal website and emailed all staff listed at that time in early 2023 a link to the survey.  In situations where jurisdictions are small and/or staff emails were not listed, we sent the survey to the head administrator for distribution to the correct staff person.

Most survey respondents represent departments such as Community Planning, Code Administration, and Development/Engineering.

‍

BIAW kept the survey open for 60 days to allow for ample time for jurisdictions to answer the survey questions thoughtfully and completely. We did receive feedback on a few of the questions and will improve those questions in the next iteration of this study.  

‍

For the purposes of this report, we will split counties and cities into two subsections.

‍

^{*Please note: These are self-reported data points from each jurisdiction. If you believe there are inconsistencies, please let your jurisdiction know independently so they can improve internal reporting processes.}  

‍

Results by County

‍

County Staffing Levels

‍

One frequent question that arises when comparing jurisdictions is what is the appropriate level of staffing for the planning and/or development departments?

‍

On average, counties employ:  

• 4 permit technicians
• 8 plan reviewers  
• 5 inspectors  

‍

‍

Regulatory Landscape by County

We next wanted to understand which regulations were present in counties, with a strong interest in minimum lot sizes. While there are sometimes good reasons for minimum lot sizes, such as to include mandatory setbacks, larger lot size minimums can disincentivize development of smaller square footage homes and Accessory Dwelling Units.  

‍

Our findings suggest an average minimum lot size is 5,300 square feet, with counties self-reporting the presence of three or more of the five regulations we asked about in our survey.  

‍

‍

‍

Re-zoning in Counties

We were also interested in understanding re-zoning experiences on county land. The following tables showcase self-reported timelines from counties, dependent upon housing project type and size.  

Regardless of re-zoning application type, the most frequent timeframe referenced was 2+ years from submission to approval. Only one county reported placing limits on any single or multi-family projects, specifically noting they put a limit on the number of units they will authorize in multi-family buildings.

The next set of questions related to land-use was aimed at determining how counties perceived their current supply for specific land-use types. Interestingly, respondents indicated that single and multi-family land supply was about right.

‍

‍

‍

In the same line of questions, we also asked respondents to estimate how much the cost to develop land and lots has increased over the last 10 years. Most respondents indicated costs had increased in the 21-40% range – including costs to develop any lot and single-family only.

‍

‍

Permitting Trends by County

Turning our questions to permitting processes, we sought to understand how counties tracked housing permits by type. We found inconsistencies in townhome and condo permits. Some counties included townhomes in single-family permit counts, while others included them in multi-family permit counts. The same is true for condos, though most put those in the multi-family category or did not report separately at all.  

‍

As it relates to timelines from application submission to project approval, the data illustrates inconsistencies across the board. This is unsurprising as our respondents were limited in number and not every county surveyed was able to provide data points.  

Counties generally reported taking more than two years to approve permits for townhomes and condo projects. The average approval timeline for single-family permits was 5.5 months.  

‍

‍

‍

We were also curious how counties felt approval timelines have changed over the last ten years. Half indicated some change or a somewhat longer timeframe.

‍

‍

‍

Next, we asked what method respondents to allow applicants to submit permits and track approval. We are proud to report 56% of respondent counties reported using electronic methods for both submission and process tracking. MRSC provides a great  online list of systems counties use.  

‍

‍

Another commonly used method for streamlining permit processes is the use of third-party reviews. Of the county respondents, 75% said they allow third-party reviews – regardless of if they assessed extra fees or not.  

‍

‍

Frequency of Inspections  

Finally, we asked how many inspections were required per home in each county. According to the data provided by respondents, the average number of inspections per home is 11.

‍

‍

Impact Fees by County

Lastly, we focused questions on impact fees. Five of the counties surveyed reported they charged impact fees on new development. School impact fees were among the most common impact fee assessed.

‍

Only three counties reported the average impact fees charged for single and multi-family projects. This could be for many reasons but most frequently, respondents noted the information was difficult to find. We recognize a more holistic view of costs associated with each impact fee type would be a more powerful educative tool.  

‍

Of the counties completing this segment of the survey, only King County listed its fire impact fee at the amount of $2,840. The tables below help illustrate differences between park, traffic, and school impact fees for reporting counties.  

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Results by City

City Staffing Levels

‍

On average, cities employ:  

• 2 permit technicians
• 2 plan reviewers  
• 3 inspectors  

Regulatory Landscape by City  

We next wanted to understand which regulations were present at the city level, with a strong interest in minimum lot sizes for the same reasons denoted in the County Regulatory Landscape section of this study.  

Our findings suggest an average minimum lot size is 6,170 square feet, with cities self-reporting the presence of three or more of the five regulations we included in the survey.  

‍

Re-zoning by City

The following tables showcase self-reported timelines from cities, dependent upon housing project type and size. Regardless of re-zoning application type, the most frequent timeframe referenced was 2+ years from submission to approval. Only one county reported placing limits on any single or multi-family projects, specifically noting they put a limit on the number of units they will authorize in multi-family buildings.

‍

‍

‍

‍

The next set of questions related to land-use was aimed at determining how cities perceived their current supply for specific land-use types. In contrast to the counties, less than half of the respondents felt like supply was “about right.”

‍

‍

‍

‍

In the same line of questions, we also asked cities to estimate how much land and lot development has increased over the last 10 years. Of the city respondents, 56% indicated a cost increase of 21-40% to develop land. This places them in lockstep to the perspectives shared by their county counterparts.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Permitting Trends by City  

Turning our questions to permitting processes, we wanted to understand how cities tracked housing permits by type. Similar to the county data, we found an absence of accepted reporting methods related to condos and townhomes.

‍

‍

‍

As it relates to timelines from application submission to project approval, the data illustrates inconsistencies across cities. This is unsurprising as sizes of cities vary greatly, as does the development and building activity in each city.  

However, when taking approval timelines for both sizes of housing projects into account, 52% of cities reported the process generally took one to two years. When looking at approval timelines of just single-family permits, the average is 4 months. That number is unhelpful though when one considers the range of answers, from one month to 55 months.  

‍

‍

We were also curious how cities felt approval timelines have changed over the last 10 years and found 27% of cities thought there was some change or a somewhat longer timeframe, while 38% responded that permit approval timeframes have remained stable.

‍

‍

Next, we asked how cities how applicants submitted permits and tracked approval. Cities surpassed counties in reporting that 71% used electronic methods for submission and for review tracking.  

‍

‍

On the topic of third-party plan reviews to streamline permitting processes, 65% said they allow third-party reviews – regardless of if they assessed extra fees or not. A larger subset of cities (29%) than counties (25%) reported they aren’t considering third-party reviews as an option for their city.  

‍

‍

Frequency of Inspections by City

‍

‍

Next , we asked how many inspections were required per home in each city. According to the data provided by respondents, the average number of inspections per home is 14 – surpassing the number of inspections required by counties (11).  

Impact Fees by City  

Our final set of questions focused on impact fees. We wanted to understand which cities charged these fees and at what amount. Only 15% of cities reported imposing no impact fees. However, of the cities indicating they did charge impact fees, the most frequently utilized fees are traffic and park.  

‍

‍

Thirty-two cities reported the average impact fees charged for single and multi-family projects. The average total impact fees assessed were $8,505 for single-family and $51,578 for multi-family projects.  

The below tables help illustrate differences between park, traffic, and school impact fees for reporting cities.  

‍

‍

‍

‍

Impact Fee Discrepancies in Cities and Counties

‍

While BIAW was collecting data for this survey, we were also compiling information on impact fees. Knowing this, we opted to compare results. We discovered there is sometimes a discrepancy between what’s listed on a jurisdiction’s website and/or what was self-reported.  

Discrepancies exist due to the following reasons:

‍

• The jurisdiction does not publish fees online. This means to find out what fee is being charged, an applicant or interested party must first contact the jurisdiction, slowing down the planning phase of the project.  
• Inconsistency in charging of impact fees. For example, some jurisdictions charge based on square footage, number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms, and classification of project (single-family versus multi-family).  
• Unpredictable impact fee increases. For instance, we collected data at the beginning of 2023 for impact fees assessed in 2022. Some jurisdictions have not updated their fees since that time frame; however, others have adopted increased fees. There is no statutory requirement governing when a jurisdiction can increase fees or by how much. This makes it more difficult for builders to adequately track expenses. The result is typically a higher home sales price once construction commences.  
• ‍

Regardless of the reason behind impact fee discrepancies, all influence the ability for builders to invest in their community by housing units Washington families can afford.  

For BIAW’s data on impact fees, please see Appendix B.  

Themes in Qualitative Data

‍

We asked a series of open-ended questions and below are some highlights from responses received:  

‍

• Staffing remains a key concern. A few of the reasons include losing existing staff to employment opportunities in the private sector that pay more, other jurisdictions for promotion opportunities, and seeking a hybrid or remote work arrangements. These reasons were all cited for recruitment of new employees but once a new hire was on board, it was tough to find enough time for training (especially for smaller jurisdictions). The jurisdictions reporting lack of adequate staffing their legislative bodies to direct more funding to their departments.  
• Incomplete submissions and quality submittals, as well as public processes related to new projects, are cited as the biggest pinch points in permitting process. Several jurisdictions reported utilizing pre-application meetings to help reduce issues prior to submittal. They also suggested creating more professional development courses to help reduce the number of low-quality submittals.  
• Other reasons for permit delays included silos between departments and outside agencies, specifically storm water, energy code changes (additional complexity adds to review time) and constant changes to the GMA. Every change that demands a response or takes time to understand and implement increases review time. One jurisdiction requested state agencies playing a part in permitting also consider ways to streamline communications with local jurisdictions and permit applicants.  
• Buildable lands are disappearing, with most having critical areas. A few jurisdictions reported inexperienced builders or homeowners purchasing land without understanding the constraints of the parcel(s) they’ve purchased. It’s recommended developers and real estate agents seek professional development in this area.  
• Surges in volume of applications that come from code changes or expedited review processes. Perhaps it was the timing of the survey because there was a statewide code delay that was announced during this timeframe, but many jurisdictions noted their disdain for code changes due to the sheer volume of submittals they get before the new code goes into effect. A handful of responding jurisdictions recommended less frequent codes changes to help counter this issue.  
• Energy code is getting too complex for local jurisdictions to review and ensure compliance. Surprisingly, the energy code was referenced in most comments from jurisdictions. Not only is it more complex on their end, causing permit delay, but it’s also more complex for designers and builders to understand how to comply.  

‍

Policy Recommendations

‍

The legislature should explore ways to reform impact fees that increase costs to add to city and county housing stock. Using the city average of $8,505 of total impact fees assessed on a home, we can estimate the true cost to the homebuyer over the lifetime of their 30-year mortgage (assuming an 8% interest rate) will reach $21,263.

Jurisdictions should explore effective ways to make their permitting timelines more efficient and predictable. The range in both cities and counties in time from application to approval varies greatly and adds unintended costs to the construction of housing units. For example, each week of delay adds $1,100 to the sales price of a home. However, as one respondent pointed out, it’s not always the fault of the local jurisdiction. State agencies with a hand in project review and approval should streamline their internal processes as well.  

‍

Jurisdictions should devise a best practice for reporting condo, townhome, and ADU permits. The inconsistency in data limits research regarding levels of production and barriers to development of these housing types.  

‍

Conclusion

‍

This study was designed to help jurisdictions understand what is working (or not) among other jurisdictions in the state. Perhaps the most striking finding in this study is the inconsistent application and adoption of impact fees and associated increases. As such, we will be exploring ways to transparently track these by jurisdiction in 2024.  

‍

Lastly, we commend the jurisdictions that have found creative ways to streamline permitting processes. There were a number of respondents using third parties and/or contracting with other jurisdictions to better allocate their resources and keep timelines predictable.  

‍

‍