For the avid readers out there, you will recognize these bills as an approach tried for the last few sessions—changing what constitutes project permit “completeness.” The Senate bill just had a hearing, and the House bill will be heard this week. There’s a lot to unpack with these extremely similar bills – your feedback is appreciated.

HB 1519, sponsored by Rep. Andrew Barkis (R–Olympia), amends existing law that regulates how local governments must timely process project permits by first changing the definition of “project permit” to exclude building permits and site-specific re-zones that do not require a comprehensive plan amendment. The bill then:

• Require local governments to outline procedurally complete requirements on the permit application itself but allows for additional information or studies beyond the procedural review to not bar issuance of completeness.
• Requires local government to outline, in the case of an incomplete submittal, what would make the application procedurally complete in the written determination of completeness.
• Allows the written determination to be emailed.
• Requires that an application is deemed complete if the application meets submission requirements and incomplete if it doesn’t.
• Requires the permit to default to complete on the 29 day if the jurisdiction hasn't provided a written determination. Stipulates how days are counted as weekdays and not holidays or weekends.
• Requires the notice of application under RCW 36.70B.110 to be provided in 14 days, although it appears that statute already requires a notice in 14 days. More amendments are made to this statute in Section 8—we would appreciate your feedback on these.

Section 4 of the bill repeals the 120 days permit review timeline, then details very prescriptive permit review deadlines; but these are only the default if a local government does not adopt an ordinance to amend and establish their own timelines. The bill requires a local government to refund permit fee portions if the timeline is not met and if they have not adopted at least three of the expediated permit processing encouraged options in RCW 36.70B.160(1). These options are relatively reasonable policies if a city does not want the refund provisions to apply:

• Expediting review for project permit applications for projects that are consistent with adopted development regulations
• Imposing reasonable fees
• Entering into an interlocal agreement with another jurisdiction to share permitting staff and resources
• Maintaining and budgeting for on-call permitting assistance for when permit volumes or staffing levels change rapidly
• Having new positions budgeted that are contingent on increased permit revenue
• Adopting development regulations which only require public hearings for permit applications that are required to have a public hearing by statute
• Adopting development regulations which make preapplication meetings optional rather than a requirement of permit application submittal
• Adopting development regulations which make housing types an outright permitted use in all zones where the housing type is permitted
• Adopting a program to allow for outside professionals with appropriate professional licenses to certify components of applications consistent with their license
• Meeting with the applicant to attempt to resolve outstanding issues during the review process. The meeting must be scheduled within 14 days of a second request for corrections during permit review. If the meeting cannot resolve the issues and a local government proceeds with a third request for additional information or corrections, the local government must approve or deny the application upon receiving the additional information or corrections.

Finally, HB 1519 added several provisions to the optional but encouraged expediated permit processing statute; but then requires governments to adopt additional measures after January 1, 2026, during their comprehensive plan update if both apply:

1. The city adopted at least three of the “encouraged” streamlining provisions more than five years ago
2. The city is not meeting its permitting deadlines at least half the time since it’s last comprehensive plan update

SB 5473, sponsored by Sen. Chris Gildon (R–Puyallup), is very similar to HB 1519. Here’s how it differs from the above:

• Shortens the written determination deadline from 28 days (current law) to 20 days
• The permit timeline changes (Section 3) take affect January 1, 2025, instead of the effective date of the bill.
• Amends the annual permit performance reporting requirements and focuses on housing permits only; and, starting in 2025, requires posting on the jurisdiction’s website and submittal to the Department of Commerce.
• Under the optional but encouraged expediated permit actions, it takes a different approach: Where measures have been taken and permit timelines are not meeting those at least 50 percent of the time, the city or county shall, as part of the periodic update, adopt new measures aimed at reducing permit timelines. If new measures are not adopted, then RCW 36.70B.080(2)(a) (i) and (ii) shall apply. The city or county shall average the timelines for permit applications using years three through six after the last periodic update to determine if additional measures must be taken.
• Does not make amendments to RCW 36.70B.110.

We know these proposals look complicated and different. The source behind each, however, is the same—the GMA Roadmap process in 2022. Although there are some elements that may seem problematic, there is also a lot of flexibility and authority for cities determine their own approaches. We would greatly appreciate feedback on if this will work for your city or how you would improve it.

Date to remember

HB 1519 is scheduled for public hearing in the House Local Government Committee on Tuesday, February 7, at 10:30 am and is scheduled for a vote in the same committee on Friday, February 10 at 10:30 am.