Before the Senate passed HB 2418, it had more changes to make to address permit processing timelines. In addition to the changes made by the Senate Local Government Committee (below), the bill now excludes the following two periods from the shot clock:

• During which a draft or final environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance under the State Environmental Policy Act; and
• Between issuance of a final project permit decision and the expiration of the applicable administrative appeal period.

The second exclusion is a bit odd since the shot clock ends when a final permit decision has been made. The bill also clarified the decision-making authority of “permit responsible official.” To officially pass the Legislature, agreement must be reached on the changes by the House.

Permit processing bill receives more amendments in committee

February 27, 2026

HB 2418 was voted out of the Senate Local Government Committee but not before the committee made its mark on the bill.

The amendments:

• Clarify that an application for referrals to a special purpose district or public utility district is complete when the referral includes all materials required to constitute a complete application under the district's adopted procedures;
• Establish that for routine infrastructure extensions or connections that do not require specialized engineering analysis or external regulatory approval, the district shall provide written comments within 45 business days (rather than 50 calendar days);
• Extend the period for completing the review or issuing a decision up to 60 business days (rather than 70 calendar days) when a proposal involves complex infrastructure or requires specialized engineering review, regulatory coordination, or third-party technical consultation; and
• Modify the requirement that a local government designate a single point of contact and clarify that the designation of a single point of contact does not confer final decision-making authority unless otherwise provided under local ordinance.

The bill is now in the Rules Committee and has until 5 pm on Friday, March 6, to be voted out of the Senate to stay alive.

Refined permit process review bill is alive and moving

February 20, 2026

HB 2418 dropped the vesting provisions early in the legislative process and is now focused solely on permit processing timelines and procedures. The bill has been heard in its Senate policy committee and is scheduled for a vote.

Here is a snapshot of what the bill requires:

• Specifies that a determination of completeness made by a city on a project permit application must be based on whether the permit is procedurally complete and is not a substantive review of the application;
• Requires certain government entities, other than counties and cities, to complete the review of a project permit application related to a residential project within certain deadlines and provides that, if the deadline is missed, the government entity must refund 20% of the permit review fee; and
• Requires local governments to designate a permit-responsible official with authority to issue final administrative decisions on residential project permit applications and to designate a single point of contact on each project permit application.

Date to remember

HB 2418 is scheduled for a committee vote in the Senate Local Government Committee on Monday, February 23, at 1:30 pm.

Bill proposes reforms to project permit vesting & permit shot clocks

January 16, 2026

In yet another iteration of focusing on the local permit counter when intending to address the state’s housing affordability shortage, HB 2418 wades into what is a very complex area of land use law: vesting. Which land use laws apply to a development permit, also known as vesting, has been a combination of common law and statute. Its complexity has been the subject of law review articles (thank you, Roger Wynne) and contentious stakeholder workgroups. Despite this bill’s good intention to provide a way forward through this “thicket,” it only adds more confusion.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Davina Duerr (D–Bothell), does the following for project vesting:

• Requires that a project permit application for residential housing in an urban growth area be reviewed under the development regulations in effect at the time that the application was determined to be complete, with certain exceptions;
• Stipulates that an unpaid fee or unposted notice shall not withhold a determination of completeness and the vesting start date;
• Does not vest ordinances related to building permits, floodplain management, water pollution control, permit and impact fees, or utility rates or charges;
• Does not alter city authority under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review; and
• Requires vested rights to be maintained for a minimum of two years for applications containing 50 or fewer residential units, and a minimum of three years for projects containing more than 50 residential units. Submittal of a building permit extends these periods.

Regarding the permit shot clock under RCW 36.70B.080, the bill:

• Pauses the clock until applicable fees are paid or notices are posted or delivered;
• Pauses the clock when a local government has completed its work but another government entity has not;
• Adds a provision that requires other government entities to be held to the same permit deadlines as local governments; and
• Requires local governments to identify a single point of contact for each permit application.

Although the language could be clarified regarding the permit shot clock provisions, we don’t think these present an issue. Please let us know if you have a different perspective. On the vesting requirements, we have received initial feedback that indicates this issue is far better suited to a stakeholder process due to its complexity and the risk of unintended consequences.

Date to remember

HB 2418 is scheduled for a committee vote in the House Local Government Committee on Friday, January 23, at 10:30 am.