Permit-streamlining bill draws support from builders and concern from cities, engineers over scope and liability

Committee staff told lawmakers that Senate Bill 5729 would require local governments that plan under the Growth Management Act to consider a project permit application submitted with plans, computations or specifications prepared, stamped and signed by a Washington-licensed architect or professional engineer and meeting minimum professional-liability insurance as "complete" for the purposes of the statutorily required completeness determination.

The staff briefing said the bill would not permit automatic approval of permits that do not comply with development regulations but would limit the ability of jurisdictions to withhold a completeness determination on the basis that additional information is needed; the bill also includes a provision that, after a set number of additional reviews, certain applications would be automatically approved unless the jurisdiction demonstrates a clear violation of substantive or procedural requirements. The bill would require certain licensed professionals to carry at least $1,000,000 of professional liability insurance to qualify for the stamped-complete pathway.

Supporters including the Building Industry Association and Master Builders Association said the measure could reduce permit-processing time and help get housing built. Mike Vikram, a contractor who described a 12-month delay for a single-house permit, testified about economic losses tied to permit delays and said "We got to get our permits out. This bill is a good start." Alex Herr of the Master Builders Association said focusing on the completeness determination rather than on automatic approvals might be a path forward.

But cities, county associations, professional licensing boards and engineering groups registered concerns. Karl Schrader of the Association of Washington Cities said a stamped application does not guarantee that a project complies with local setback, height or other development regulations and warned that allowing stamped plans to trigger completeness could create problematic vesting of projects to current rules. Marjorie Lund, chair of the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BORPLS), supported the bill's intent to streamline affordable housing but urged removal of language directing BORPLS to authorize insurers; she told the committee that insurance authorization is under the Office of the Insurance Commissioner and that the stamp requirement is a better mechanism to support expedited processing.

Engineering groups and code officials urged significant changes. Van Collins of the American Council of Engineering Companies of Washington said professionals owe a duty of care to their clients, not to the public or governments, and warned the bill could blur those legal lines and create new liability exposure. Micah Chappell of the Washington Association of Building Officials cautioned that automatic approvals after a fixed number of reviews set a dangerous precedent for life-and-safety oversight, and asked the committee to limit the scope to avoid unintended consequences for environmental and land-use review.

Municipal planning testimony described practical timelines: Carl Almgren, community planning manager for the city of Lynnwood, said one permit took 675 days from application to completion but that city review time during that application was only 72 days; he told the committee most long projects are prolonged by applicant-side delays. Several witnesses said the bill may be workable if narrowed to focus on completeness for residential/affordable housing projects only and if the automatic-approval and insurance provisions are clarified.

No committee vote was taken at the public hearing; members and stakeholders said they expect further negotiation and amendment if the bill moves forward.

Ending: Committee members signaled interest in continued negotiations; given concerns about liability, vesting and scope, multiple stakeholders asked for targeted amendments to limit the bill's application and to clarify insurance and enforcement roles.