Bill to limit permit back‑and‑forth and allow certified professionals to 'deem complete' applications draws industry support (SB 5729)

The Senate Housing Committee on Feb. 19 took testimony on Senate Bill 5,729, which would change how local governments handle building permit completeness and limit the number of review cycles for project permits in fully planning jurisdictions.

Committee staff described the bill: in fully planning jurisdictions, a building‑permit application submitted with plans, computations and specifications prepared, stamped and signed by a licensed professional (architect or engineer) would be deemed complete by the city or county building department. The bill would still allow local governments to review zoning and land‑use compliance, but would limit substantial modification requests and generally cap project permit review opportunities at three requests for additional information. The measure would also narrow certain small projects that local governments must treat as project permits and exempt some minor alterations from the full project‑permit review processes.

Sponsor Sen. Joe Gildan said the bill responds to repeated, iterative review cycles that prolong approvals and add cost. “If you have a certified architect or engineer, you can have up to three reviews. So you get three rocks, not four,” he said, using a recurring industry metaphor about uncertain revision requests.

Builders and real‑estate trade groups testified in support. Riley Bench of Washington Realtors and Alex Herr of the Master Builders Association said the bill would create certainty by limiting the number of review rounds and by empowering licensed professionals to certify elements of code compliance, which could relieve pressure on local permitting staffs and reduce project timelines. Andrea Smiley of the Building Industry Association of Washington said the bill “does not mean that it's approved” when deemed complete and stressed jurisdictions would still review for zoning compliance; she called the change a reasonable mechanism for efficiency.

The Department of Ecology provided technical testimony and suggested the bill could create conflicts with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements, critical‑area protections and local shoreline master programs. Samantha Weinstein, policy manager at Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, said a project approved or excluded under the bill “may conflict with the requirement that local governments document a project's consistency with the SMA” and that Ecology had proposed fix language to staff.

No committee vote occurred on Feb. 19. Supporters asked the committee to consider the measure as part of broader efforts to accelerate housing development by reducing permitting unpredictability; state agencies requested clarifying language on shorelines and critical areas to avoid unintended preemption of protections.