Bill would let certain residential permits proceed if jurisdictions miss review deadlines, sponsors say

Representative Connors introduced House Bill 1438 and said the bill aims to speed permitting for certain residential projects by allowing an application to proceed if a local government does not act within statutory timelines and the application meets specified conditions.

Committee staff Kellen Wright summarized the relevant statutory timelines that are now in effect under previous legislation (effective Jan. 1): after an application is deemed complete, a local government must issue a final decision within 65 days if no public notice/hearing is required, 100 days if notice but no hearing is required, and 170 days if both notice and hearing are required. Wright said HB 1438 would allow an application to be approved automatically (subject to exceptions for “serious public health or safety concerns”) if the project is inside an urban growth area, contains at least one residential unit, and the plans are prepared and signed by a licensed architect or professional engineer.

Sponsor Representative Connors said licensed architects and engineers “are highly licensed, very professional folks” and argued permitting delays add cost and slow housing supply; she told the committee she had heard permitting delays can add about $30,000 to the cost of a home in some cases and said she is willing to limit the proposal to smaller residential projects (single‑family and middle housing) if needed.

Supporters from the Building Industry Association of Washington and others said the measure would help jurisdictions that lack staff and would reduce costs tied to permit delays. Andrea Smiley of the Building Industry Association said, citing a housing study, that every week of delay can add on average about $1,100 to the cost of a home and that the bill’s focus on urban growth areas helps limit environmental concerns.

Opponents, including the Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO), raised safety and enforcement concerns. Tim Woodard of WABO asked how “serious public health or safety issues” would be defined and whether automatic approvals would shift the burden for correcting code deficiencies to downstream corrections in the field. He warned the bill does not require independent third‑party review and said architects and engineers may not want added liability if certification becomes effectively binding without local review.

Judge (director of research) Gluck of the Manhattan Institute testified in favor of the bill’s approach to reducing delay and pointed to other states (Florida, Texas, Tennessee) that have used third‑party or expedited permitting mechanisms.

Committee members asked about completeness of applications, jurisdictions’ staffing limits, potential misuse of third‑party reviews and the balance between speed and public‑safety oversight. Several committee members said they were open to narrower versions that focus on smaller residential projects and stronger safeguards for public‑health and safety issues.

The measure was presented as a public hearing; no committee vote was recorded in the transcript.