AN ACT Relating to the definition of project permit and project permit application;
HB1935 revises Washington’s land use and local permitting laws by changing the definitions of “project permit” and “project permit application” in the Growth Management Act framework. The bill clarifies that a project permit includes a wide range of local land use and environmental approvals, such as subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline permits, substantial development permits, site plan review, critical area permits, and site-specific rezones that do not require a comprehensive plan amendment. It also defines related terms such as “closed record appeal,” “open record hearing,” “open record predecision hearing,” and “public meeting” for local project permit processes.
The bill amends RCW 36.70B.020 and related provisions governing local government permit procedures. It requires local governments to exclude building permits from the project-permit definition, and it directs them to exclude interior alterations from site plan review when those alterations do not add sleeping quarters, create FEMA nonconformity, or increase square footage or valuation in a way that triggers upgraded fire access or suppression systems. Local governments may also, by ordinance or resolution, exempt certain approvals such as landmark designations, street vacations, lot line or boundary adjustments, and some construction permits from the chapter’s procedural requirements. The measure therefore narrows and clarifies which local approvals are subject to specific notice, hearing, and appeal procedures, affecting counties, cities, towns, permit applicants, and project opponents.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and largely noncontroversial. It passed the House 96-0, cleared the Senate Local Government Committee unanimously, and passed the Senate 48-1, indicating strong bipartisan agreement on the need to clarify permit definitions and streamline local permitting procedures. The available record shows no committee transcript debate, which also suggests limited public controversy in the legislative process.
The main policy tension is between standardizing permit procedures and preserving local flexibility. Supporters likely favored clearer definitions and exemptions that reduce unnecessary review for building permits and minor interior alterations, while local governments retain some discretion to exempt additional categories by ordinance or resolution. Potential concerns would center on whether narrowing the scope of project permits could reduce public participation or local oversight in land use decisions, especially for site-specific rezones, shoreline-related approvals, and other development permits. However, the recorded votes show little overt opposition, with only one dissenting vote in the Senate.