This bill amends existing law (RCW 36.70B.080) to impose new procedural requirements and timelines for local project permit reviews. Development regulations must set time periods for each permit type and procedures for determining application completeness; for permits submitted after January 1, 2025 the regulations must specify the contents of a completed application. The amendment establishes default maximum decision timeframes from a completeness determination (65 days for permits without public notice, 100 days with public notice, and 170 days for permits with notice and a hearing), allows jurisdictions to modify categories or consolidate reviews, and prescribes how review days are counted while excluding certain pause periods (requests for more information, applicant-requested suspensions, and administrative appeals). It also creates procedural rules for restarts when the applicant changes the use, allows a 30-day extension if an applicant is nonresponsive or suspends review for more than 60 days (and requires written notice of that consequence), excludes annual comprehensive plan amendments from these rules, and provides that adopting implementing resolutions or ordinances is not appealable under chapter 36.70A RCW unless they increase a review period beyond 170 days. The bill changes remedies and reporting procedures. It prescribes fee-refund and collection rules when local governments miss permit time limits (limits initial fee collection to 80%, with partial refunds of 10% or 20% depending on the length of the delay, and exceptions keyed to jurisdictions that have implemented at least three specified options under RCW 36.70B.160). Under narrowly defined conditions, if a permit decision deadline is missed a city or county must approve the project and issue building permits the next business day (applicable only in urban growth areas for projects that include residential units, have required licensed-engineer or architect stamped plans, and where the jurisdiction does not identify written, serious public health or safety issues). Certain counties and larger cities must prepare annual performance reports with specified metrics and submit them to the Department of Commerce by March 1 each year (the department must publish a consolidated report by July 1); an initial report deadline is referenced but the text is incomplete. The bill also expressly permits a county or city and an applicant to mutually agree to extend a specific permit decision deadline for any reasonable period. The provided text is incomplete in places, cuts off mid-sentence in one spot, and relies on multiple cross-referenced statutes (e.g., RCW 36.70B.070, RCW 36.70B.110, RCW 36.70B.140, RCW 36.70B.160, RCW 36.70A.215) whose definitions and procedures are not reproduced here, so the full scope and interaction of some provisions cannot be determined from the extracted facts alone.

If enacted, local governments must set clear checklists for what makes a permit application "complete" for permits filed after January 1, 2025, and generally decide permits within fixed calendar-day deadlines (65, 100, or 170 days depending on notice/hearing). If those deadlines are missed, applicants can get partial fee refunds and, for qualifying residential projects in urban growth areas with stamped engineer/architect plans and no identified serious public health or safety problems, the permit must be approved and a building permit issued the next business day. Review time stops while applicants respond to information requests, while an applicant suspends review, or while appeals are pending; if an applicant is unresponsive for 60 consecutive days a 30-day extension may be added; applicants and jurisdictions can also mutually agree to extend deadlines. Counties and cities will be most affected: they must update development regulations, track and report permit timing metrics annually to the Department of Commerce and on their websites, potentially refund portions of fees or initially collect only 80% of fees, and face faster default approvals if they miss deadlines, which raises administrative cost and public-safety risk if procedures aren’t tightened. Applicants gain faster predictability and some financial remedies but must respond promptly or face extended timelines; licensed engineers and architects may see greater demand for stamped plans. The provided text is incomplete and refers to other RCWs and a missing section, so some procedural details and the full reporting schedule are unclear.