Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2418 makes multiple amendments to existing land use permit law (amending and reenacting RCW 36.70B.020, .060, .070, .080, and .160) and adds new sections to chapters 54.04, 43.21A, 57.08, 86.09, and 43.21C RCW. The bill primarily changes procedures and deadlines for local review of "project permit" applications: local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040 must issue a written determination of procedural completeness within 28 days or the application is deemed complete on day 29; applicants must be told within 14 days after submitting requested additional information whether the application is then complete. For permits submitted after January 1, 2025, local development regulations must specify the required contents of a completed application. The statute establishes maximum decision timeframes measured from the completeness determination (65 days if no public notice required; 100 days if public notice is required; 170 days if public notice and a public hearing are required), allows local governments to modify those periods by ordinance or resolution, and specifies how review days are calculated and excluded (for example, while waiting on applicant responses or other agency reviews). The bill adds procedural changes limiting hearings and appeals in consolidated reviews (single consolidated open record hearing and single closed record appeal in some cases), requires counties of at least 20,000 population and applicable cities to set deadlines and completeness standards, and to prepare annual performance reports to the Department of Commerce (due March 1 each year; Department publishes by July 1; initial report due March 1, 2025 with 2024 data). Local governments must establish an integrated and consolidated project permit process by June 30, 2027 with specified elements including a permit responsible official and a single point of contact. The bill also creates or clarifies financial consequences for missing review deadlines. Local governments may collect only 80% of a permit fee up front and may collect the remainder only if statutory or locally adopted review time periods are met; refunds are required when time periods are missed (10% refund if the delay does not exceed 20% of the original time period; 20% refund if delay exceeds 20%). Special purpose districts, public utility districts, certain other districts, and state review under chapter 43.21A are required to complete residential project reviews within specified timeframes tied to RCW 36.70B.080 and must refund or forgo 20% of fees if they miss those deadlines; additional detailed rules govern district referral completeness, routine and complex review time limits, and required performance reporting. Some referenced provisions and the full text of several amended or added sections are not included in the extracted facts (for example parts of RCW 36.70B.060 and .160, the remainder of subsection (1)(g)(ii) of RCW 36.70B.080, and the full contents of the new sections added to the cited chapters), so complete details and any other changes in those omitted provisions are uncertain from these excerpts.

If enacted, the bill makes local permit review timelines stricter and more predictable: local governments must say within 28 days whether a project permit application is procedurally complete or it is deemed complete on day 29, must respond within 14 days after applicants submit requested extra information, and must generally issue final decisions within statutory windows (65, 100, or 170 days from completeness unless the jurisdiction adopts different limits). Counties and many cities must set up an integrated, consolidated permit process by June 30, 2027, designate a permit responsible official and a single point of contact for residential projects, and produce annual performance reports to the Department of Commerce; utility and special purpose districts and some state review units are now required to meet similar review deadlines or refund/forgo portions of their fees (typically 20%) if they miss them. Applicants are likely to see faster, more predictable reviews and clearer notices about missing information and extensions; local governments, districts, and the named state review unit will face new administrative duties, potential revenue risk from staged fee collection and refunds, and the need to adopt or update procedures and staffing to meet notification, review, and reporting deadlines. Key implementation details are missing from the provided text, including the full language of some amended subsections, the contents of the new sections added to multiple chapters, and specific exemptions referenced elsewhere in the bill, so there is uncertainty about how some refund exemptions, precise modification rules, and the full set of required process elements will operate in practice.