SHB 1935
SignedHouse
Project permit definition
Concerning the definition of project permit and project permit application.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill clarifies and updates how Washington State defines key terms used in local land use permitting processes—especially 'project permit', 'open record hearing', and 'closed record appeal'—to ensure consistency and transparency in how local governments gather evidence and make decisions. It specifies that only formal hearings create the official record, while public meetings are for informal input only.
- Clarifies and expands the definition of a 'project permit' to include land use and environmental permits (e.g., shoreline development, critical area permits, site-specific rezones), but explicitly excludes building permits.
- Defines 'open record hearing' as a formal hearing where testimony and evidence become the official local government record, and distinguishes between predecision hearings and appeal hearings.
- Defines 'closed record appeal' as an appeal based only on the existing hearing record, with no new evidence allowed—only legal arguments.
- Defines 'public meeting' as informal gatherings (e.g., workshops, scoping meetings) where public comments are gathered, but which do *not* become part of the official record—unlike open record hearings.
- Clarifies that local governments may hold either an open record predecision hearing *or* an open record appeal hearing, but not both for the same project permit.
Who is affected
- Applicants for land use or environmental permits — Residents and property owners who apply for permits to build, develop, or modify land (e.g., subdivisions, shoreline projects, or critical area development) will be subject to clearer rules about how local governments gather evidence and make decisions.
- Local government agencies — Local governments (counties, cities, and towns) must follow new standardized definitions and procedures for how they hold hearings and record evidence when reviewing project permits.
- General public / community members — Residents who want to comment on local development projects will have clearer expectations about when and how their input will be formally considered.
- Project opponents or appellants — Appellants and opponents of project permits will have more defined rules about when and how they can appeal decisions, especially regarding what evidence can be submitted during an appeal.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By distinguishing open-record hearings (which create the official record) from informal public meetings, the bill enhances procedural transparency and due process—making it easier for everyday residents and applicants to understand when their evidence will be formally considered, reducing confusion and potential legal challenges.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Expanding 'project permit' to explicitly include shoreline and critical area permits ensures that environmentally sensitive developments undergo formal, evidence-based review—strengthening environmental accountability and giving community members clearer standing to participate in high-stakes decisions affecting natural resources.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)Defining 'closed record appeal' as one based only on the existing hearing record (no new evidence) protects against last-minute evidentiary ambushes and ensures appeals are decided on legal, not factual, grounds—making the appeal process more predictable and efficient for both applicants and local governments.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)Formally separating public meetings (informal input) from open-record hearings (formal evidence) clarifies expectations for community participation—helping residents, especially those without legal representation, know when to submit sworn testimony vs. when to focus on shaping early understanding of the project.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)By excluding building permits from the 'project permit' definition, the bill avoids overburdening routine construction reviews with complex land-use hearing procedures—preserving efficiency for high-volume, low-risk projects while focusing procedural rigor on high-impact environmental and land use decisions.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill’s exclusion of building permits from the definition of 'project permit' may create procedural inconsistency: while environmental and land use permits must follow formal open-record hearing rules, routine building permits—often high-volume and time-sensitive—will continue under existing, less-transparent local procedures, potentially leading to uneven accountability across permit types.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)The bill’s requirement that local governments hold *either* an open-record predecision hearing *or* an open-record appeal hearing—but not both—may reduce opportunities for public participation in complex projects where both early input and formal appeal rights are valued, potentially weakening procedural fairness in contested cases.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)By explicitly excluding public meetings from the official record, the bill may reduce the perceived legitimacy of informal input, especially for residents who rely on workshops or scoping meetings as their primary opportunity to be heard—potentially discouraging participation from less legally sophisticated or time-constrained community members.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(5)The bill does not provide new funding or technical guidance for local governments to implement standardized hearing procedures, which may strain smaller jurisdictions (e.g., towns with limited legal staff) to revise ordinances and train hearing officers—potentially increasing administrative delays or legal errors.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)The bill’s exclusion of comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations from the 'project permit' definition preserves local discretion over broader planning decisions, but may create a two-tiered system where high-impact, long-term planning changes face less procedural rigor than site-specific permits—potentially undermining consistency in land use governance.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents and property owners applying for shoreline, critical area, or rezoning permits benefit from clearer rules about how evidence is gathered and appealed—reducing legal uncertainty and increasing fairness. However, those seeking only building permits gain no procedural change, and may face continued variability across jurisdictions.
Local governments gain procedural clarity and consistency, reducing the risk of litigation over hearing procedures. However, smaller jurisdictions may face modest compliance costs in updating ordinances and training staff, with no new funding provided.
The general public benefits from clearer expectations about how and when their input becomes part of the official record—especially in high-stakes environmental decisions. However, those who rely on informal meetings (e.g., seniors, low-income residents) may feel their contributions are devalued if not part of the formal record.
Project opponents gain stronger procedural safeguards—especially the right to appeal on the record without surprise evidence—but lose the ability to introduce new evidence at appeal if an open-record predecision hearing was held, limiting flexibility in complex cases.