The Importance of Streamlining Your Development Review Process

Washington State has seen a major push to update local comprehensive (comp) plans, with revisions to development regulations and procedures necessary to implement the new policies. Local governments must incorporate the updates into permitting processes and ensure the processes are efficient.

This blog will cover recently enacted laws related to local development permit processes and highlight good examples of processes that are efficient and streamlined.

The Challenge

When implementing updated comp plans, local government should have strong land use regulations that reflect local priorities, but equally important, local development permitting processes should not unnecessarily slow down project review and approval. This is especially important encourage the growth of affordable housing stock statewide.

Implementation of a local comp plan, especially its land use and housing elements, will fall primarily to private sector and (to a lesser degree) nonprofit sector developers. A development review approval process that increases the time spent on review/revisions and creates a high degree of uncertainty for any developer may scare off the type of new development that a local government is trying to encourage.

Conversely, an efficient and customer-friendly process that clarifies procedures and removes unnecessary steps will be appreciated by both applicants and staff. It should be noted that this type of “permit streamlining” should still require applicants to meet all necessary zoning and development regulations.

When it comes to new development, there are several different actions that can be taken to encourage these projects, and making improvements to your local development permit review process should be high on the list.

What Does an “Efficient and Streamlined” Development Review Look Like?

Washington’s Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B) requires most cities, towns, and counties to coordinate land use and environmental review processes in order to provide developers and the public with decisions that are objective, predictable, fair, and timely.

With simple building projects and over-the-counter permits (such as the issuance of electrical and plumbing permits), meeting such a requirement can be easy. The challenge arises with big and complex development proposals that involve different zoning and other regulatory standards, multiple layers of review, and coordination between several agencies, departments, and stakeholders.

For more complicated development proposals, it is especially important to make sure the permit review process is as clear, efficient, and streamlined as possible. Again, the focus is on process improvements and not weakening a community’s adopted zoning and development standards.

Recent Changes to State Law

In 2023, SB 5290 made several changes to RCW 36.70B that emphasize the timeliness and predictability of local development project review and decision-making. New permit review timelines were established for project permit applications submitted to GMA-planning jurisdictions after January 1, 2025 (see RCW 36.70B.080). These are as follows:

• For projects that do not require public notice under RCW 36.70B.110, the final decision must be issued within 65 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070.
• For projects that do require public notice under RCW 36.70B.110, the final decision must be issued within 100 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070.
• For project permits which require both notice under RCW 36.70B.110 and a public hearing, the final decision must be issued within 170 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070.

The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) offers a Local Project Review Fact Sheet for more details.

HB 1293 (also adopted in 2023) requires municipalities only use clear and objective design standards when reviewing a building’s exterior, with the goal being to increase certainty for applicants. In addition, the bill contained language regarding expedited review processes for low- and moderate-income residential development projects.

This year HB 2418 was adopted, making more revisions to RCW 36.70B. Under this bill, special purpose and public utility districts must adhere to established review timelines for residential permits or face financial consequences if these are missed. It also requires local governments to improve project coordination by designating a permit-responsible official for residential project permits as well as a single point of contact for each project permit application by the end of June 2027. See Commerce’s House Bill 2418: Key requirements for more information.

Areas of Potential Process Improvement

From the perspective of a municipal reviewing agency, a “standard” land use-related development review process (unlike the process for over-the-counter permits and simple building permits) typically involves the following steps:

• Hold a preapplication conference (either optional or mandatory)
• Accept project permit application (and SEPA checklist when required)
• Issue a Determination of Completeness (DOC) or Incompleteness (DOI)
• Issue a Notice of Application (NOA), once the application is determined to be complete
• Request public comment (and provide notice of a hearing, when applicable)
• Review the proposed development application and related information
• Issue a Notice of Decision (and associated SEPA determination, when applicable).

Within that general framework, there are several areas where local governments could consider making changes to streamline their development process (beyond what is specifically mandated by state statute), some of which were highlighted in MRSC’s Tips for Timely and Predictable Local Government Permitting, including:

• Integrating software
• Pre-application materials & assistance
• Reviewer coordination and training
• Requests for revisions from applicants
• Staffing and budgeting
• Focus on the DOC

In discussions with local development permitting staff, Commerce has noticed that “achieving completeness” appears to be one of the bigger streamlining issues.

Govstream.ai states that up to 70% of initial applications arrive incomplete. This bogs down the development review process, with revised application materials needing to be prepared and then re-reviewed by local staff. Below are some suggestions for helping move project proposals to DOC status.

Make processes user-friendly

Permitting agency should make information about the local permitting process clear, user-friendly, and easy to find. Good examples of this approach include:

• Bellevue Getting Started (contains helpful information and links); and
• Olympia Building Permits Checklist (centralizes permit checklists, fee schedules, engineering forms, etc.).

Make the pre-application conference mandatory

Permitting agencies can also make the pre-application conference mandatory for medium- and large-scale development projects, as allowed by state law.

Pre-application meetings allow a developer to receive helpful information about the development permitting process and ask questions of staff—before spending time and money to prepare an application.

Several local governments already require them, including Kirkland and Vancouver. In addition, the cities of Issaquah and Renton make it easy for applicants to schedule one-on-one online meetings with permit staff.

Use AI to streamline processing

Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to make development permitting systems more efficient and streamlined. While this is an emerging approach, there are a few Washington communities that are either already using AI in their development review processes or exploring its use.

Bellevue is currently testing out a pilot program, with the early results showing success (e.g., “3 times more applications arrive complete on the first submission”). Seattle has issued an evaluation of its AI pre-screening pilot project, and Everett, Port Orchard, and Stanwood are also in the process of testing out similar programs.

It seems evident that AI will help with process efficiency, but that it is not the final solution. As Chiranjay Shah with Emulate Cities told me:

AI cracks one of [the planning] profession's oldest problems: extracting the data… A tool that only pulls text out of documents has done the easy 80%… [But] AI alone cannot make the discretionary calls, won't interpret policy in the grey areas, and can't yet hold the institutional memory a planner does.

Create an application form that works across several jurisdictions

Another option, with a particular appeal to developers working in multiple jurisdictions, is to create a common application form and permitting process. For example, 13 Puget Sound jurisdictions participate in the regional MyBuildingPermit program. Building officials and permit staff across several cities share best practices, collaborate on building standards, and develop materials to help applicants navigate the permitting process.

Other Examples of Streamlining Processes

Other noteworthy examples include:

• Seattle Priority Permit Handling for Publicly Funded Low Income Housing – Provides early scheduling of pre-submittal conferences, prioritized status for master use permit, construction, and street improvement permit reviews.
• Tacoma
  • Expedited Permit Processing and Fee Reductions (for affordable housing)
  • Middle Housing Streamlined Permitting – Offers reduced review timelines, consolidated permit authority, dedicated review teams, single point of contact, free pre-development meetings, and pre-submittal checklists for middle housing projects; currently in a pilot phase (January 2026-January 2027).

Additionally, Lynnwood’s Annual Permit Performance Report is an excellent example of how a city can meet the website posting requirements in RCW 36.70B.080.

Conclusion

The review of medium and large development proposals is, almost by definition, complicated and time-consuming. It is crucial for a local reviewing agency to ensure that such developments meet local and state regulatory requirements. At the same, local development review process should be customer-friendly and timely, so as to not discourage the type and amount of new development needed to implement a municipality’s comp plan.

Taking steps to create an efficient and streamlined process will likely result in a win-win end result that benefits all participants involved.

More information may be found in the following resources:

• MRSC Planning and Development Permit Review
• Seattle Can AI speed construction permitting? What we learned from testing automated application screening (2026)
• Washington State Department of Commerce Local Project Review Guidebook (2025)