This bill adds a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW and amends city and code city statutes to require counties and cities that plan under RCW 36.70A.040 to allow transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any urban growth area zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed, and to allow indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in zones where hotels are allowed. It prohibits requiring these housing types to be located only in industrial zones, generally bars local rules that are more restrictive than rules for other lodging or residential development in the same zone (while allowing objective development standards such as density, height, setbacks, stormwater, and similar requirements), and requires that the same permit and environmental review processes applied to other lodging or residential development apply here. If design review is used, only administrative design review may be required. For indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing the sponsor or managing agency must, between permit approval and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, submit a written certification listing specified facility, contact, community outreach, licensing, operational policies, and staffing information; that written certification constitutes full compliance with those listed certification items and a jurisdiction may not require additional certifications. The bill creates a limited proximity process: if a proposed indoor emergency shelter or housing is within 500 feet walking distance of another such facility or of the physical grounds of certain existing public or approved private schools, the jurisdiction and sponsor may negotiate in good faith for up to 180 days to agree on additional reasonable health and safety protocols; if no agreement is reached the jurisdiction may deny the permit but must assist the sponsor to find suitable properties. The proximity negotiation does not apply to shelters/housing designated for persons under 18, families, or victims of domestic violence, and nothing in that provision allows a jurisdiction to reduce capacity below projected needs identified under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii). The bill also bars local governments from imposing different requirements on affordable housing developments than on housing developments generally, allows local governments to offer preferential treatment (fee reductions, waivers, relaxed standards) for affordable housing, and permits counties or cities to contract with sponsors to set additional operational requirements in exchange for specified legal consideration (such as donated property, a long-term land lease of at least 50 years, or significant general fund contributions). The act requires affected counties and cities to adopt or amend ordinances and development regulations to incorporate these requirements within two years of the section’s effective date or by their next comprehensive plan update, whichever comes first; the act preempts conflicting local regulations and exempts facilities already in operation on the effective date from being deemed unlawful under the act. The bill also reenacts and amends RCW 36.70A.030 to include or clarify many definitions (including emergency housing, emergency shelter, permanent supportive housing, administrative design review, and others). The text provided does not include the bill’s effective date, full amended text of some cited sections (for example portions of RCW 35.21.683, RCW 36.130.020, and other cross-references are incomplete), and it does not specify enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or full lists of all certification items where excerpts are cut off.

If enacted, local governments in Washington will have to allow transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and indoor emergency shelters/housing in most residential and hotel zones and generally may not create extra, tougher rules or special locations for them. Permit review will generally follow the same objective rules and processes used for other housing (with design checks limited to administrative review), and sponsors can meet many local requirements by submitting a single written certification that documents operations, emergency contacts, community notice, and meetings. Cities and counties can still reject projects in legally restricted places (like critical areas, certain natural hazard zones, and long-term agricultural, forest, or mineral lands), and they can negotiate additional health and safety conditions or deny a permit if a proposed shelter is within 500 feet walking distance of another shelter or certain schools and no agreement is reached within 180 days, though they must help the sponsor find alternative sites. Those most affected are city and county planning departments and sponsors or managing agencies of shelters and supportive housing. Local governments will need to update ordinances and zoning rules within two years or by their next comprehensive plan update, which may require staff time and policy work; they also gain the option to use contracts to attach operational requirements in exchange for land leases or financial support but risk breaching those contracts if they change the terms later. Sponsors will likely find more siting options and fewer discretionary hurdles, lower risk of unpredictable local requirements, and clearer upfront certification steps, though they may face delays or denials under the proximity negotiation rule and must conduct community notifications and meetings. Some important details are missing from the extracted text—such as full formal definitions of certain housing terms and the act’s effective date—so practical timing and some scope questions remain unclear.