This bill adds a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW that generally prohibits cities or counties (as defined by being required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and having a population of 30,000 or more per the Office of Financial Management under RCW 43.62.030) from excluding residential uses in areas zoned for commercial or mixed-use development. It prohibits local governments from conditioning residential housing in those zones on mixed use, ground-floor commercial or retail, and from requiring conditional use permits, special use permits, or departures from development regulations or design guidelines based on location, siting, orientation, or architectural design features of residential or mixed-use development. The section also clarifies that it does not require a city to issue a building permit when other federal, state, or local permit requirements are not met. The bill creates a regulatory/procedural change and a state preemption over conflicting local rules by adding a new statutory provision to chapter 36.70A; it does not create a new criminal offense or change criminal penalties. It lists specific exceptions to the prohibition, including industrial zones that bar residential uses (except caretaker’s quarters), lots within 3,200 feet of an active oil or gas refinery, demolition of locally designated historic landmarks, areas outside urban growth areas, areas where residential uses are prohibited under RCW 36.70.547 or 36.70A.530, waterfront lots where shoreline programs prohibit multifamily or mixed-use (except caretaker’s quarters), and critical areas governed by critical area ordinances (with a stated allowance for a single-family house in critical aquifer recharge areas if recharge requirements are met). The section requires jurisdictions to adopt or amend local ordinances, regulations, or other official controls to comply within one year after the section’s effective date; if they fail to do so, the subsection prohibiting exclusion of residential uses automatically takes effect and supersedes, preempts, and invalidates conflicting local regulations. The extracted text does not provide the section’s effective date, the precise new section number in chapter 36.70A, definitions for terms like “commercial,” “mixed-use,” “caretaker’s quarters,” “critical area,” or “urban growth area,” or any enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or detailed procedures for adopting the required local changes.

If enacted, medium and large Washington cities and counties (those with populations of 30,000 or more as determined by the Office of Financial Management) will generally lose the ability to block housing in areas zoned commercial or mixed-use and cannot force ground-floor retail or special design or conditional-use approvals as a condition of allowing housing in those zones. That will make it easier and faster for developers to pursue residential projects in many commercial corridors, because local design and use-based hurdles that can delay or prevent housing will be limited; however, city building permits can still be withheld if other state, federal, or local permit requirements are not met, and several clear exceptions (industrial zones, locations near refineries, historic landmarks, areas outside urban growth areas, shoreline rules, and critical areas) will continue to allow exclusions. The direct burden falls on affected cities and counties, which must review and amend their ordinances within one year or else the rule barring exclusion of residential uses automatically takes precedence over conflicting local rules; that creates a near-term workload for planning staff and a risk of losing local control if they do nothing. Developers and housing applicants are likely to face fewer discretionary barriers and lower approval costs in many places, while local governments may see changes in how commercial ground-floor space is used and must reconcile those changes with existing shoreline, historic preservation, and critical-area protections. Important details are missing from the extracted text—most notably the section’s effective date, precise definitions of terms like “commercial” and “mixed-use,” and enforcement procedures—so the exact timing and scope remain uncertain.