House Bill 2701 amends multiple provisions of Washington’s Growth Management Act and related planning statutes (notably RCW 36.70A.020 and 36.70A.070 and several sections in chapter 36.70B), adds detailed new requirements for comprehensive plan elements, and repeals a list of existing RCW sections shown in the bill header. The bill changes substantive land use law by expanding required plan goals and elements (land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, rural, transportation, park and recreation, climate change and resiliency), prescribing what each element must include (for example, inventories and analyses of housing need by income band including emergency and supportive housing, wildfire risk reduction measures, environmental justice considerations, multimodal transportation standards, and a greenhouse gas reduction and resiliency subelement), and setting limits and conditions for rural commercial/retail intensification. The bill makes significant procedural changes to project permitting and review. It amends project-permit definitions, requires local governments to issue a written completeness determination within 28 days (application deemed complete on day 29 if no determination), establishes default final-decision time limits (65/100/170 days depending on notice/hearing requirements) with specific calculation rules, creates applicant nonresponsiveness rules and limited fee-refund remedies when deadlines are missed, requires annual public performance reporting to the Department of Commerce (initial report due March 1, 2025 covering 2024), and directs that residential developments meeting zoning criteria be approved as by-right without discretionary review. The bill also limits appeals for certain nonproject actions implementing department guidance and authorizes enforcement responses for jurisdictional noncompliance, including financial sanctions and temporary rescission of real estate excise tax collection authority. The changes are primarily amendments to existing law and procedural rules rather than creation of criminal penalties; they include substantive planning mandates, new procedural timelines and remedies, definitions clarifications, appeal limits, reporting requirements, and statutory repeals. Some provisions in the extracted text are incomplete or reference other sections and a department or guidelines whose identity is not specified here, so the full scope and precise statutory wording of certain housing element, resiliency, and other amendments cannot be confirmed from these excerpts alone.

If enacted, local governments that plan under Washington’s Growth Management Act will face more detailed planning duties: comprehensive plans must explicitly address housing capacity across income levels using Department of Commerce growth projections, environmental justice, wildfire risk reduction, anti‑displacement policies, utility and capital facilities inventories with six‑year financing plans, rural development limits, and multimodal transportation and ADA transition planning. Counties and cities will need to spend more staff time and money to prepare new analyses, coordinate with special purpose districts and state agencies, and adopt or update ordinances; failure to comply could lead to state actions such as revised allotments, withholding certain revenues, or temporary loss of the local real estate excise tax authority, so there is a new fiscal and legal compliance risk for jurisdictions. The bill also tightens project permitting and appeals: local governments must declare applications complete or return them within 28 days (or they’re deemed complete), meet default decision deadlines (65/100/170 days depending on notice/hearing), refund portions of fees when deadlines are missed, publish annual permit timing reports to the Department of Commerce beginning March 1, 2025, and approve qualifying residential projects as by‑right without discretionary review. For developers and applicants this likely means faster, more predictable approvals and fewer appeal opportunities, while local governments will face greater administrative reporting and stricter timelines to manage; some important details remain unclear in the provided text (for example the full housing element language and which state “department” issues certain guidelines).