This bill makes procedural and definitional changes to Washington’s Growth Management Act. It amends RCW 36.70A.030, adds a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW, and directs the Department of Commerce to convene a stakeholder work group to analyze development regulations that create barriers to housing types and to produce a clear-and-objective model code for residential development. Cities and counties are generally required to adopt and apply only clear-and-objective development regulations and clear-and-objective design standards for residential development, though an optional alternative approval process based on nonobjective appearance/aesthetics criteria is allowed only if applicants may instead use the clear-and-objective process, the alternative criteria comply with the chapter, and the alternative cannot authorize lower density than the comprehensive plan or the clear-and-objective process. Jurisdictions must have compliant regulations in effect by January 1, 2029, the rules do not apply outside urban growth areas, and jurisdictions may adopt the Department’s model code and seek Department approval. The Department of Commerce must develop and publish the model code by June 30, 2027 and establish technical and financial assistance programs and grants to help counties, cities, and community-based organizations plan and implement compliant comprehensive plans and regulations. The department must also develop a model climate change and resiliency element with other state agencies, provide mediation and facilitation services for interjurisdictional and tribal disputes (including a mandatory minimum 60-day delay when a tribe requests facilitation), and administer grant programs and guidance. The Growth Management Hearings Board’s jurisdiction is adjusted to allow it to hear a limited set of petitions, including challenges related to clear-and-objective development regulations and certain department determinations; the board must give substantial weight to the department’s expertise. The bill also clarifies many land use and housing definitions (for example, middle housing, permanent supportive housing, wetlands, active transportation, and others) and provides procedures for county population projection adjustments by the board, including a requirement that any board adjustment be documented and filed with the Office of Financial Management within ten working days and be used only for planning under the chapter. This is a procedural and regulatory change rather than a criminal or penalty change: it creates new administrative requirements, model codes, grant and assistance programs, definitions, and dispute-resolution procedures, and it amends existing statutory provisions. Several important details are not included in the extracted text: the full text of section 2, the model code provisions in section 4, the complete amendments to RCW 36.70A.190 and RCW 36.70A.280, and the full definition of “forestland” and some wetlands exclusions are missing from the provided facts.

If enacted, the Department of Commerce will be required to lead a stakeholder work group and produce a statewide model code by June 30, 2027, and cities and counties will have to adopt development regulations for residential development that are “clear and objective” (or adopt the department’s model code and get it approved) by January 1, 2029. Jurisdictions may still offer an alternative approval path based on appearance or aesthetics, but applicants must be allowed to choose the clear-and-objective process, the alternative cannot reduce allowed density, and any nonobjective standards must be published in advisory guidelines before applications are submitted. The people most affected are city and county planning officials, who will likely need to rewrite zoning and design rules, submit them to the Department for review, and fix any deficiencies, creating planning costs and potential delay; the Department of Commerce will take on new responsibilities and costs to run the work group, issue the model code, provide grants and technical assistance, and mediate disputes (including a required 60‑day pause when tribes request facilitation). Developers and applicants will probably face more predictable permit outcomes under clear-and-objective rules but may also see limited new options if an alternative aesthetic process is offered; community-based organizations and vulnerable populations are likely to receive grant funding to bolster participation. Some statutory details—especially the exact content of the model code and certain definitions—are missing from the provided text, so the full scope of changes and costs is uncertain.