The substitute bill revises Washington’s land subdivision statutes. It reenacts and amends RCW 58.17.020 and 36.70B.160, amends many sections of chapter 58.17 RCW and chapter 36.70B RCW, and repeals several named RCW sections. Key definitional changes include detail for binding site plans (must be recorded and include a specific binding statement), unit lots and unit lot subdivision rules (including purchaser notification deadlines), and an explicit definition of adjacent landowners for notice purposes (owners within 250 feet of the proposed subdivision boundary). The bill makes broad procedural changes to how local governments handle short plats, short subdivisions, preliminary plats, unit lot subdivisions, and plat alterations/vacations. Cities, towns, and counties must adopt ordinances appointing administrative personnel to perform summary review, require written findings for approvals, limit public meetings/hearings except where state law requires them, and allow concurrent processing of related applications. It sets notice requirements (including 250-foot and 200-foot notice radii in different contexts), requires final plat submission within five years of preliminary approval, and preserves that recorded final plats remain valid for five years despite zoning changes. It also prescribes hearing examiner procedures and timelines, and requires procedural-completeness determinations within 28 days (deemed complete on day 29 if not so determined). The bill establishes new time limits and accountability measures for project permit review under chapter 36.70B: jurisdictions must adopt or apply standard maximum decision timelines (65, 100, 170 days depending on notice/hearing), allow limited extensions for applicant suspensions or nonresponsiveness, and provide partial refund mechanics for missed deadlines (the detailed refund schedule was not fully included in the provided text). It requires certain counties and larger cities to collect and report annual permit performance data to the Department of Commerce (initial report due March 1, 2025) and ties additional local adoption duties to comprehensive plan updates. The bill also clarifies vacation and alteration procedures for plats, authorizes prosecuting-attorney enforcement against sales without a filed final plat (with costs taxed to the seller), requires irrigation-district approvals and rights-of-way where applicable, and allows bonds in lieu of completed improvements. Several provisions and specific details cited in the bill text were incomplete or cut off in the provided excerpts (for example, the full purchaser-notification text for unit lot subdivisions, parts of some exemptions, and the complete fee-refund schedule).

If enacted, the bill shifts many subdivision decisions from hearings to administrative review, requires cities, towns, and counties to adopt new procedures for short plats, unit lot subdivisions, and binding site plans, and imposes firm timelines for how quickly local governments must declare applications complete and issue final decisions (with standard targets of about 65, 100, or 170 days depending on notice/hearing needs). Developers and property owners can expect faster and more predictable processing, mandatory notice to neighbors within about 200–250 feet, clearer rules for unit lot subdivisions (common ownership of leftover parent-lot areas, prominent recorded notices to purchasers, and only clear and objective standards), and streamlined options for concurrent processing; at the same time there are new procedural steps for vacations and alterations, irrigation-district approval requirements, and rules about bonds, dedications, and a five-year validity window for final plats. Local governments are most affected: they must adopt ordinances, appoint administrative personnel, monitor and report permit performance to the Department of Commerce, and may face added staffing, systems, and compliance costs as well as potential partial fee refunds if statutory timeframes are missed. Applicants and developers gain predictability and more administrative pathways but also take on new notice, response, and documentation duties and some timing risks (for example, extra review days can be added if they are nonresponsive or suspend review). Important implementation details are missing from the excerpts—most notably the exact purchaser notification text for unit-lot sales, the full fee-refund schedule, and several truncated provisions—so some operational impacts and cost exposures remain unclear.