ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5719 amends existing statutes (including RCW 36.70.970 and RCW 35.63.130) and adds new sections to chapters of the RCW to establish and govern hearing examiner systems for local land use matters. The bill both allows and, in specified cases, requires counties and cities to adopt hearing examiner systems to hear and decide plat approvals and quasi‑judicial development permit applications subject to zoning, and to vest hearing examiners with authority over matters such as conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, preliminary plats and related appeals. The statutory changes create procedural law governing who may use hearing examiners (distinguishing counties that do and do not plan under chapter 36.70A and cities by population thresholds), and amend and expand existing statutes to reflect these options. The bill makes multiple procedural changes: final hearing examiner decisions must be in writing with findings and conclusions based on the record that show consistency with the comprehensive plan’s future land use map and compliance with clear and objective development regulations; final decisions generally must be rendered within ten business or working days after conclusion of hearings unless the applicant and examiner agree in writing to a longer period; some examiner decisions are made final subject to appeal under chapter 36.70C RCW while jurisdictions may also designate examiner decisions as recommendations or as administrative decisions appealable to the legislative body. The measure authorizes temporary assumption of examiner duties by a county or city planning director or other qualified planning official during an examiner vacancy or unavailability after documented efforts to secure an examiner, allows jurisdictions to require proportionate, publicly disclosed applicant fees to cover examiner costs, and permits interlocal agreements or contracts for regional/shared examiners under chapter 39.34 RCW. It also sets implementation timing tied to comprehensive plan updates due in 2027 or within two years of the act’s effective date for other jurisdictions. Several details are not present in the extracted text and therefore remain unclear: the effective date of the act or new sections, any formal statutory definitions for terms used (for example “hearing examiner,” “quasi‑judicial development permit,” “business day” versus “working day,” or “clear and objective development regulations”), the exact citation numbers for the newly added sections, and the complete text of some subsections (the extract cuts off mid‑provision). The bill header also references amendments to RCW 35A.63.170 and RCW 58.17.330, but the amended text for those sections is not included in the provided material.

If enacted, counties and cities will either be required or allowed to set up hearing examiner systems to decide plats and quasi‑judicial land use permits (required for counties planning under chapter 36.70A and cities over 2,000; optional for small cities and counties not planning under chapter 36.70A). Hearing examiners can be given authority over conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, appeals (including chapter 43.21C appeals) and their written decisions must include findings showing consistency with the comprehensive plan’s future land use map and compliance with clear and objective regulations, and be issued within ten business/working days after hearings unless extended by written agreement. Jurisdictions can require applicants to pay proportionate, publicly disclosed fees to cover examiner costs, may contract regionally or share examiners under interlocal agreements, and may eliminate the need for zoning adjusters or boards of adjustment if examiners are vested with those powers. Those most affected are county and city legislative bodies, local planning directors, hearing examiners, and land use applicants. Local governments will need to adopt ordinances, revise comprehensive plans (by the 2027 update for jurisdictions due then or within two years of the act for others), set procedures and fee schedules, and may face new administrative costs or savings depending on whether they hire, contract, or share examiners; applicants will likely face new, disclosed fees to cover examiner costs. Planning directors may temporarily perform examiner duties during vacancies only after documenting unsuccessful recruitment and a written finding that no qualified examiner was reasonably available. Important details are missing from the provided text—such as the act’s effective date, some amended sections, and statutory definitions—so the timing and certain implementation specifics remain uncertain.