Senate Bill 5733 amends RCW 36.70A.130 and creates a new section. It adds an explicit exception allowing comprehensive plan amendments or development regulation changes to be considered more often than once per year when necessary to permit housing projects, and it preserves several other exceptions (subarea plans with environmental review, certain economic development subarea plans, shoreline master program actions, capital facilities amendments tied to a budget, and actions to enact a planned action under RCW 43.21C.440). The bill lets cities or towns within counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040 opt out of a full comprehensive plan review if they meet specified criteria, while still requiring updates to critical areas regulations, the capital facilities element, and the transportation element. It requires that any plan amendments conform to the chapter and that development regulations be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, defines “legislative action” for review purposes, and requires reviews to include critical area ordinances and, where applicable, an analysis of population allocated from the Office of Financial Management’s most recent 10-year forecast. The bill also adjusts procedural deadlines and compliance rules: it lists staggered deadlines for initial and periodic reviews by county groups, allows eligible small counties and cities to comply within 24 months after the subsection (5) deadlines, and permits jurisdictions to start reviews early and be eligible for department grants subject to available funding. It ties grant and loan eligibility and grant preference to compliance or “substantial progress” (defined as being fewer than 12 months out of compliance), encourages state technical assistance, and sets conditions under which counties need not update agricultural-related critical area regulations for participating watersheds. Certain counties and cities must file an implementation progress report five years after their plan review and revision, and the department must adopt guidelines for indicators and measures for those reports; jurisdictions that have not implemented required actions must adopt a work plan and complete implementation within two years of the report. The text identifies many statutory cross-references and specific timing rules but does not specify the name of “the department,” omits the full text of the new section created by Sec. 1, and leaves some subsection text (including the remainder of subsection (6)(b) and portions of subsection (5)) incomplete in the provided extracts.

If enacted, this bill makes it easier for local governments to change plans and rules more often when needed to permit housing projects, lets some small cities and towns skip a full plan review if they meet criteria while still updating key elements like critical areas, transportation, and capital facilities, and requires regular check-ins and reports on implementation and population eligibility. It ties state grant and loan eligibility and preference to whether a county or city is meeting review and update schedules (or is very close to doing so), asks state agencies to provide technical help, and sets timelines for required reports and follow-up actions if jurisdictions fall behind. The people most affected are county and city planners and local elected officials, who will likely face new reporting, review, and public engagement work and could lose access to certain state funds if they don’t meet the schedules or show “substantial progress.” There may be added administrative costs to run reviews, produce the five‑year implementation reports, and adopt work plans to fix missed actions within two years, but some jurisdictions could move faster on housing approvals under the new exception. Important details are missing from the provided text — for example which state “department” administers the notices and grants, the full new section language, and some referenced deadlines — so the scope of some duties, funding triggers, and timelines is unclear.