title: RCW 36.70A.215

text:
(1) Subject to the limitations in subsection (5) of this section, a county shall adopt, in consultation with its cities, countywide planning policies to establish a review and evaluation program. This program shall be in addition to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110, 36.70A.130, and 36.70A.210. In developing and implementing the review and evaluation program required by this section, the county and its cities shall consider information from other appropriate jurisdictions and sources. The purpose of the review and evaluation program shall be to:
(a) Determine whether a county and its cities are achieving urban densities within urban growth areas by comparing growth and development assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans with actual growth and development that has occurred in the county and its cities; and
(b) Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that will be taken to comply with the requirements of this chapter. Reasonable measures are those actions necessary to reduce the differences between growth and development assumptions and targets contained in the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans with actual development patterns. The reasonable measures process in subsection (3) of this section shall be used as part of the next comprehensive plan update to reconcile inconsistencies.
(2) The review and evaluation program shall:
(a) Encompass land uses and activities both within and outside of urban growth areas and provide for annual collection of data on urban and rural land uses, development, zoning and development standards, environmental regulations including but not limited to critical areas, stormwater, shoreline, and tree retention requirements; and capital facilities to determine the quantity and type of land suitable for development, both for residential and employment-based activities;
(b) Provide for evaluation of the data collected under (a) of this subsection as provided in subsection (3) of this section. The evaluation shall be completed no later than three years prior to the deadline for review and, if necessary, update of comprehensive plans and development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.130. For comprehensive plans required to be updated before 2024, the evaluation as provided in subsection (3) of this section shall be completed no later than two years prior to the deadline for review and, if necessary, update of comprehensive plans. The county and its cities may establish in the countywide planning policies indicators, benchmarks, and other similar criteria to use in conducting the evaluation;
(c) Provide for methods to resolve disputes among jurisdictions relating to the countywide planning policies required by this section and procedures to resolve inconsistencies in collection and analysis of data; and
(d) Develop reasonable measures to use in reducing the differences between growth and development assumptions and targets contained in the countywide planning policies and county and city comprehensive plans, with the actual development patterns. The reasonable measures shall be adopted, if necessary, into the countywide planning policies and the county or city comprehensive plans and development regulations during the next scheduled update of the plans.
(3) At a minimum, the evaluation component of the program required by subsection (1) of this section shall:
(a) Determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide population projection established for the county pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 and the subsequent population allocations within the county and between the county and its cities and the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110. The zoned capacity of land alone is not a sufficient standard to deem land suitable for development or redevelopment within the twenty-year planning period;
(b) An evaluation and identification of land suitable for development or redevelopment shall include:
(i) A review and evaluation of the land use designation and zoning/development regulations; environmental regulations (such as tree retention, stormwater, or critical area regulations) impacting development; and other regulations that could prevent assigned densities from being achieved; infrastructure gaps (including but not limited to transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater); and
(ii) Use of a reasonable land market supply factor when evaluating land suitable to accommodate new development or redevelopment of land for residential development and employment activities. The reasonable market supply factor identifies reductions in the amount of land suitable for development and redevelopment. The methodology for conducting a reasonable land market factor shall be determined through the guidance developed in RCW 36.70A.217;
(c) Provide an analysis of county and/or city development assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans when growth targets and assumptions are not being achieved. It is not appropriate to make a finding that assumed growth contained in the countywide planning policies and the county or city comprehensive plan will occur at the end of the current comprehensive planning twenty-year planning cycle without rationale;
(d) Determine the actual density of housing that has been constructed and the actual amount of land developed for commercial and industrial uses within the urban growth area since the adoption of a comprehensive plan under this chapter or since the last periodic evaluation as required by subsection (1) of this section; and
(e) Based on the actual density of development as determined under (b) of this subsection, review commercial, industrial, and housing needs by type and density range to determine the amount of land needed for commercial, industrial, and housing for the remaining portion of the twenty-year planning period used in the most recently adopted comprehensive plan.
(4) From funds appropriated by the legislature for this purpose, the department shall provide grants to counties, cities, and regional planning organizations required under subsection (5) of this section to conduct the review and perform the evaluation required by this section.
(5) The provisions of this section shall apply to counties, and the cities within those counties, that were greater than one hundred fifty thousand in population in 1996 as determined by office of financial management population estimates and that are located west of the crest of the Cascade mountain range. Any other county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may carry out the review, evaluation, and amendment programs and procedures as provided in this section.
(6) The requirements of this section are subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose. If sufficient funds are not appropriated consistent with the timelines in subsection (2)(b) of this section, counties and cities shall be subject to the review and evaluation program as it existed prior to October 19, 2017.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 16 s 2; 2011 c 353 s 3; 1997 c 429 s 25.]
Notes:
Expiration date—2017 3rd sp.s. c 16 s 2: "Section 2 of this act expires January 1, 2030." [ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 16 s 8.]
Intent—2011 c 353: See note following RCW 36.70A.130.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
PDF
RCW 36.70A.215
Review and evaluation program. (Effective January 1, 2030.)
(1) Subject to the limitations in subsection (7) of this section, a county shall adopt, in consultation with its cities, countywide planning policies to establish a review and evaluation program. This program shall be in addition to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110, 36.70A.130, and 36.70A.210. In developing and implementing the review and evaluation program required by this section, the county and its cities shall consider information from other appropriate jurisdictions and sources. The purpose of the review and evaluation program shall be to:
(a) Determine whether a county and its cities are achieving urban densities within urban growth areas by comparing growth and development assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans with actual growth and development that has occurred in the county and its cities; and
(b) Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that will be taken to comply with the requirements of this chapter.
(2) The review and evaluation program shall:
(a) Encompass land uses and activities both within and outside of urban growth areas and provide for annual collection of data on urban and rural land uses, development, critical areas, and capital facilities to the extent necessary to determine the quantity and type of land suitable for development, both for residential and employment-based activities;
(b) Provide for evaluation of the data collected under (a) of this subsection as provided in subsection (3) of this section. The evaluation shall be completed no later than one year prior to the deadline for review and, if necessary, update of comprehensive plans and development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.130. The county and its cities may establish in the countywide planning policies indicators, benchmarks, and other similar criteria to use in conducting the evaluation;
(c) Provide for methods to resolve disputes among jurisdictions relating to the countywide planning policies required by this section and procedures to resolve inconsistencies in collection and analysis of data; and
(d) Provide for the amendment of the countywide policies and county and city comprehensive plans as needed to remedy an inconsistency identified through the evaluation required by this section, or to bring these policies into compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(3) At a minimum, the evaluation component of the program required by subsection (1) of this section shall:
(a) Determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide population projection established for the county pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 and the subsequent population allocations within the county and between the county and its cities and the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110;
(b) Determine the actual density of housing that has been constructed and the actual amount of land developed for commercial and industrial uses within the urban growth area since the adoption of a comprehensive plan under this chapter or since the last periodic evaluation as required by subsection (1) of this section; and
(c) Based on the actual density of development as determined under (b) of this subsection, review commercial, industrial, and housing needs by type and density range to determine the amount of land needed for commercial, industrial, and housing for the remaining portion of the twenty-year planning period used in the most recently adopted comprehensive plan.
(4) If the evaluation required by subsection (3) of this section demonstrates an inconsistency between what has occurred since the adoption of the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans and development regulations and what was envisioned in those policies and plans and the planning goals and the requirements of this chapter, as the inconsistency relates to the evaluation factors specified in subsection (3) of this section, the county and its cities shall adopt and implement measures that are reasonably likely to increase consistency during the subsequent five-year period. If necessary, a county, in consultation with its cities as required by RCW 36.70A.210, shall adopt amendments to countywide planning policies to increase consistency. The county and its cities shall annually monitor the measures adopted under this subsection to determine their effect and may revise or rescind them as appropriate.
(5)(a) Not later than July 1, 1998, the department shall prepare a list of methods used by counties and cities in carrying out the types of activities required by this section. The department shall provide this information and appropriate technical assistance to counties and cities required to or choosing to comply with the provisions of this section.
(b) By December 31, 2007, the department shall submit to the appropriate committees of the legislature a report analyzing the effectiveness of the activities described in this section in achieving the goals envisioned by the countywide planning policies and the comprehensive plans and development regulations of the counties and cities.
(6) From funds appropriated by the legislature for this purpose, the department shall provide grants to counties, cities, and regional planning organizations required under subsection (7) of this section to conduct the review and perform the evaluation required by this section.
(7) The provisions of this section shall apply to counties, and the cities within those counties, that were greater than one hundred fifty thousand in population in 1995 as determined by office of financial management population estimates and that are located west of the crest of the Cascade mountain range. Any other county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may carry out the review, evaluation, and amendment programs and procedures as provided in this section.
[ 2011 c 353 s 3; 1997 c 429 s 25.]
Notes:
Intent—2011 c 353: See note following RCW 36.70A.130.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

catchline: Review and evaluation program. (Effective until January 1, 2030.)


doc_type: statute

jurisdiction: wa

title: RCW 36.70A.217

text:
(1) The department of commerce, through a contract with a land use and economics entity, shall develop guidance for local governments on the review and evaluation program in RCW 36.70A.215. The contract shall be with an entity experienced in serving private and public sector clients which can assist developers and policymakers to understand near-term market realities and long-term planning considerations, and with experience facilitating successful conversations between multiple local governments and stakeholders on complex land use issues. The department of commerce shall enable appropriate public participation by affected stakeholders in the development of the guidance for the appropriate market factor analysis and review and update of the overall buildable lands program. This guidance regarding the market factor methodology and buildable lands program shall be completed by December 1, 2018. The buildable lands guidance shall analyze and provide recommendations on:
(a) The review and evaluation program in RCW 36.70A.215 and changes to the required information to be analyzed within the program to increase the accuracy of the report when updating countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans;
(b) Whether a more effective schedule could be developed for countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plan updates to better align with implementing reasonable measures identified through the review and evaluation program, and population projections and census data while maintaining appropriate and timely consideration of planning needs best done through a comprehensive planning process;
(c) A determination on how reasonable measures, based on the review and evaluation program, should be implemented into updates for countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans;
(d) Infrastructure costs, including but not limited to transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, and the cost to provide new or upgraded infrastructure if required to serve development; cost of development; timelines to permit and develop land; market availability of land; the nexus between proposed densities, economic conditions needed to achieve those densities, and the impact to housing affordability for homeownership and rental housing; and, market demand when evaluating if land is suitable for development or redevelopment. These all have an impact on whether development occurs or if planned for densities will differ from achieved densities;
(e) Identifying the measures to increase housing availability and affordability for all economic segments of the community and the factors contributing to the high cost of housing including zoning/development/environmental regulations, permit processing timelines, housing production trends by housing type and rents and prices, national and regional economic and demographic trends affecting housing affordability and production by rents and prices, housing unit size by housing type, and how well growth targets align with market conditions including the assumptions on where people desire to live;
(f) Evaluating how existing zoning and land use regulations are promoting or hindering attainment of the goal for affordable housing in RCW 36.70A.020(4). Barriers to meeting this goal shall be identified and considered as possible reasonable measures for each county and city, and as part of the next countywide planning policies and county and city comprehensive plan update;
(g) Identifying opportunities and strategies to encourage growth within urban growth areas;
(h) Identifying strategies to increase local government capacity to invest in the infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth and provide opportunities for affordable housing across all economic segments of the community and housing types; and
(i) Other topics identified by stakeholders and the department.
(2) The requirements of this section are subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 16 s 3.]

license: public-domain-government-work

rule_set: Revised Code of Washington

catchline: Guidance for local governments on the review and evaluation program—Public participation—Analysis and recommendations.

code: rcw

unit: section

court: Washington State Legislature


title: RCW 36.70A.250

text:
(1) (a) There is hereby created within the environmental and land use hearings office established by RCW 43.21B.005 a growth management hearings board for the state of Washington. The board shall consist of five members qualified by experience or training in pertinent matters pertaining to land use law or land use planning and who have experience in the practical application of those matters. All five board members shall be appointed by the governor. At least three members of the board shall be admitted to practice law in this state, one each residing respectively in the central Puget Sound, eastern Washington, and western Washington regions. At least two members of the board shall have been a city or county elected official, one each residing respectively in eastern Washington and western Washington. No more than three members of the five-member board may be members of the same major political party. No more than two members at the time of their appointment or during their term may reside in the same county. Board members shall operate on a full-time basis, shall receive an annual salary to be determined by the governor pursuant to RCW 43.03.040, shall receive reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties in accordance with RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060, and shall be considered employees of the state of Washington subject to chapter 42.52 RCW.
(2) Each member of the board shall be appointed for a term of six years, and until their successors are appointed. A vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the governor for the unexpired portion of the term in which the vacancy occurs.
[ 2020 c 214 s 1; 2010 c 211 s 4; 1994 c 249 s 29; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 5.]
Notes:
Effective date—2010 c 211: "This act takes effect July 1, 2010." [ 2010 c 211 s 18.]
Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: "(1) The three growth management hearings boards are abolished and their powers, duties, and functions are transferred to the growth management hearings board.
(2) All reports, documents, surveys, books, records, files, papers, or written material in the possession of the three growth management hearings boards must be delivered to the custody of the growth management hearings board. All office furnishings, office equipment, motor vehicles, and other tangible property in the possession of the three growth management hearings boards must be made available to the growth management hearings board.
(3) All funds, credits, or other assets held by the three growth management hearings boards must, on July 1, 2010, be transferred to the growth management hearings board. Any appropriations made to the three growth management hearings boards must, on July 1, 2010, be transferred and credited to the growth management hearings board. If any question arises as to the transfer of any personnel, funds, books, documents, records, papers, files, equipment, or other tangible property used or held in the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties and functions transferred, the director of financial management shall make a determination as to the proper allocation and certify the same to the state agencies concerned.
(4) All employees of the three growth management hearings boards are transferred to the growth management hearings board. All employees classified under chapter 41.06 RCW, the state civil service law, are assigned to the growth management hearings board to perform their usual duties upon the same terms as formerly, without any loss of rights, subject to any action that may be appropriate thereafter in accordance with the laws and rules governing state civil service.
(5) This section may not be construed to alter any existing collective bargaining unit or the provisions of any existing collective bargaining agreement until the agreement has expired or until the bargaining unit has been modified by action of the public employment relations commission as provided by law.
(6) All rules and pending business before the three growth management hearings boards must be continued and acted upon by the growth management hearings board. All existing contracts and obligations remain in full force and must be performed by the growth management hearings board.
(7) The transfer of the powers, duties, functions, and personnel of the three growth management hearings boards to the growth management hearings board does not affect the validity of any act performed before July 1, 2010.
(8) All cases decided and all orders previously issued by the three growth management hearings boards remain in full force and effect and are not affected by this act." [ 2010 c 211 s 17.]
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Creation—Members.


title: RCW 36.70A.252

text:
On July 1, 2011, the growth management hearings board is administratively consolidated into the environmental and land use hearings office created in RCW 43.21B.005. The chair of the growth management hearings board shall continue to exercise duties and responsibilities pursuant to RCW 36.70A.270(11). The environmental and land use hearings office shall be responsible for all other administrative functions pertaining to the growth management hearings board.
[ 2020 c 214 s 2; 2010 c 210 s 15.]
Notes:
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Consolidation into environmental and land use hearings office.


title: RCW 36.70A.260

text:
(1) Each petition for review that is filed with the growth management hearings board shall be heard and decided by a regional panel of growth management hearings board members. Regional panels shall be constituted as follows:
(a) Central Puget Sound region. A three-member central Puget Sound panel shall be selected to hear matters pertaining to cities and counties located within the region comprised of King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties.
(b) Eastern Washington region. A three-member eastern Washington panel shall be selected to hear matters pertaining to cities and counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and are located east of the crest of the Cascade mountains.
(c) Western Washington region. A three-member western Washington panel shall be selected to hear matters pertaining to cities and counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, are located west of the crest of the Cascade mountains, and are not included in the central Puget Sound region. Skamania county, if it is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, may elect to be included within either the western Washington region or the eastern Washington region.
(2)(a) Each regional panel selected to hear and decide cases shall consist of three board members, at least a majority of whom shall reside within the region in which the case arose, unless such members cannot sit on a particular case because of recusal or disqualification, or unless the board chair determines otherwise due to caseload management determinations or the unavailability of a board member due to illness, absence, or vacancy. The presiding officer of each case shall reside within the region in which the case arose, unless the board chair determines that there is an emergency.
(b) Except as provided otherwise in this subsection (2)(b), each regional panel must: (i) Include one member admitted to practice law in this state; (ii) include one member who has been a city or county elected official; and (iii) reflect the political composition of the board. The requirements of this subsection (2)(b) may be waived by the board chair due to member unavailability, significant workload imbalances, or other reasons.
[ 2020 c 214 s 3; 2010 c 211 s 5; 1994 c 249 s 30; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 6.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Regional panels.


title: RCW 36.70A.270

text:
The growth management hearings board shall be governed by the following rules on conduct and procedure:
(1) Any board member may be removed for inefficiency, malfeasance, and misfeasance in office, under specific written charges filed by the governor. The governor shall transmit such written charges to the member accused and the chief justice of the supreme court. The chief justice shall thereupon designate a tribunal composed of three judges of the superior court to hear and adjudicate the charges. Removal of any member of the board by the tribunal shall disqualify such member for reappointment.
(2) The principal office of the board shall be located in Thurston county, but it may hold hearings at any other place in the state.
(3) Each board member shall not: (a) Be a candidate for or hold any other public office or trust; (b) engage in any occupation or business interfering with or inconsistent with his or her duty as a board member; and (c) for a period of one year after the termination of his or her board membership, act in a representative capacity before the board on any matter.
(4) A majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for adopting rules necessary for the conduct of its powers and duties or transacting other official business, and may act even though one position of the board is vacant. One or more members may hold hearings and take testimony to be reported for action by the board when authorized by rule or order of the board. The board shall perform all the powers and duties specified in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law.
(5) The board may use one or more hearing examiners to assist the board in its hearing function, to make conclusions of law and findings of fact and, if requested by the board, to make recommendations to the board for decisions in cases before the board. Such hearing examiners must have demonstrated knowledge of land use planning and law. The board shall specify in its rules of practice and procedure, as required by subsection (7) of this section, the procedure and criteria to be employed for designating hearing examiners as a presiding officer. Hearing examiners used by the board shall meet the requirements of subsection (3) of this section. The findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner shall not become final until they have been formally approved by the board. This authorization to use hearing examiners does not waive the requirement of RCW 36.70A.300 that final orders be issued within one hundred eighty days of board receipt of a petition.
(6) The board shall make findings of fact and prepare a written decision in each case decided by it, and such findings and decision shall be effective upon being signed by two or more members of the regional panel deciding the particular case and upon being filed at the board's principal office, and shall be open for public inspection at all reasonable times.
(7) All proceedings before the board, any of its members, or a hearing examiner appointed by the board shall be conducted in accordance with such administrative rules of practice and procedure as the board prescribes. The board shall develop and adopt rules of practice and procedure, including rules regarding expeditious and summary disposition of appeals and the assignment of cases to regional panels. The board shall publish such rules it renders and arrange for the reasonable distribution of the rules. Except as it conflicts with specific provisions of this chapter, the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW, and specifically including the provisions of RCW 34.05.455 governing ex parte communications, shall govern the practice and procedure of the board.
(8) The board must ensure all rulings, decisions, and orders are available to the public through the environmental and land use hearings office's websites as described in RCW 43.21B.005. To ensure uniformity and usability of searchable databases and websites, the board shall coordinate with the environmental and land use hearings office, the department of commerce, and other interested stakeholders to develop and maintain a rational system of categorizing its decisions and orders.
(9) A board member or hearing examiner is subject to disqualification under chapter 34.05 RCW. The rules of practice of the board shall establish procedures by which a party to a hearing conducted before the board may file with the board a motion to disqualify, with supporting affidavit, against a board member or hearing examiner assigned to preside at the hearing.
(10) All members of the board shall meet on at least an annual basis with the objective of sharing information that promotes the goals and purposes of this chapter.
(11) The board shall annually elect one of its attorney members to be the board chair. The duties and responsibilities of the chair include developing board procedures, making case assignments to board members in accordance with the board's rules of procedure in order to achieve a fair and balanced workload among all board members, and managing board meetings.
[ 2020 c 214 s 4; 2019 c 452 s 2. Prior: 2010 c 211 s 6; 2010 c 210 s 16; 1997 c 429 s 11; 1996 c 325 s 1; 1994 c 257 s 1; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 7.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1996 c 325: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1996 c 325 s 6.]
Effective date—1996 c 325: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [March 30, 1996]." [ 1996 c 325 s 7.]
Severability—1994 c 257: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1994 c 257 s 26.]

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Conduct, procedure, and compensation—Public access to rulings, decisions, and orders.


title: RCW 36.70A.280

text:
(1) The growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either:
(a) That, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the board to hear petitions alleging noncompliance based on a city or county's actions taken to implement the requirements of RCW 36.70A.680, 36.70A.681, or 36.70A.536 within an urban growth area;
(b) That the 20-year growth management planning population projections adopted by the office of financial management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted;
(c) That the approval of a work plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(a) is not in compliance with the requirements of the program established under RCW 36.70A.710;
(d) That regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(b) are not regionally applicable and cannot be adopted, wholly or partially, by another jurisdiction;
(e) That a department certification under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(c) is erroneous;
(f) That the department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement or amendments by a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 was not in compliance with the joint guidance issued by the department pursuant to RCW 70A.45.120;
(g) That the department's final decision to approve or reject actions by a city implementing RCW 36.70A.635 is clearly erroneous; or
(h) That the department's determination of compliance of a housing element and any related housing development regulations under RCW 36.70A.835 is clearly erroneous.
(2) A petition may be filed only by: (a) The state, or a county or city that plans under this chapter; (b) a person who has participated orally or in writing before the county or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested; (c) a person who is certified by the governor within 60 days of filing the request with the board; or (d) a person qualified pursuant to RCW 34.05.530.
(3) For purposes of this section, "person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, state agency, governmental subdivision or unit thereof, or public or private organization or entity of any character.
(4) To establish participation standing under subsection (2)(b) of this section, a person must show that his or her participation before the county or city was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the board.
(5) When considering a possible adjustment to a growth management planning population projection prepared by the office of financial management, the board shall consider the implications of any such adjustment to the population forecast for the entire state.
The rationale for any adjustment that is adopted by the board must be documented and filed with the office of financial management within ten working days after adoption.
If adjusted by the board, a county growth management planning population projection shall only be used for the planning purposes set forth in this chapter and shall be known as the "board adjusted population projection." None of these changes shall affect the official state and county population forecasts prepared by the office of financial management, which shall continue to be used for state budget and planning purposes.
[ 2025 c 386 s 3; 2025 c 269 s 2. Prior: 2023 c 334 s 7; 2023 c 332 s 6; 2023 c 228 s 7; (2014 c 147 s 3 expired December 31, 2020); 2011 c 360 s 17; 2010 c 211 s 7; 2008 c 289 s 5; 2003 c 332 s 2; 1996 c 325 s 2; 1995 c 347 s 108; 1994 c 249 s 31; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 9.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2025 c 269 s 2 and by 2025 c 386 s 3, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
State representation—Short title—2025 c 269: See notes following RCW 36.70A.835.
Finding—2023 c 332: See note following RCW 36.70A.635.
Expiration date—2014 c 147 s 3: "Section 3 of this act expires December 31, 2020." [ 2014 c 147 s 4.]
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Findings—2008 c 289: "(1) The legislature recognizes that the implications of a changed climate will affect the people, institutions, and economies of Washington. The legislature also recognizes that it is in the public interest to reduce the state's dependence upon foreign sources of carbon fuels that do not promote energy independence or the economic strength of the state. The legislature finds that the state, including its counties, cities, and residents, must engage in activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence upon foreign oil.
(2) The legislature further recognizes that: (a) Patterns of land use development influence transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and the need for foreign oil; (b) fossil fuel-based transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington; and (c) the state and its residents will not achieve emission reductions established in *RCW 80.80.020 without a significant decrease in transportation emissions.
(3) The legislature, therefore, finds that it is in the public interest of the state to provide appropriate legal authority, where required, and to aid in the development of policies, practices, and methodologies that may assist counties and cities in addressing challenges associated with greenhouse gas emissions and our state's dependence upon foreign oil." [ 2008 c 289 s 1.]
*Reviser's note: RCW 80.80.020 was repealed by 2008 c 14 s 13.
Application—2008 c 289: "This act is not intended to amend or affect chapter 353, Laws of 2007." [ 2008 c 289 s 6.]
Intent—2003 c 332: "This act is intended to codify the Washington State Court of Appeals holding in Wells v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 100 Wn. App. 657 (2000), by mandating that to establish participation standing under the growth management act, a person must show that his or her participation before the county or city was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the growth management hearings board." [ 2003 c 332 s 1.]
Severability—Effective date—1996 c 325: See notes following RCW 36.70A.270.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.
Definitions: See RCW 36.70A.703.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Matters subject to review.


title: RCW 36.70A.290

text:
(1) All requests for review to the growth management hearings board shall be initiated by filing a petition that includes a detailed statement of issues presented for resolution by the board. The board shall render written decisions articulating the basis for its holdings. The board shall not issue advisory opinions on issues not presented to the board in the statement of issues, as modified by any prehearing order.
(2) All petitions relating to whether or not an adopted comprehensive plan, development regulation, or permanent amendment thereto, is in compliance with the goals and requirements of this chapter or chapter 90.58 or 43.21C RCW must be filed within sixty days after publication as provided in (a) through (d) of this subsection.
(a) Except as provided in (c) and (d) of this subsection, the date of publication for a city shall be the date the city publishes the ordinance, or summary of the ordinance, adopting the comprehensive plan or development regulations, or amendment thereto, as is required to be published.
(b) Promptly after adoption, a county shall publish a notice that it has adopted the comprehensive plan or development regulations, or amendment thereto.
Except as provided in (c) and (d) of this subsection, for purposes of this section the date of publication for a county shall be the date the county publishes the notice that it has adopted the comprehensive plan or development regulations, or amendment thereto.
(c) For local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040, promptly after approval or disapproval of a local government's shoreline master program or amendment thereto by the department of ecology as provided in RCW 90.58.090, the department of ecology shall publish a notice that the shoreline master program or amendment thereto has been approved or disapproved. For purposes of this section, the date of publication for the adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program is the date the department of ecology publishes notice that the shoreline master program or amendment thereto has been approved or disapproved.
(d) For purposes of this section, the date of publication for a housing element and any housing development regulations submitted to the department for review under RCW 36.70A.835 is the date the department publishes its final decision on compliance in the Washington State Register or on the department's website, whichever is later.
(3)(a) All petitions relating to whether the department's final decision under RCW 36.70A.835 is clearly erroneous must be filed within 60 days after the department publishes its final decision in the Washington State Register or on the department's website, whichever is later.
(b) A decision of the board concerning an appeal of the department's final decision under RCW 36.70A.835 must be based solely on whether the relevant housing element or housing development regulations comply with the laws and regulations identified in RCW 36.70A.835(7).
(4) Unless the board dismisses the petition as frivolous or finds that the person filing the petition lacks standing, or the parties have filed an agreement to have the case heard in superior court as provided in RCW 36.70A.295, the board shall, within ten days of receipt of the petition, set a time for hearing the matter.
(5) The board shall base its decision on the record developed by the city, county, or the state and supplemented with additional evidence if the board determines that such additional evidence would be necessary or of substantial assistance to the board in reaching its decision.
(6) The board, shall consolidate, when appropriate, all petitions involving the review of the same comprehensive plan or the same development regulation or regulations.
[ 2025 c 269 s 3; 2011 c 277 s 1; 2010 c 211 s 8; 1997 c 429 s 12; 1995 c 347 s 109. Prior: 1994 c 257 s 2; 1994 c 249 s 26; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 10.]
Notes:
State representation—Short title—2025 c 269: See notes following RCW 36.70A.835.
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Severability—1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Petitions—Evidence.


title: RCW 36.70A.295

text:
(1) The superior court may directly review a petition for review filed under RCW 36.70A.290 if all parties to the proceeding before the board have agreed to direct review in the superior court. The agreement of the parties shall be in writing and signed by all of the parties to the proceeding or their designated representatives. The agreement shall include the parties' agreement to proper venue as provided in RCW 36.70A.300(5). The parties shall file their agreement with the board within ten days after the date the petition is filed, or if multiple petitions have been filed and the board has consolidated the petitions pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300, within ten days after the board serves its order of consolidation.
(2) Within ten days of receiving the timely and complete agreement of the parties, the board shall file a certificate of agreement with the designated superior court and shall serve the parties with copies of the certificate. The superior court shall obtain exclusive jurisdiction over a petition when it receives the certificate of agreement. With the certificate of agreement the board shall also file the petition for review, any orders entered by the board, all other documents in the board's files regarding the action, and the written agreement of the parties.
(3) For purposes of a petition that is subject to direct review, the superior court's subject matter jurisdiction shall be equivalent to that of the board. Consistent with the requirements of the superior court civil rules, the superior court may consolidate a petition subject to direct review under this section with a separate action filed in the superior court.
(4)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) and (c) of this subsection, the provisions of RCW 36.70A.280 through 36.70A.330, which specify the nature and extent of board review, shall apply to the superior court's review.
(b) The superior court:
(i) Shall not have jurisdiction to directly review or modify an office of financial management population projection;
(ii) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 36.70A.300(2)(b), shall render its decision on the petition within one hundred eighty days of receiving the certification of agreement; and
(iii) Shall give a compliance hearing under RCW 36.70A.330(2) the highest priority of all civil matters before the court.
(c) An aggrieved party may secure appellate review of a final judgment of the superior court under this section by the supreme court or the court of appeals. The review shall be secured in the manner provided by law for review of superior court decisions in other civil cases.
(5) If, following a compliance hearing, the court finds that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the court's prior order, the court may use its remedial and contempt powers to enforce compliance.
(6) The superior court shall transmit a copy of its decision and order on direct review to the board, the department, and the governor. If the court has determined that a county or city is not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, the governor may impose sanctions against the county or city in the same manner as if the board had recommended the imposition of sanctions as provided in RCW 36.70A.330.
(7) After the court has assumed jurisdiction over a petition for review under this section, the superior court civil rules shall govern a request for intervention and all other procedural matters not specifically provided for in this section.
[ 2010 c 211 s 9; 1997 c 429 s 13.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Direct judicial review.


title: RCW 36.70A.300

text:
(1) The board shall issue a final order that shall be based exclusively on whether or not a state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the final order shall be issued within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the petition for review, or, if multiple petitions are filed, within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the last petition that is consolidated.
(b) The board may extend the period of time for issuing a decision to enable the parties to settle the dispute if additional time is necessary to achieve a settlement, and (i) an extension is requested by all parties, or (ii) an extension is requested by the petitioner and respondent and the board determines that a negotiated settlement between the remaining parties could resolve significant issues in dispute. The request must be filed with the board not later than seven days before the date scheduled for the hearing on the merits of the petition. The board may authorize one or more extensions for up to ninety days each, subject to the requirements of this section.
(3) In the final order, the board shall either:
(a) Find that the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW; or
(b) Find that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW, in which case the board shall remand the matter to the affected state agency, county, or city. The board shall specify a reasonable time not in excess of one hundred eighty days, or such longer period as determined by the board in cases of unusual scope or complexity, within which the state agency, county, or city shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. The board may require periodic reports to the board on the progress the jurisdiction is making towards compliance.
(4)(a) Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302, a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations during the period of remand.
(b) Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity, state agencies, commissions, and governing boards may not determine a county, city, or town to be ineligible or otherwise penalized in the acceptance of applications or the awarding of state agency grants or loans during the period of remand. This subsection (4)(b) applies only to counties, cities, and towns that have: (i) Delayed the initial effective date of the action subject to the petition before the board until after the board issues a final determination; or (ii) within thirty days of receiving notice of a petition for review by the board, delayed or suspended the effective date of the action subject to the petition before the board until after the board issues a final determination.
(5) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board. Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302, state agencies, commissions, or governing boards shall not penalize counties, cities, or towns during the pendency of an appeal as provided in RCW 43.17.250.
[ 2013 c 275 s 1; 1997 c 429 s 14; 1995 c 347 s 110; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 11.]
Notes:
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.

catchline: Final orders.


title: RCW 36.70A.302

text:
(1) The board may determine that part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulations are invalid if the board:
(a) Makes a finding of noncompliance and issues an order of remand under RCW 36.70A.300;
(b) Includes in the final order a determination, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the continued validity of part or parts of the plan or regulation would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter; and
(c) Specifies in the final order the particular part or parts of the plan or regulation that are determined to be invalid, and the reasons for their invalidity.
(2) A determination of invalidity is prospective in effect and does not extinguish rights that vested under state or local law before receipt of the board's order by the city or county. The determination of invalidity does not apply to a completed development permit application for a project that vested under state or local law before receipt of the board's order by the county or city or to related construction permits for that project.
(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section and (b) of this subsection, a development permit application not vested under state or local law before receipt of the board's order by the county or city vests to the local ordinance or resolution that is determined by the board not to substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter.
(b) Even though the application is not vested under state or local law before receipt by the county or city of the board's order, a determination of invalidity does not apply to a development permit application for:
(i) A permit for construction by any owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for his or her own use or for the use of his or her family on a lot existing before receipt by the county or city of the board's order, except as otherwise specifically provided in the board's order to protect the public health and safety;
(ii) A building permit and related construction permits for remodeling, tenant improvements, or expansion of an existing structure on a lot existing before receipt of the board's order by the county or city; and
(iii) A boundary line adjustment or a division of land that does not increase the number of buildable lots existing before receipt of the board's order by the county or city.
(4) If the ordinance that adopts a plan or development regulation under this chapter includes a savings clause intended to revive prior policies or regulations in the event the new plan or regulations are determined to be invalid, the board shall determine under subsection (1) of this section whether the prior policies or regulations are valid during the period of remand.
(5) A county or city subject to a determination of invalidity may adopt interim controls and other measures to be in effect until it adopts a comprehensive plan and development regulations that comply with the requirements of this chapter. A development permit application may vest under an interim control or measure upon determination by the board that the interim controls and other measures do not substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter.
(6) A county or city subject to a determination of invalidity may file a motion requesting that the board clarify, modify, or rescind the order. The board shall expeditiously schedule a hearing on the motion. At the hearing on the motion, the parties may present information to the board to clarify the part or parts of the comprehensive plan or development regulations to which the final order applies. The board shall issue any supplemental order based on the information provided at the hearing not later than thirty days after the date of the hearing.
(7)(a) If a determination of invalidity has been made and the county or city has enacted an ordinance or resolution amending the invalidated part or parts of the plan or regulation or establishing interim controls on development affected by the order of invalidity, after a compliance hearing, the board shall modify or rescind the determination of invalidity if it determines under the standard in subsection (1) of this section that the plan or regulation, as amended or made subject to such interim controls, will no longer substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter.
(b) If the board determines that part or parts of the plan or regulation are no longer invalid as provided in this subsection, but does not find that the plan or regulation is in compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter, the board, in its order, may require periodic reports to the board on the progress the jurisdiction is making towards compliance.
[ 2010 c 211 s 10; 1997 c 429 s 16.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Determination of invalidity—Vesting of development permits—Interim controls.


title: RCW 36.70A.305

text:
The court shall provide expedited review of a determination of invalidity or an order effectuating a determination of invalidity made or issued under *RCW 36.70A.300. The matter must be set for hearing within sixty days of the date set for submitting the board's record, absent a showing of good cause for a different date or a stipulation of the parties.
[ 1996 c 325 s 4.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The reference to RCW 36.70A.300 appears to refer to the amendments made by 1996 c 325 s 3, which was vetoed by the governor.
Severability—Effective date—1996 c 325: See notes following RCW 36.70A.270.

catchline: Expedited review.


title: RCW 36.70A.310

text:
A request for review by the state to the growth management hearings board may be made only by the governor, or with the governor's consent the head of an agency, or by the commissioner of public lands as relating to state trust lands, for the review of whether: (1) A county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 has failed to adopt a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or countywide planning policies within the time limits established by this chapter; or (2) a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under this chapter has adopted a comprehensive plan, development regulations, or countywide planning policies, that are not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
[ 2010 c 211 s 11; 1994 c 249 s 32; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 12.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Limitations on appeal by the state.


title: RCW 36.70A.320

text:
(1) Except as provided in subsections (5) through (7) of this section, comprehensive plans and development regulations, and amendments thereto, adopted under this chapter are presumed valid upon adoption.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that any action taken by a state agency, county, or city under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(3) In any petition under this chapter, the board, after full consideration of the petition, shall determine whether there is compliance with the requirements of this chapter. In making its determination, the board shall consider the criteria adopted by the department under RCW 36.70A.190(4). The board shall find compliance unless it determines that the action by the state agency, county, or city is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements of this chapter.
(4) A county or city subject to a determination of invalidity made under RCW 36.70A.300 or 36.70A.302 has the burden of demonstrating that the ordinance or resolution it has enacted in response to the determination of invalidity will no longer substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter under the standard in RCW 36.70A.302(1).
(5) The shoreline element of a comprehensive plan and the applicable development regulations adopted by a county or city shall take effect as provided in chapter 90.58 RCW.
(6) The greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement required by RCW 36.70A.070 shall take effect as provided in RCW 36.70A.096.
(7) Any housing element and any housing development regulations subject to review under RCW 36.70A.835 take effect as provided in RCW 36.70A.835.
[ 2025 c 269 s 4; 2023 c 228 s 8; 1997 c 429 s 20; 1995 c 347 s 111; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 13.]
Notes:
State representation—Short title—2025 c 269: See notes following RCW 36.70A.835.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.

catchline: Presumption of validity—Burden of proof—Plans and regulations.


title: RCW 36.70A.3201

text:
The legislature intends that the board applies a more deferential standard of review to actions of counties and cities than the preponderance of the evidence standard provided for under existing law. In recognition of the broad range of discretion that may be exercised by counties and cities consistent with the requirements of this chapter, the legislature intends for the board to grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter. Local comprehensive plans and development regulations require counties and cities to balance priorities and options for action in full consideration of local circumstances. The legislature finds that while this chapter requires local planning to take place within a framework of state goals and requirements, the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of this chapter, and implementing a county's or city's future rests with that community.
[ 2010 c 211 s 12; 1997 c 429 s 2.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: "Except as otherwise specifically provided in RCW 36.70A.335, sections 1 through 21, chapter 429, Laws of 1997 are prospective in effect and shall not affect the validity of actions taken or decisions made before July 27, 1997." [ 1997 c 429 s 53.]
Severability—1997 c 429: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1997 c 429 s 54.]

catchline: Growth management hearings board—Legislative intent and finding.


title: RCW 36.70A.330

text:
(1) After the time set for complying with the requirements of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b) has expired, or at an earlier time upon the motion of a county or city subject to a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.300, the board shall set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(2)(a) The board shall conduct a hearing and issue a finding of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter and with any compliance schedule established by the board in its final order.
(b) The board may not issue a finding of compliance unless the county or city has amended the portion of the plan or regulations that were found noncompliant, and the amendments addressing the noncompliance order are compliant with the requirements of this chapter.
(c) A person with standing to challenge the legislation enacted in response to the board's final order may participate in the hearing along with the petitioner and the state agency, county, or city.
(d) A hearing under this subsection shall be given the highest priority of business to be conducted by the board, and a finding shall be issued within 45 days of the filing of the motion under subsection (1) of this section with the board. The board shall issue any order necessary to make adjustments to the compliance schedule and set additional hearings as provided in subsection (5) of this section.
(3) If the board after a compliance hearing finds that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance, the board shall transmit its finding to the governor.
(a) The board may refer a finding of noncompliance to the department. The purpose of the referral is for the department to provide technical assistance to facilitate speedy resolution of the finding of noncompliance and to provide training pursuant to RCW 36.70A.332 as necessary.
(b) Alternatively, the board may recommend to the governor that the sanctions authorized by this chapter be imposed. The board shall take into consideration the county's or city's efforts to meet its compliance schedule in making the decision to recommend sanctions to the governor.
(4) In a compliance hearing upon petition of a party, the board shall also reconsider its final order and decide, if no determination of invalidity has been made, whether one now should be made under RCW 36.70A.302.
(5) The board shall schedule additional hearings as appropriate pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
[ 2025 c 17 s 1; 2021 c 312 s 2; 1997 c 429 s 21; 1995 c 347 s 112; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 14.]
Notes:
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.

catchline: Noncompliance.


title: RCW 36.70A.332

text:
(1) The department shall offer training to assist local governments in understanding findings of noncompliance from the growth management hearings board pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300 and 36.70A.330 and applying prior decisions of the board to ongoing planning efforts to avoid findings of noncompliance.
(2) The department may award grants to a public agency with appropriate expertise and funded by local governments to provide the training required in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) The training provided in subsection (1) of this section is limited to counties that are largely rural.
[ 2021 c 312 s 3.]

catchline: Training regarding findings of noncompliance.


title: RCW 36.70A.335

text:
A county or city subject to an order of invalidity issued before July 27, 1997, by motion may request the board to review the order of invalidity in light of the section 14, chapter 429, Laws of 1997 amendments to RCW 36.70A.300, the section 21, chapter 429, Laws of 1997 amendments to RCW 36.70A.330, and RCW 36.70A.302. If a request is made, the board shall rescind or modify the order of invalidity as necessary to make it consistent with the section 14, chapter 429, Laws of 1997 amendments to RCW 36.70A.300, and to the section 21, chapter 429, Laws of 1997 amendments to RCW 36.70A.330, and RCW 36.70A.302.
[ 1997 c 429 s 22.]
Notes:
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

catchline: Order of invalidity issued before July 27, 1997.


title: RCW 36.70A.340

text:
Upon receipt from the board of a finding that a state agency, county, or city is in noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.330, or as a result of failure to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.210, the governor may either:
(1) Notify and direct the director of the office of financial management to revise allotments in appropriation levels;
(2) Notify and direct the state treasurer to withhold the portion of revenues to which the county or city is entitled under one or more of the following: The motor vehicle fuel tax, as provided in chapter 82.38 RCW; the transportation improvement account, as provided in RCW 47.26.084; the rural arterial trust account, as provided in RCW 36.79.150; the sales and use tax, as provided in chapter 82.14 RCW; the liquor profit tax, as provided in RCW 66.08.190; and the liquor excise tax, as provided in RCW 82.08.170; or
(3) File a notice of noncompliance with the secretary of state and the county or city, which temporarily rescinds the county or city's authority to collect the real estate excise tax under RCW 82.46.030 until the governor files a notice rescinding the notice of noncompliance.
[ 2013 c 225 s 604; 2011 c 120 s 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 26.]
Notes:
Effective date—2013 c 225: See note following RCW 82.38.010.

catchline: Noncompliance and sanctions.


title: RCW 36.70A.345

text:
The governor may impose a sanction or sanctions specified under RCW 36.70A.340 on: (1) A county or city that fails to designate critical areas, agricultural lands, forestlands, or mineral resource lands under RCW 36.70A.170 by the date such action was required to have been taken; (2) a county or city that fails to adopt development regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 protecting critical areas or conserving agricultural lands, forestlands, or mineral resource lands by the date such action was required to have been taken; (3) a county that fails to designate urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 by the date such action was required to have been taken; and (4) a county or city that fails to adopt its comprehensive plan or development regulations when such actions are required to be taken.
Imposition of a sanction or sanctions under this section shall be preceded by written findings by the governor, that either the county or city is not proceeding in good faith to meet the requirements of the act; or that the county or city has unreasonably delayed taking the required action. The governor shall consult with and communicate his or her findings to the growth management hearings board prior to imposing the sanction or sanctions. For those counties or cities that are not required to plan or have not opted in, the governor in imposing sanctions shall consider the size of the jurisdiction relative to the requirements of this chapter and the degree of technical and financial assistance provided.
[ 2010 c 211 s 13; 1994 c 249 s 33; 1993 sp.s. c 6 s 5.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 36.70A.040.

catchline: Sanctions.


title: RCW 36.70A.350

text:
A county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish a process as part of its urban growth areas, that are designated under RCW 36.70A.110, for reviewing proposals to authorize new fully contained communities located outside of the initially designated urban growth areas.
(1) A new fully contained community may be approved in a county planning under this chapter if criteria including but not limited to the following are met:
(a) New infrastructure is provided for and impact fees are established consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050;
(b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are implemented;
(c) Buffers are provided between the new fully contained communities and adjacent urban development;
(d) A mix of uses is provided to offer jobs, housing, and services to the residents of the new community;
(e) Affordable housing is provided within the new community for a broad range of income levels;
(f) Environmental protection has been addressed and provided for;
(g) Development regulations are established to ensure urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas;
(h) Provision is made to mitigate impacts on designated agricultural lands, forestlands, and mineral resource lands;
(i) The plan for the new fully contained community is consistent with the development regulations established for the protection of critical areas by the county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170.
(2) New fully contained communities may be approved outside established urban growth areas only if a county reserves a portion of the twenty-year population projection and offsets the urban growth area accordingly for allocation to new fully contained communities that meet the requirements of this chapter. Any county electing to establish a new community reserve shall do so no more often than once every five years as a part of the designation or review of urban growth areas required by this chapter. The new community reserve shall be allocated on a project-by-project basis, only after specific project approval procedures have been adopted pursuant to this chapter as a development regulation. When a new community reserve is established, urban growth areas designated pursuant to this chapter shall accommodate the unreserved portion of the twenty-year population projection.
Final approval of an application for a new fully contained community shall be considered an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan prepared pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070 designating the new fully contained community as an urban growth area.
[ 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 16.]

catchline: New fully contained communities.


title: RCW 36.70A.360

text:
(1) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.
(2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, stormwater, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing certificates of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place of use for a water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing water right.
All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise.
(3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
(4) A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if:
(a) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts;
(b) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110;
(c) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forestland or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170;
(d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and
(e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
[ 1998 c 112 s 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 17.]
Notes:
Intent—1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the 1994 department of community, trade, and economic development's master planned resort task force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of capital facilities, utilities, and services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for shared facilities with such providers, when all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity increases, are fully borne by the resort." [ 1998 c 112 s 1.]

catchline: Master planned resorts.


title: RCW 36.70A.362

text:
Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may include existing resorts as master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. An existing resort means a resort in existence on July 1, 1990, and developed, in whole or in part, as a significantly self-contained and integrated development that includes short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities within the property boundaries in a setting of significant natural amenities. An existing resort may include other permanent residential uses, conference facilities, and commercial activities supporting the resort, but only if these other uses are integrated into and consistent with the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
An existing resort may be authorized by a county only if:
(1) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of the existing resort;
(2) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the existing resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110 and * 36.70A.360(1);
(3) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the existing resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forestland or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170;
(4) The county finds that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and
(5) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
A county may allocate a portion of its twenty-year population projection, prepared by the office of financial management, to the master planned resort corresponding to the projected number of permanent residents within the master planned resort.
[ 1997 c 382 s 1.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.360 was amended by 1998 c 112 s 2, changing subsection (1) to subsection (4)(a).

catchline: Master planned resorts—Existing resort may be included.


title: RCW 36.70A.365

text:
A county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish, in consultation with cities consistent with provisions of RCW 36.70A.210, a process for reviewing and approving proposals to authorize siting of specific major industrial developments outside urban growth areas.
(1) "Major industrial development" means a master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business that: (a) Requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forestland, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multitenant office parks.
(2) A major industrial development may be approved outside an urban growth area in a county planning under this chapter if criteria including, but not limited to the following, are met:
(a) New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid;
(b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are implemented;
(c) Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent nonurban areas;
(d) Environmental protection including air and water quality has been addressed and provided for;
(e) Development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas;
(f) Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forestlands, and mineral resource lands;
(g) The plan for the major industrial development is consistent with the county's development regulations established for protection of critical areas; and
(h) An inventory of developable land has been conducted and the county has determined and entered findings that land suitable to site the major industrial development is unavailable within the urban growth area. Priority shall be given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to the urban growth area.
(3) Final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070 designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. Final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time.
[ 1995 c 190 s 1.]

catchline: Major industrial developments.


title: RCW 36.70A.367

text:
(1) In addition to the major industrial development allowed under RCW 36.70A.365, a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 that meets the criteria in subsection (5) of this section may establish, in consultation with cities consistent with provisions of RCW 36.70A.210, a process for designating a bank of no more than two master planned locations for major industrial activity outside urban growth areas.
(2) A master planned location for major industrial developments may be approved through a two-step process: Designation of an industrial land bank area in the comprehensive plan; and subsequent approval of specific major industrial developments through a local master plan process described under subsection (3) of this section.
(a) The comprehensive plan must identify locations suited to major industrial development due to proximity to transportation or resource assets. The plan must identify the maximum size of the industrial land bank area and any limitations on major industrial developments based on local limiting factors, but does not need to specify a particular parcel or parcels of property or identify any specific use or user except as limited by this section. In selecting locations for the industrial land bank area, priority must be given to locations that are adjacent to, or in close proximity to, an urban growth area.
(b) The environmental review for amendment of the comprehensive plan must be at the programmatic level and, in addition to a threshold determination, must include:
(i) An inventory of developable land as provided in RCW 36.70A.365; and
(ii) An analysis of the availability of alternative sites within urban growth areas and the long-term annexation feasibility of sites outside of urban growth areas.
(c) Final approval of an industrial land bank area under this section must be by amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.070, and the amendment is exempt from the limitation of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. Approval of a specific major industrial development within the industrial land bank area requires no further amendment of the comprehensive plan.
(3) In concert with the designation of an industrial land bank area, a county shall also adopt development regulations for review and approval of specific major industrial developments through a master plan process. The regulations governing the master plan process shall ensure, at a minimum, that:
(a) Urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas;
(b) Development is consistent with the county's development regulations adopted for protection of critical areas;
(c) Required infrastructure is identified and provided concurrent with development. Such infrastructure, however, may be phased in with development;
(d) Transit-oriented site planning and demand management programs are specifically addressed as part of the master plan approval;
(e) Provision is made for addressing environmental protection, including air and water quality, as part of the master plan approval;
(f) The master plan approval includes a requirement that interlocal agreements between the county and service providers, including cities and special purpose districts providing facilities or services to the approved master plan, be in place at the time of master plan approval;
(g) A major industrial development is used primarily by industrial and manufacturing businesses, and that the gross floor area of all commercial and service buildings or facilities locating within the major industrial development does not exceed ten percent of the total gross floor area of buildings or facilities in the development. The intent of this provision for commercial or service use is to meet the needs of employees, clients, customers, vendors, and others having business at the industrial site, to attract and retain a quality workforce, and to further other public objectives, such as trip reduction. These uses may not be promoted to attract additional clientele from the surrounding area. Commercial and service businesses must be established concurrently with or subsequent to the industrial or manufacturing businesses;
(h) New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid to assure that adequate facilities are provided concurrently with the development. Infrastructure may be achieved in phases as development proceeds;
(i) Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent rural areas;
(j) Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forestlands, and mineral resource lands; and
(k) An open record public hearing is held before either the planning commission or hearing examiner with notice published at least thirty days before the hearing date and mailed to all property owners within one mile of the site.
(4) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Major industrial development" means a master planned location suitable for manufacturing or industrial businesses that: (i) Requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; (ii) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forestland, or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent; or (iii) requires a location with characteristics such as proximity to transportation facilities or related industries such that there is no suitable location in an urban growth area. The major industrial development may not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multitenant office parks.
(b) "Industrial land bank" means up to two master planned locations, each consisting of a parcel or parcels of contiguous land, sufficiently large so as not to be readily available within the urban growth area of a city, or otherwise meeting the criteria contained in (a) of this subsection, suitable for manufacturing, industrial, or commercial businesses and designated by the county through the comprehensive planning process specifically for major industrial use.
(5) This section and the termination provisions specified in subsection (6) of this section apply to a county that at the time the process is established under subsection (1) of this section:
(a) Has a population greater than two hundred fifty thousand and is part of a metropolitan area that includes a city in another state with a population greater than two hundred fifty thousand;
(b) Has a population greater than one hundred forty thousand and is adjacent to another country;
(c) Has a population greater than forty thousand but less than seventy-five thousand and has an average level of unemployment for the preceding three years that exceeds the average state unemployment for those years by twenty percent; and
(i) Is bordered by the Pacific Ocean;
(ii) Is located in the Interstate 5 or Interstate 90 corridor; or
(iii) Is bordered by Hood Canal;
(d) Is east of the Cascade divide; and
(i) Borders another state to the south; or
(ii) Is located wholly south of Interstate 90 and borders the Columbia river to the east;
(e) Has an average population density of less than one hundred persons per square mile as determined by the office of financial management, and is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and by Hood Canal; or
(f) Meets all of the following criteria:
(i) Has a population greater than forty thousand but fewer than eighty thousand;
(ii) Has an average level of unemployment for the preceding three years that exceeds the average state unemployment for those years by twenty percent; and
(iii) Is located in the Interstate 5 or Interstate 90 corridor.
(6) In order to identify and approve locations for industrial land banks, the county shall take action to designate one or more industrial land banks and adopt conforming regulations as provided by subsection (2) of this section on or before the last date to complete that county's next periodic review under *RCW 36.70A.130(4) that occurs prior to December 31, 2016. The authority to take action to designate a land bank area in the comprehensive plan expires if not acted upon by the county within the time frame provided in this section. Once a land bank area has been identified in the county's comprehensive plan, the authority of the county to process a master plan or site projects within an approved master plan does not expire.
(7) Any county seeking to designate an industrial land bank under this section must:
(a) Provide countywide notice, in conformity with RCW 36.70A.035, of the intent to designate an industrial land bank. Notice must be published in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation reasonably likely to reach subscribers in all geographic areas of the county. Notice must be provided not less than thirty days prior to commencement of consideration by the county legislative body; and
(b) Make a written determination of the criteria and rationale used by the legislative body as the basis for siting an industrial land bank under this chapter.
(8) Any location included in an industrial land bank pursuant to section 2, chapter 289, Laws of 1998, section 1, chapter 402, Laws of 1997, and section 2, chapter 167, Laws of 1996 shall remain available for major industrial development according to this section as long as the requirements of this section continue to be satisfied.
[ 2014 c 149 s 1; 2007 c 433 s 1; 2004 c 208 s 1; 2003 c 88 s 1; 2002 c 306 s 1; 2001 c 326 s 1; 1998 c 289 s 2; 1997 c 402 s 1; 1996 c 167 s 2.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.130 was amended by 2020 c 113 s 1, deleting subsection (4).
Findings—Purpose—1998 c 289: "The legislature finds that to fulfill the economic development goal of this chapter, it is beneficial to expand the limited authorization for pilot projects for identifying locations for major industrial activity in advance of specific proposals by an applicant. The legislature further finds that land bank availability may provide economically disadvantaged counties the opportunity to attract new industrial activity by offering expeditious siting and therefore promote a community's economic health and vitality. The purpose of this act is to authorize and evaluate additional pilot projects for major industrial activity in economically disadvantaged counties." [ 1998 c 289 s 1.]
Findings—Purpose—1996 c 167: "In 1995 the legislature addressed the demand for siting of major industrial facilities by passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5019, implementing a process for siting such activities outside urban growth areas. The legislature recognizes that the 1995 act requires consideration of numerous factors necessary to ensure that the community can reasonably accommodate a major industrial development outside an urban growth area.
The legislature finds that the existing case-by-case procedure for evaluating and approving such a site under the 1995 act may operate to a community's economic disadvantage when a firm, for business reasons, must make a business location decision expeditiously. The legislature therefore finds that it would be useful to authorize, on a limited basis, and evaluate a process for identifying locations for major industrial activity in advance of specific proposals by an applicant.
It is the purpose of this act (1) to authorize a pilot project under which a bank of major industrial development locations outside urban growth areas is created for use in expeditiously siting such a development; (2) to evaluate the impact of this process on the county's compliance with chapter 36.70A RCW; and (3) to encourage consolidation and planning, and environmental review procedures under chapter 36.70B RCW." [ 1996 c 167 s 1.]
Effective date—1996 c 167: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [March 28, 1996]." [ 1996 c 167 s 3.]

catchline: Major industrial developments—Master planned locations.


title: RCW 36.70A.368

text:
(1) In addition to the major industrial development allowed under RCW 36.70A.365 and 36.70A.367, a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 that meets the criteria in subsection (2) of this section may establish, in consultation with cities consistent with RCW 36.70A.210, a process for designating a master planned location for major industrial activity outside urban growth areas on lands formerly used or designated for surface coal mining and supporting uses. Once a master planned location is designated, it shall be considered an urban growth area retained for purposes of promoting major industrial activity.
(2) This section applies to a county that, at the time the process is established in subsection (1) of this section, had a surface coal mining operation in excess of three thousand acres that ceased operation after July 1, 2006, and that is located within fifteen miles of the Interstate 5 corridor.
(3) Designation of a master planned location for major industrial activities is an amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.070, except that RCW 36.70A.130(2) does not apply so that designation of master planned locations may be considered at any time. The process established under subsection (1) of this section for designating a master planned location for one or more major industrial activities must include, but is not limited to, the following comprehensive plan policy criteria:
(a) The master planned location must be located on lands: Formerly used or designated for surface coal mining and supporting uses; that consist of an aggregation of land of one thousand or more acres, which is not required to be contiguous; and that are suitable for manufacturing, industrial, or commercial businesses;
(b) New infrastructure is provided for; and
(c) Environmental review of a proposed designation of a master planned location must be at the programmatic level, as long as the environmental review of a proposed designation that is being reviewed concurrent with a proposed major industrial activity is at the project level.
(4) Approval of a specific major industrial activity proposed for a master planned location designated under this section is through a local master plan process and does not require further comprehensive plan amendment. The process for reviewing and approving a specific major industrial activity proposed for a master planned location designated under this section must include the following criteria in adopted development regulations:
(a) The site consists of one hundred or more acres of land formerly used or designated for surface coal mining and supporting uses that has been or will be reclaimed as land suitable for industrial development;
(b) Urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas;
(c) Environmental review of a specific proposed major industrial activity must be conducted as required in chapter 43.21C RCW. Environmental review may be processed as a planned action, as long as it meets the requirements of *RCW 43.21C.031; and
(d) Commercial development within a master planned location must be directly related to manufacturing or industrial uses. Commercial uses shall not exceed ten percent of the total gross floor area of buildings or facilities in the development.
(5) Final approval of the designation of a master planned location designated under subsection (3) of this section is subject to appeal under this chapter. Approval of a specific major industrial activity under subsection (4) of this section is subject to appeal under chapter 36.70C RCW.
(6) RCW 36.70A.365 and 36.70A.367 do not apply to the designation of master planned locations or the review and approval of specific major industrial activities under this section.
[ 2007 c 194 s 1.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The requirements for a planned action were moved by 2012 1st sp.s. c 1 from RCW 43.21C.031 to RCW 43.21C.440.

catchline: Major industrial developments—Master planned locations—Reclaimed surface coal mine sites.


title: RCW 36.70A.370

text:
(1) The state attorney general shall establish by October 1, 1991, an orderly, consistent process, including a checklist if appropriate, that better enables state agencies and local governments to evaluate proposed regulatory or administrative actions to assure that such actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. It is not the purpose of this section to expand or reduce the scope of private property protections provided in the state and federal Constitutions. The attorney general shall review and update the process at least on an annual basis to maintain consistency with changes in case law.
(2) Local governments that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and state agencies shall utilize the process established by subsection (1) of this section to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property.
(3) The attorney general, in consultation with the Washington state bar association, shall develop a continuing education course to implement this section.
(4) The process used by government agencies shall be protected by attorney client privilege. Nothing in this section grants a private party the right to seek judicial relief requiring compliance with the provisions of this section.
[ 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 18.]

catchline: Protection of private property.