RCW 36.70A.210
Countywide planning policies.
(1) The legislature recognizes that counties are regional governments within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban governmental services within urban growth areas. For the purposes of this section, a "countywide planning policy" is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter. This framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required in RCW 36.70A.100
. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the land-use powers of cities.
(2) The legislative authority of a county that plans under RCW 36.70A.040
shall adopt a countywide planning policy in cooperation with the cities located in whole or in part within the county as follows:
(a) No later than sixty calendar days from July 16, 1991, the legislative authority of each county that as of June 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
shall convene a meeting with representatives of each city located within the county for the purpose of establishing a collaborative process that will provide a framework for the adoption of a countywide planning policy. In other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, this meeting shall be convened no later than sixty days after the date the county adopts its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management.
(b) The process and framework for adoption of a countywide planning policy specified in (a) of this subsection shall determine the manner in which the county and the cities agree to all procedures and provisions including but not limited to desired planning policies, deadlines, ratification of final agreements and demonstration thereof, and financing, if any, of all activities associated therewith.
(c) If a county fails for any reason to convene a meeting with representatives of cities as required in (a) of this subsection, the governor may immediately impose any appropriate sanction or sanctions on the county from those specified under RCW 36.70A.340
.
(d) If there is no agreement by October 1, 1991, in a county that was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
as of June 1, 1991, or if there is no agreement within one hundred twenty days of the date the county adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management in any other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, the governor shall first inquire of the jurisdictions as to the reason or reasons for failure to reach an agreement. If the governor deems it appropriate, the governor may immediately request the assistance of the department of commerce to mediate any disputes that preclude agreement. If mediation is unsuccessful in resolving all disputes that will lead to agreement, the governor may impose appropriate sanctions from those specified under RCW 36.70A.340
on the county, city, or cities for failure to reach an agreement as provided in this section. The governor shall specify the reason or reasons for the imposition of any sanction.
(e) No later than July 1, 1992, the legislative authority of each county that was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
as of June 1, 1991, or no later than fourteen months after the date the county adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management the county legislative authority of any other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall adopt a countywide planning policy according to the process provided under this section and that is consistent with the agreement pursuant to (b) of this subsection, and after holding a public hearing or hearings on the proposed countywide planning policy.
(3) A countywide planning policy shall at a minimum, address the following:
(a) Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110
;
(b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development;
(c) Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature, including transportation facilities of statewide significance as defined in RCW 47.06.140
;
(d) Policies for countywide transportation facilities and strategies;
(e) Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution;
(f) Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas;
(g) Policies for countywide economic development and employment, which must include consideration of the future development of commercial and industrial facilities;
(h) An analysis of the fiscal impact; and
(i) Policies that address the protection of tribal cultural resources in collaboration with federally recognized Indian tribes that are invited pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, provided that a tribe, or more than one tribe, chooses to participate in the process.
(4) Federal agencies and federally recognized Indian tribes whose reservation or ceded lands lie within the county shall be invited to participate in and cooperate with the countywide planning policy adoption process. Adopted countywide planning policies shall be adhered to by state agencies.
(5) Failure to adopt a countywide planning policy that meets the requirements of this section may result in the imposition of a sanction or sanctions on a county or city within the county, as specified in RCW 36.70A.340
. In imposing a sanction or sanctions, the governor shall specify the reasons for failure to adopt a countywide planning policy in order that any imposed sanction or sanctions are fairly and equitably related to the failure to adopt a countywide planning policy.
(6) Cities and the governor may appeal an adopted countywide planning policy to the growth management hearings board within sixty days of the adoption of the countywide planning policy.
(7) Multicounty planning policies shall be adopted by two or more counties, each with a population of four hundred fifty thousand or more, with contiguous urban areas and may be adopted by other counties, according to the process established under this section or other processes agreed to among the counties and cities within the affected counties throughout the multicounty region.
[
2022 c 252 s 6
;
2009 c 121 s 2
;
1998 c 171 s 4
;
1994 c 249 s 28
;
1993 sp.s. c 6 s 4
;
1991 sp.s. c 32 s 2
.]
NOTES:
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
.
RCW 36.70A.211
Siting of schools
—
Rural areas, when authorized
—
Impact fees.
(Expires June 30, 2031.)
(1) A county may authorize the siting in a rural area of a school that serves students from an urban area, even where otherwise prohibited by a multicounty planning policy, under the following circumstances:
(a) The county has a population of more than eight hundred forty thousand but fewer than one million five hundred thousand and abuts at least six other counties;
(b) The county must have adopted in its comprehensive plan a policy concerning the siting of schools in rural areas;
(c) Any impacts associated with the siting of such a school are mitigated as required by the state environmental policy act, chapter
43.21C
RCW; and
(d) The county must be a participant in a multicounty planning policy as described in RCW 36.70A.210
.
(2) A multicounty planning policy in which any county referenced in subsection (1) of this section is a participant must be amended, at its next regularly scheduled update, to include a policy that addresses the siting of schools in rural areas of all counties subject to the multicounty planning policy.
(3) A school sited under this section may not collect or impose the impact fees described in RCW 82.02.050
.
(4) This section expires June 30, 2031.
[
2017 c 129 s 2
.]
RCW 36.70A.212
Siting of schools
—
Periodic updates.
In a county that chooses to site schools under RCW 36.70A.211, each school district within the county must participate in the county's periodic updates required by *RCW 36.70A.130
(1)(b) by:
(1) Coordinating its enrollment forecasts and projections with the county's adopted population projections;
(2) Identifying school siting criteria with the county, cities, and regional transportation planning organizations;
(3) Identifying suitable school sites with the county and cities, with priority to siting urban-serving schools in existing cities and towns in locations where students can safely walk and bicycle to the school from their homes and that can effectively be served with transit; and
(4) Working with the county and cities to identify school costs and funding for the capital facilities plan element required by RCW 36.70A.070
(3).
[
2017 c 129 s 3
.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note:
RCW 36.70A.130
was amended by 2023 c 280 s 1, changing subsection (1)(b) to subsection (1)(c).
RCW 36.70A.213
Extension of public facilities and utilities to serve school sited in a rural area authorized
—
Requirements for authorization
—
Report.
(1) This chapter does not prohibit a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040
from authorizing the extension of public facilities and utilities to serve a school sited in a rural area that serves students from a rural area and an urban area so long as the following requirements are met:
(a) The applicable school district board of directors has adopted a policy addressing school service area and facility needs and educational program requirements;
(b) The applicable school district has made a finding, with the concurrence of the county legislative authority and the legislative authorities of any affected cities, that the district's proposed site is suitable to site the school and any associated recreational facilities that the district has determined cannot reasonably be collocated on an existing school site, taking into consideration the policy adopted in (a) of this subsection and the extent to which vacant or developable land within the growth area meets those requirements;
(c) The county and any affected cities agree to the extension of public facilities and utilities to serve the school sited in a rural area that serves urban and rural students at the time of concurrence in (b) of this subsection;
(d) If the public facility or utility is extended beyond the urban growth area to serve a school, the public facility or utility must serve only the school and the costs of such extension must be borne by the applicable school district based on a reasonable nexus to the impacts of the school, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section; and
(e) Any impacts associated with the siting of the school are mitigated as required by the state environmental policy act, chapter
43.21C
RCW.
(2) This chapter does not prohibit either the expansion or modernization of an existing school in the rural area or the placement of portable classrooms at an existing school in the rural area.
(3) Where a public facility or utility has been extended beyond the urban growth area to serve a school, the public facility or utility may, where consistent with RCW 36.70A.110
(4), serve a property or properties in addition to the school if the property owner so requests, provided that the county and any affected cities agree with the request and provided that the property is located no further from the public facility or utility than the distance that, if the property were within the urban growth area, the property would be required to connect to the public facility or utility. In such an instance, the school district may, for a period not to exceed twenty years, require reimbursement from a requesting property owner for a proportional share of the construction costs incurred by the school district for the extension of the public facility or utility.
(4) By December 1, 2023, the department shall report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature about schools outside of urban growth areas that have been built, are under construction, or are planned as a result of the requirements of chapter 32, Laws of 2017 3rd sp. sess. The report shall include the number, location, and characteristics of the schools; the number of urban and rural students served; and a cost analysis of schools built outside of urban growth boundaries.
[
2017 3rd sp.s. c 32 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.215
Review and evaluation program.
(Effective until January 1, 2030.)
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.217
Guidance for local governments on the review and evaluation program
—
Public participation
—
Analysis and recommendations.
(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
.]
RCW 36.70A.250
Growth management hearings board
—
Creation
—
Members.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.252
Growth management hearings board
—
Consolidation into environmental and land use hearings office.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.260
Growth management hearings board
—
Regional panels.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.270
Growth management hearings board
—
Conduct, procedure, and compensation
—
Public access to rulings, decisions, and orders.
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
.]
RCW 36.70A.280
Growth management hearings board
—
Matters subject to review.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.290
Growth management hearings board
—
Petitions
—
Evidence.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.295
Growth management hearings board
—
Direct judicial review.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.300
Final orders.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.302
Growth management hearings board
—
Determination of invalidity
—
Vesting of development permits
—
Interim controls.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.305
Expedited review.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.310
Growth management hearings board
—
Limitations on appeal by the state.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.320
Presumption of validity
—
Burden of proof
—
Plans and regulations.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.3201
Growth management hearings board
—
Legislative intent and finding.
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
.]
RCW 36.70A.330
Noncompliance.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.332
Training regarding findings of noncompliance.
(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
.]
RCW 36.70A.335
Order of invalidity issued before July 27, 1997.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.340
Noncompliance and sanctions.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.345
Sanctions.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.350
New fully contained communities.
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
.]
RCW 36.70A.360
Master planned resorts.
(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
.]
RCW 36.70A.362
Master planned resorts
—
Existing resort may be included.
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).
RCW 36.70A.365
Major industrial developments.
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
.]
RCW 36.70A.367
Major industrial developments
—
Master planned locations.
(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
.]
RCW 36.70A.368
Major industrial developments
—
Master planned locations
—
Reclaimed surface coal mine sites.
(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
.
RCW 36.70A.370
Protection of private property.
(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
.]
RCW 36.70A.380
Extension of designation date.
The department may extend the date by which a county or city is required to designate agricultural lands, forestlands, mineral resource lands, and critical areas under RCW 36.70A.170, or the date by which a county or city is required to protect such lands and critical areas under RCW 36.70A.060, if the county or city demonstrates that it is proceeding in an orderly fashion, and is making a good faith effort, to meet these requirements. An extension may be for up to an additional one hundred eighty days. The length of an extension shall be based on the difficulty of the effort to conform with these requirements.
[
1991 sp.s. c 32 s 39
.]
RCW 36.70A.385
Environmental planning pilot projects.
(1) The legislature intends to determine whether the environmental review process mandated under chapter
43.21C
RCW may be enhanced and simplified, and coordination improved, when applied to comprehensive plans mandated by this chapter. The department shall undertake pilot projects on environmental review to determine if the review process can be improved by fostering more coordination and eliminating duplicative environmental analysis which is made to assist decision makers approving comprehensive plans pursuant to this chapter. Such pilot projects should be designed and scoped to consider cumulative impacts resulting from plan decisions, plan impacts on environmental quality, impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, and similar factors in sufficient depth to simplify the analysis of subsequent specific projects being carried out pursuant to the approved plan.
(2) The legislature hereby authorizes the department to establish, in cooperation with business, industry, cities, counties, and other interested parties, at least two but not more than four pilot projects, one of which shall be with a county, on enhanced draft and final nonproject environmental analysis of comprehensive plans prepared pursuant to this chapter, for the purposes outlined in subsection (1) of this section. The department may select appropriate geographic subareas within a comprehensive plan if that will best serve the purposes of this section and meet the requirements of chapter
43.21C
RCW.
(3) An enhanced draft and final nonproject environmental analysis prepared pursuant to this section shall follow the rules adopted pursuant to chapter
43.21C
RCW.
(4) Not later than December 31, 1993, the department shall evaluate the overall effectiveness of the pilot projects under this section regarding preparing enhanced nonproject environmental analysis for the approval process of comprehensive plans and shall:
(a) Provide an interim report of its findings to the legislature with such recommendations as may be appropriate, including the need, if any, for further legislation;
(b) Consider adoption of any further rules or guidelines as may be appropriate to assist counties and cities in meeting requirements of chapter
43.21C
RCW when considering comprehensive plans; and
(c) Prepare and circulate to counties and cities such instructional manuals or other information derived from the pilot projects as will assist all counties and cities in meeting the requirements and objectives of chapter
43.21C
RCW in the most expeditious and efficient manner in the process of considering comprehensive plans pursuant to this chapter.
[
1998 c 245 s 30
;
1995 c 399 s 43
;
1991 sp.s. c 32 s 20
.]
RCW 36.70A.390
Moratoria, interim zoning controls
—
Public hearing
—
Limitation on length
—
Exceptions.
A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal.
This section does not apply to the designation of critical areas, agricultural lands, forestlands, and mineral resource lands, under RCW 36.70A.170, and the conservation of these lands and protection of these areas under RCW 36.70A.060, prior to such actions being taken in a comprehensive plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.070
and implementing development regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.120, if a public hearing is held on such proposed actions. This section does not apply to ordinances or development regulations adopted by a city that prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed or prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed.
[
2021 c 254 s 5
;
1992 c 207 s 6
.]
RCW 36.70A.410
Treatment of residential structures occupied by persons with handicaps.
No county or city that plans or elects to plan under this chapter may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, "handicaps" are as defined in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602).
[
1993 c 478 s 23
.]
RCW 36.70A.420
Transportation projects
—
Findings
—
Intent.
The legislature recognizes that there are major transportation projects that affect multiple jurisdictions as to economic development, fiscal influence, environmental consequences, land use implications, and mobility of people and goods. The legislature further recognizes that affected jurisdictions have important interests that must be addressed, and that these jurisdictions' present environmental planning and permitting authority may result in multiple local permits and other requirements being specified for the projects.
The legislature finds that the present permitting system may result in segmented and sequential decisions by local governments that do not optimally serve all the parties with an interest in the decisions. The present system may also make more difficult achieving the consistency among plans and actions that is an important aspect of this chapter.
It is the intent of the legislature to provide for more efficiency and equity in the decisions of local governments regarding major transportation projects by encouraging coordination or consolidation of the processes for reviewing environmental planning and permitting requirements for those projects. The legislature intends that local governments coordinate their regulatory decisions by considering together the range of local, state, and federal requirements for major transportation projects. Nothing in RCW 36.70A.420
or
36.70A.430
alters the authority of cities or counties under any other planning or permitting statute.
[
1994 c 258 s 1
.]
NOTES:
Captions not law
—
1994 c 258:
"Section captions used in this act constitute no part of the law." [
1994 c 258 s 6
.]
RCW 36.70A.430
Transportation projects
—
Collaborative review process.
For counties engaged in planning under this chapter, there shall be established by December 31, 1994, a collaborative process to review and coordinate state and local permits for all transportation projects that cross more than one city or county boundary. This process shall at a minimum, establish a mechanism among affected cities and counties to designate a permit coordinating agency to facilitate multijurisdictional review and approval of such transportation projects.
[
1994 c 258 s 2
.]
NOTES:
Captions not law
—
1994 c 258:
See note following RCW 36.70A.420
.
RCW 36.70A.450
Family day-care provider's home facility
—
County or city may not prohibit in residential or commercial area
—
Conditions.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no county or city may enact, enforce, or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation, or official control, policy, or administrative practice that prohibits the use of a residential dwelling, located in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, as a family day-care provider's home facility.
(2) A county or city may require that the facility: (a) Comply with all building, fire, safety, health code, and business licensing requirements; (b) conform to lot size, building size, setbacks, and lot coverage standards applicable to the zoning district except if the structure is a legal nonconforming structure; (c) is certified by the department of children, youth, and families licensor as providing a safe passenger loading area; (d) include signage, if any, that conforms to applicable regulations; and (e) limit hours of operations to facilitate neighborhood compatibility, while also providing appropriate opportunity for persons who use family day-care and who work a nonstandard work shift.
(3) A county or city may also require that the family day-care provider, before state licensing, require proof of written notification by the provider that the immediately adjoining property owners have been informed of the intent to locate and maintain such a facility. If a dispute arises between neighbors and the family day-care provider over licensing requirements, the licensor may provide a forum to resolve the dispute.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a county or city from imposing zoning conditions on the establishment and maintenance of a family day-care provider's home in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, so long as such conditions are no more restrictive than conditions imposed on other residential dwellings in the same zone and the establishment of such facilities is not precluded. As used in this section, "family day-care provider" is as defined in RCW 43.216.010
.
[
2018 c 58 s 22
;
2007 c 17 s 13
;
2003 c 286 s 5
;
1995 c 49 s 3
;
1994 c 273 s 17
.]
NOTES:
Effective date
—
2018 c 58:
See note following RCW 28A.655.080
.
RCW 36.70A.460
Watershed restoration projects
—
Permit processing
—
Fish habitat enhancement project.
(1) A permit required under this chapter for a watershed restoration project as defined in RCW 89.08.460
shall be processed in compliance with RCW 89.08.450
through
89.08.510
.
(2) A fish habitat enhancement project meeting the criteria of RCW 77.55.181
shall be reviewed and approved according to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181
.
[
2014 c 120 s 15
;
2003 c 39 s 21
;
1998 c 249 s 11
;
1995 c 378 s 11
.]
NOTES:
Findings
—
Purpose
—
Report
—
Effective date
—
1998 c 249:
See notes following RCW 77.55.181
.
RCW 36.70A.470
Project review
—
Amendment suggestion procedure
—
Definitions.
(1) Project review, which shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of chapter
36.70B
RCW, shall be used to make individual project decisions, not land use planning decisions. If, during project review, a county or city planning under RCW 36.70A.040
identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations:
(a) The permitting process shall not be used as a comprehensive planning process;
(b) Project review shall continue; and
(c) The identified deficiencies shall be docketed for possible future plan or development regulation amendments.
(2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040
shall include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development regulation amendments. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis, consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130
.
(3) For purposes of this section, a deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulation refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a comprehensive plan or development regulation. It does not refer to whether a development regulation addresses a project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts which the permitting agency could mitigate in the normal project review process.
(4) For purposes of this section, docketing refers to compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public.
[
1995 c 347 s 102
.]
NOTES:
Findings
—
Intent
—
1995 c 347 s 102:
"The legislature finds that during project review, a county or city planning under RCW 36.70A.040
is likely to discover the need to make various improvements in comprehensive plans and development regulations. There is no current requirement or process for applicants, citizens, or agency staff to ensure that these improvements are considered in the plan review process. The legislature also finds that in the past environmental review and permitting of proposed projects have been used to reopen and make land use planning decisions that should have been made through the comprehensive planning process, in part because agency staff and hearing examiners have not been able to ensure consideration of all issues in the local planning process. The legislature further finds that, while plans and regulations should be improved and refined over time, it is unfair to penalize applicants that have submitted permit applications that meet current requirements. It is the intent of the legislature in enacting RCW 36.70A.470
to establish a means by which cities and counties will docket suggested plan or development regulation amendments and ensure their consideration during the planning process." [
1995 c 347 s 101
.]
Finding
—
1995 c 347:
"The legislature recognizes by this act that the growth management act is a fundamental building block of regulatory reform. The state and local governments have invested considerable resources in an act that should serve as the integrating framework for all other land-use related laws. The growth management act provides the means to effectively combine certainty for development decisions, reasonable environmental protection, long-range planning for cost-effective infrastructure, and orderly growth and development." [
1995 c 347 s 1
.]
Severability
—
1995 c 347:
"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." [
1995 c 347 s 901
.]
Part headings and table of contents not law
—
1995 c 347:
"Part headings and the table of contents as used in this act do not constitute any part of the law." [
1995 c 347 s 902
.]
RCW 36.70A.480
Shorelines of the state.
(1) For shorelines of the state, the goals and policies of the shoreline management act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020
are added as one of the goals of this chapter as set forth in RCW 36.70A.020
without creating an order of priority among the 15 goals. The goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city approved under chapter
90.58
RCW shall be considered an element of the county or city's comprehensive plan. All other portions of the shoreline master program for a county or city adopted under chapter
90.58
RCW, including use regulations, shall be considered a part of the county or city's development regulations.
(2) The shoreline master program shall be adopted pursuant to the procedures of chapter
90.58
RCW rather than the goals, policies, and procedures set forth in this chapter for the adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations.
(3)(a) The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter
90.58
RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program with this chapter except as the shoreline master program is required to comply with the internal consistency provisions of RCW 36.70A.070, 36.70A.040
(4), 35.63.125, and
35A.63.105
.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in (c) of this subsection, development regulations adopted under this chapter to protect critical areas within shorelines of the state apply within shorelines of the state until the department of ecology approves one of the following: A comprehensive master program update, as defined in RCW 90.58.030
; a segment of a master program relating to critical areas, as provided in RCW 90.58.090
; or a new or amended master program approved by the department of ecology on or after March 1, 2002, as provided in RCW 90.58.080
. The adoption or update of development regulations to protect critical areas under this chapter prior to department of ecology approval of a master program update as provided in this subsection is not a comprehensive or segment update to the master program.
(c)(i) Until the department of ecology approves a master program or segment of a master program as provided in (b) of this subsection, a use or structure legally located within shorelines of the state that was established or vested on or before the effective date of the local government's development regulations to protect critical areas may continue as a conforming use and may be redeveloped or modified if: (A) The redevelopment or modification is consistent with the local government's master program; and (B) the local government determines that the proposed redevelopment or modification will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The local government may waive this requirement if the redevelopment or modification is consistent with the master program and the local government's development regulations to protect critical areas.
(ii) For purposes of this subsection (3)(c), an agricultural activity that does not expand the area being used for the agricultural activity is not a redevelopment or modification. "Agricultural activity," as used in this subsection (3)(c), has the same meaning as defined in RCW 90.58.065
.
(d) Upon department of ecology approval of a shoreline master program or critical area segment of a shoreline master program, critical areas within shorelines of the state are protected under chapter
90.58
RCW and are not subject to the procedural and substantive requirements of this chapter, except as provided in subsection (6) of this section. Nothing in chapter 321, Laws of 2003 or chapter 107, Laws of 2010 is intended to affect whether or to what extent agricultural activities, as defined in RCW 90.58.065, are subject to chapter
36.70A
RCW.
(e) The provisions of RCW 36.70A.172
shall not apply to the adoption or subsequent amendment of a local government's shoreline master program and shall not be used to determine compliance of a local government's shoreline master program with chapter
90.58
RCW and applicable guidelines. Nothing in this section, however, is intended to limit or change the quality of information to be applied in protecting critical areas within shorelines of the state, as required by chapter
90.58
RCW and applicable guidelines.
(4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060
.
(5) Shorelines of the state shall not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within shorelines of the state qualify for critical area designation based on the definition of critical areas provided by *RCW 36.70A.030
(6) and have been designated as such by a local government pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060
(2).
(6) If a local jurisdiction's master program does not include land necessary for buffers for critical areas that occur within shorelines of the state, as authorized by RCW 90.58.030
(2)(d), then the local jurisdiction shall continue to regulate those critical areas and their required buffers pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060
(2).
[
2023 c 228 s 2
;
2010 c 107 s 2
;
2003 c 321 s 5
;
1995 c 347 s 104
.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note:
RCW 36.70A.030
was amended by 2023 c 332 s 2 and 2023 c 228 s 14, changing subsection (6) to subsection (11).
Intent
—
2010 c 107:
"(1) The legislature recognizes that Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1933, enacted as chapter 321, Laws of 2003, modified the relationship between the shoreline management act and the growth management act. The legislature recognizes also that its 2003 efforts, while intended to create greater operational clarity between these significant shoreline and land use acts, have been the subject of differing, and occasionally contrary, legal interpretations. This act is intended to affirm and clarify the legislature's intent relating to the provisions of chapter 321, Laws of 2003.
(2) The legislature affirms that development regulations adopted under the growth management act to protect critical areas apply within shorelines of the state as provided in section 2 of this act.
(3) The legislature affirms that the adoption or update of critical area regulations under the growth management act is not automatically an update to the shoreline master program.
(4) The legislature intends for this act to be remedial and curative in nature, and to apply retroactively to July 27, 2003." [
2010 c 107 s 1
.]
Retroactive application
—
2010 c 107:
"This act is remedial and curative in nature and applies retroactively to July 27, 2003." [
2010 c 107 s 5
.]
Effective date
—
2010 c 107:
"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 takes effect immediately [March 18, 2010]." [
2010 c 107 s 6
.]
Finding
—
Intent
—
2003 c 321:
See note following RCW 90.58.030
.
Finding
—
Severability
—
Part headings and table of contents not law
—
1995 c 347:
See notes following RCW 36.70A.470
.
RCW 36.70A.481
Construction
—
Chapter 347, Laws of 1995.
Nothing in RCW 36.70A.480
shall be construed to authorize a county or city to adopt regulations applicable to shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030
that are inconsistent with the provisions of chapter
90.58
RCW.
[
1995 c 382 s 13
.]
RCW 36.70A.490
Growth management planning and environmental review fund
—
Established.
The growth management planning and environmental review fund is hereby established in the state treasury. Moneys may be placed in the fund from the proceeds of bond sales, tax revenues, budget transfers, federal appropriations, gifts, or any other lawful source. Moneys in the fund may be spent only after appropriation. Moneys in the fund shall be used to make grants or loans to local governments for the purposes set forth in RCW 43.21C.240, 43.21C.031, 36.70A.500, 36.70A.600, for costs associated with RCW 36.70A.610, and to cover costs associated with the adoption of optional elements of comprehensive plans consistent with RCW 43.21C.420
. Any payment of either principal or interest, or both, derived from loans made from this fund must be deposited into the fund.
[
2019 c 348 s 8
;
2012 1st sp.s. c 1 s 309
;
1995 c 347 s 115
.]
NOTES:
Finding
—
Intent
—
Limitation
—
Jurisdiction/authority of Indian tribe under act
—
2012 1st sp.s. c 1:
See notes following RCW 77.55.011
.
Authority of department of fish and wildlife under act
—
2012 1st sp.s. c 1:
See note following RCW 76.09.040
.
Findings
—
Purpose
—
1995 c 347 s 115:
"(1) The legislature finds that:
(a) As of July 23, 1995, twenty-nine counties and two hundred eight cities are conducting comprehensive planning under the growth management act, chapter
36.70A
RCW, which together comprise over ninety percent of the state's population;
(b) Comprehensive plans for many of the jurisdictions were due by July 1, 1994, and the remaining jurisdictions must complete plans under due dates ranging from October 1994 to September 1997;
(c) Concurrently with these comprehensive planning activities, local governments must conduct several other planning requirements under the growth management act, such as the adoption of capital facilities plans, urban growth areas, and development regulations;
(d) Local governments must also comply with the state environmental policy act, chapter
43.21C
RCW, in the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations;
(e) The combined activities of comprehensive planning and the state environmental policy act present a serious fiscal burden upon local governments; and
(f) Detailed environmental analysis integrated with comprehensive plans, subarea plans, and development regulations will facilitate planning for and managing growth, allow greater protection of the environment, and benefit both the general public and private property owners.
(2) In order to provide financial assistance to cities and counties planning under chapter
36.70A
RCW and to improve the usefulness of plans and integrated environmental analyses, the legislature has created the fund described in RCW 36.70A.490
." [
1995 c 347 s 114
.]
Finding
—
Severability
—
Part headings and table of contents not law
—
1995 c 347:
See notes following RCW 36.70A.470
.
RCW 36.70A.500
Growth management planning and environmental review fund
—
Awarding of grant or loan
—
Procedures.
(1) The department of commerce shall provide management services for the growth management planning and environmental review fund created by RCW 36.70A.490
. The department shall establish procedures for fund management. The department shall encourage participation in the grant or loan program by other public agencies. The department shall develop the grant or loan criteria, monitor the grant or loan program, and select grant or loan recipients in consultation with state agencies participating in the grant or loan program through the provision of grant or loan funds or technical assistance.
(2) A grant or loan may be awarded to a county or city that is required to or has chosen to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
and that is qualified pursuant to this section. The grant or loan shall be provided to assist a county or city in paying for the cost of preparing an environmental analysis under chapter
43.21C
RCW, that is integrated with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, plan element, countywide planning policy, development regulation, monitoring program, or other planning activity adopted under or implementing this chapter that:
(a) Improves the process for project permit review while maintaining environmental quality; or
(b) Encourages use of plans and information developed for purposes of complying with this chapter to satisfy requirements of other state programs.
(3) In order to qualify for a grant or loan, a county or city shall:
(a) Demonstrate that it will prepare an environmental analysis pursuant to chapter
43.21C
RCW and subsection (2) of this section that is integrated with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, plan element, countywide planning policy, development regulations, monitoring program, or other planning activity adopted under or implementing this chapter;
(b) Address environmental impacts and consequences, alternatives, and mitigation measures in sufficient detail to allow the analysis to be adopted in whole or in part by applicants for development permits within the geographic area analyzed in the plan;
(c) Demonstrate that procedures for review of development permit applications will be based on the integrated plans and environmental analysis;
(d) Include mechanisms to monitor the consequences of growth as it occurs in the plan area and to use the resulting data to update the plan, policy, or implementing mechanisms and associated environmental analysis;
(e) Demonstrate substantial progress towards compliance with the requirements of this chapter. A county or city that is more than six months out of compliance with a requirement of this chapter is deemed not to be making substantial progress towards compliance; and
(f) Provide local funding, which may include financial participation by the private sector.
(4) In awarding grants or loans, the department shall give preference to proposals that include one or more of the following elements:
(a) Financial participation by the private sector, or a public/private partnering approach;
(b) Identification and monitoring of system capacities for elements of the built environment, and to the extent appropriate, of the natural environment;
(c) Coordination with state, federal, and tribal governments in project review;
(d) Furtherance of important state objectives related to economic development, protection of areas of statewide significance, and siting of essential public facilities;
(e) Programs to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the permitting process by greater reliance on integrated plans and prospective environmental analysis;
(f) Programs for effective citizen and neighborhood involvement that contribute to greater likelihood that planning decisions can be implemented with community support;
(g) Programs to identify environmental impacts and establish mitigation measures that provide effective means to satisfy concurrency requirements and establish project consistency with the plans; or
(h) Environmental review that addresses the impacts of increased density or intensity of comprehensive plans, subarea plans, or receiving areas designated by a city or town under the regional transfer of development rights program in chapter
43.362
RCW.
(5) If the local funding includes funding provided by other state functional planning programs, including open space planning and watershed or basin planning, the functional plan shall be integrated into and be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(6) State agencies shall work with grant or loan recipients to facilitate state and local project review processes that will implement the projects receiving grants or loans under this section.
[
2012 1st sp.s. c 1 s 310
;
1997 c 429 s 28
;
1995 c 347 s 116
.]
NOTES:
Finding
—
Intent
—
Limitation
—
Jurisdiction/authority of Indian tribe under act
—
2012 1st sp.s. c 1:
See notes following RCW 77.55.011
.
Authority of department of fish and wildlife under act
—
2012 1st sp.s. c 1:
See note following RCW 76.09.040
.
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
.
RCW 36.70A.510
General aviation airports.
Adoption and amendment of comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations under this chapter affecting a general aviation airport are subject to RCW 36.70.547
.
[
1996 c 239 s 5
.]
RCW 36.70A.520
National historic towns
—
Designation.
Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
may authorize and designate national historic towns that may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. A national historic town means a town or district that has been designated a national historic landmark by the United States secretary of the interior pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq., as amended, based on its significant historic urban features, and which historically contained a mix of residential and commercial or industrial uses.
A national historic town may be designated under this chapter by a county only if:
(1) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the preservation, redevelopment, infill, and development of the town;
(2) The comprehensive plan and development regulations specify a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, tourism-recreation, waterfront, or other historical uses, along with other uses, infrastructure, and services which promote the economic sustainability of the town and its historic character. To promote historic preservation, redevelopment, and an economically sustainable community, the town also may include the types of uses that existed at times during its history and is not limited to those present at the time of the historic designation. Portions of the town may include urban densities if they reflect density patterns that existed at times during its history;
(3) The boundaries of the town include all of the area contained in the national historic landmark designation, along with any additional limited areas determined by the county as appropriate for transitional uses and buffering. Provisions for transitional uses and buffering must be compatible with the town's historic character and must protect the existing natural and built environment under the requirements of this chapter within and beyond the additional limited areas, including visual compatibility. The comprehensive plan and development regulations must include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the town, including the additional limited areas, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under this chapter;
(4) The development regulations provide for architectural controls and review procedures applicable to the rehabilitation, redevelopment, infill, or new development to promote the historic character of the town;
(5) The county finds that the national historic town is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and
(6) On-site and off-site infrastructure impacts are fully considered and mitigated concurrent with development.
A county may allocate a portion of its twenty-year population projection, prepared by the office of financial management, to the national historic town corresponding to the projected number of permanent residents within the national historic town.
[
2000 c 196 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.530
Land use development incompatible with military installation not allowed
—
Revision of comprehensive plans and development regulations.
(1) Military installations are of particular importance to the economic health of the state of Washington and it is a priority of the state to protect the land surrounding our military installations from incompatible development.
(2) Comprehensive plans, amendments to comprehensive plans, development regulations, or amendments to development regulations adopted under this section shall be adopted or amended concurrent with the scheduled update provided in RCW 36.70A.130, except that counties and cities identified in *RCW 36.70A.130
(4)(a) shall comply with this section on or before December 1, 2005, and shall thereafter comply with this section on a schedule consistent with *RCW 36.70A.130
(4).
(3) A comprehensive plan, amendment to a plan, a development regulation or amendment to a development regulation, should not allow development in the vicinity of a military installation that is incompatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. A city or county may find that an existing comprehensive plan or development regulations are compatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements.
(4) As part of the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070
(1) each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040
that has a federal military installation, other than a reserve center, that employs one hundred or more personnel and is operated by the United States department of defense within or adjacent to its border, shall notify the commander of the military installation of the county's or city's intent to amend its comprehensive plan or development regulations to address lands adjacent to military installations to ensure those lands are protected from incompatible development.
(5)(a) The notice provided under subsection (4) of this section shall request from the commander of the military installation a written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the use of land being considered in the adoption of a comprehensive plan or an amendment to a plan. The notice shall provide sixty days for a response from the commander. If the commander does not submit a response to such request within sixty days, the local government may presume that implementation of the proposed plan or amendment will not have any adverse effect on the operation of the installation.
(b) When a county or city intends to amend its development regulations to be consistent with the comprehensive plan elements addressed in (a) of this subsection, notice shall be provided to the commander of the military installation consistent with subsection (4) of this section. The notice shall request from the commander of the military installation a written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the use of land being considered in the amendment to the development regulations. The notice shall provide sixty days for a response from the commander to the requesting government. If the commander does not submit a response to such request within sixty days, the local government may presume that implementation of the proposed development regulation or amendment will not have any adverse effect on the operation of the installation.
[
2004 c 28 s 2
.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note:
RCW 36.70A.130
was amended by 2020 c 113 s 1, deleting subsection (4).
Finding
—
2004 c 28:
"The United States military is a vital component of the Washington state economy. The protection of military installations from incompatible development of land is essential to the health of Washington's economy and quality of life. Incompatible development of land close to a military installation reduces the ability of the military to complete its mission or to undertake new missions, and increases its cost of operating. The department of defense evaluates continued utilization of military installations based upon their operating costs, their ability to carry out missions, and their ability to undertake new missions." [
2004 c 28 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.535
Co-living housing.
(1) Cities and counties planning under this chapter must allow co-living housing as a permitted use on any lot located within an urban growth area that allows at least six multifamily residential units, including on a lot zoned for mixed-use development.
(2) A city or county subject to the provisions of this section may not require co-living housing to:
(a) Contain room dimensional standards larger than that required by the state building code, including dwelling unit size, sleeping unit size, room area, and habitable space;
(b) Provide a mix of unit sizes or number of bedrooms; or
(c) Include other uses.
(3)(a) A city or county subject to the provisions of this section also may not require co-living housing to:
(i) Provide off-street parking within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop; or
(ii) Provide more than 0.25 off-street parking spaces per sleeping unit.
(b) The provisions of (a) of this subsection do not apply:
(i) If a city or county submits to the department an empirical study prepared by a credentialed transportation or land use planning expert that clearly demonstrates, and the department finds and certifies, that the application of the parking limitations of (a) of this subsection will be significantly less safe for vehicle drivers or passengers, pedestrians, or bicyclists than if the jurisdiction's parking requirements were applied to the same location. The department must develop guidance to assist cities and counties on items to include in the study; or
(ii) To portions of cities within a one-mile radius of a commercial airport in Washington with at least 9,000,000 annual enplanements.
(4) A city or county may not require through development regulations any standards for co-living housing that are more restrictive than those that are required for other types of multifamily residential uses in the same zone.
(5) A city or county may only require a review, notice, or public meeting for co-living housing that is required for other types of residential uses in the same location, unless otherwise required by state law including, but not limited to, shoreline regulations under chapter
90.58
RCW.
(6) A city or county may not exclude co-living housing from participating in affordable housing incentive programs under RCW 36.70A.540
.
(7) A city or county may not treat a sleeping unit in co-living housing as more than one-quarter of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating dwelling unit density.
(8) A city or county may not treat a sleeping unit in co-living housing as more than one-half of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating fees for sewer connections, unless the city or county makes a finding, based on facts, that the connection fees should exceed the one-half threshold.
(9)(a) A city or county subject to the requirements of this section must adopt or amend by ordinance and incorporate into their development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls the requirements of this section to take effect no later than December 31, 2025.
(b) In any city or county that has not adopted or amended ordinances, regulations, or other official controls as required under this section, the requirements of this section supersede, preempt, and invalidate any conflicting local development regulations.
(10) Any action taken by a city or county to comply with the requirements of this section is not subject to legal challenge under this chapter or chapter
43.21C
RCW.
(11) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Co-living housing" means a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space, and residents share kitchen facilities with other sleeping units in the building. Local governments may use other names to refer to co-living housing including, but not limited to, congregate living facilities, single room occupancy, rooming house, boarding house, lodging house, and residential suites.
(b) "Major transit stop" means:
(i) A stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or expanded under the provisions of chapter
81.104
RCW;
(ii) Commuter rail stops;
(iii) Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways;
(iv) Stops on bus rapid transit routes or routes that run on high occupancy vehicle lanes; or
(v) Stops for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of at least 15 minutes for at least five hours during the peak hours of operation on weekdays.
[
2024 c 180 s 2
.]
NOTES:
Intent
—
Findings
—
2024 c 180:
"(1) The legislature makes the following findings:
(a) Washington state is experiencing a housing affordability crisis;
(b) Co-living housing is a type of housing that can provide rental homes affordable to people with moderate to low incomes without requiring any public funding, and rents in newly constructed, market-rate co-living housing in the Puget Sound region can be affordable to people with incomes as low as 50 percent of area median income;
(c) Co-living housing is a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and provide living and sleeping space, in which residents share kitchen facilities with residents of other units in the building;
(d) Co-living housing historically provided a healthy inventory of rental homes on the lowest rung of the private housing market, comprising up to 10 percent of housing in some cities;
(e) Starting in the mid-20th century, local governments began adopting restrictive zoning and other rules that increasingly prohibited co-living housing, or made it impractical to build or operate, and its numbers plummeted;
(f) Today, many cities and counties outright prohibit co-living housing on most of their residential land, or they enforce any number of restrictions that make it effectively impossible to build new co-living housing or to convert existing buildings into co-living housing;
(g) Co-living housing provides options for people who:
(i) Wish to lower their housing expenses by paying less for a smaller home;
(ii) Prefer a living arrangement with shared community spaces that facilitate social connections;
(iii) Wish to trade off location for space and, by living in a small home, also get to live in a high opportunity neighborhood they could not otherwise afford; or
(iv) Want a low-cost, more private alternative to having a roommate in a traditional rental;
(h) Many communities throughout Washington face a severe shortage of workforce housing, and co-living housing provides housing affordable to that income range and below, without public funding;
(i) Co-living housing reduces pressure on the limited amount of publicly funded affordable housing by providing housing that is affordable to lower income residents who might otherwise wait years for subsidized housing;
(j) Co-living housing works best for single-person households, but the housing for singles that it provides reduces demand for family-sized rentals from singles who would otherwise group together to rent large homes;
(k) Co-living housing provides a good option for seniors, especially those who want to downsize, or those who desire a living arrangement that is more social than a standard apartment. When located in walkable neighborhoods, co-living housing gives mobility options to seniors who can no longer drive;
(l) Co-living housing is well-suited for the conversion of office buildings to housing, because it typically requires less plumbing and fixtures for kitchens and bathrooms;
(m) Co-living housing is well-suited for very low-income people, supportive and recovery housing, and "housing first" homes for the formerly homeless;
(n) State building codes have established minimum sizes and other standards to ensure that co-living housing meets modern health and safety standards;
(o) Creating co-living housing near transit hubs, employment centers, and public amenities can help the state achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals by increasing walkability, shortening household commutes, curtailing sprawl, and reducing the pressure to develop natural and working lands; and
(p) Co-living housing, because the units are small, is inherently more energy efficient than standard apartments, both saving residents money and reducing the state's energy demand.
(2) Therefore, the legislature intends to allow the creation of co-living housing as a means to address the need for additional affordable housing options for a diversity of Washington residents." [
2024 c 180 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.536
Middle housing.
Any county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040
may provide by ordinance and incorporate into its development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls, authorization for the following:
(1)(a) Middle housing types on each parcel that permits single-family residences in limited areas of more intensive rural development designated according to the requirements in RCW 36.70A.070
(5)(d)(i);
(b) If a county takes action authorized by this subsection, it may not authorize more than 4 [four] residential units per lot in limited areas of more intensive rural development designated according to RCW 36.70A.070
(5)(d)(i), and its development regulations must:
(i) Not require any standards for middle housing that are more restrictive than those required for detached single-family residences, but may apply any objective development regulations that are required for detached single-family residences, including, but not limited to, setback, lot coverage, stormwater, clearing, and tree canopy and retention requirements;
(ii) Apply to middle housing the same development permit and environmental review processes that apply to detached single-family residences, unless otherwise required by state law, including, but not limited to, shoreline regulations under chapter
90.58
RCW, building codes under chapter
19.27
RCW, energy codes under chapter
19.27A
RCW, or electrical codes under chapter
19.28
RCW; and
(iii) Require that middle housing in limited areas of more intensive rural development be served by existing sewer service.
(2)(a) Middle housing types on each parcel that permits single-family residences in designated urban growth areas.
(b) If a county takes action authorized by this subsection, it may not authorize more than four residential units per lot within the designated urban growth area and its development regulations must:
(i) Not require any standards for middle housing that are more restrictive than those required for detached single-family residences, but may apply any objective development regulations that are required for detached single-family residences, including, but not limited to, setback, lot coverage, stormwater, clearing, and tree canopy and retention requirements;
(ii) Apply to middle housing the same development permit and environmental review processes that apply to detached single-family residences, unless otherwise required by state law, including, but not limited to, shoreline regulations under chapter
90.58
RCW, building codes under chapter
19.27
RCW, energy codes under chapter
19.27A
RCW, or electrical codes under chapter
19.28
RCW; and
(iii) Require that middle housing in designated urban growth areas be served by water and sewer services.
[
2025 c 386 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.540
Affordable housing incentive programs
—
Low-income housing units
—
Tiny house communities.
(1)(a) Any city or county planning under RCW 36.70A.040
may enact or expand affordable housing incentive programs providing for the development of low-income housing units through development regulations or conditions on rezoning or permit decisions, or both, on one or more of the following types of development: Residential; commercial; industrial; or mixed-use. An affordable housing incentive program may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:
(i) Density bonuses within the urban growth area;
(ii) Height and bulk bonuses;
(iii) Fee waivers or exemptions;
(iv) Parking reductions; or
(v) Expedited permitting.
(b) The city or county may enact or expand such programs whether or not the programs may impose a tax, fee, or charge on the development or construction of property.
(c) If a developer chooses not to participate in an optional affordable housing incentive program adopted and authorized under this section, a city, county, or town may not condition, deny, or delay the issuance of a permit or development approval that is consistent with zoning and development standards on the subject property absent incentive provisions of this program.
(2) Affordable housing incentive programs enacted or expanded under this section shall comply with the following:
(a) The incentives or bonuses shall provide for the development of low-income housing units;
(b) Jurisdictions shall establish standards for low-income renter or owner occupancy housing, including income guidelines consistent with local housing needs, to assist low-income households that cannot afford market-rate housing. Low-income households are defined for renter and owner occupancy program purposes as follows:
(i) Rental housing units to be developed shall be affordable to and occupied by households with an income of fifty percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family size;
(ii) Owner occupancy housing units shall be affordable to and occupied by households with an income of eighty percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family size. The legislative authority of a jurisdiction, after holding a public hearing, may establish lower income levels; and
(iii) The legislative authority of a jurisdiction, after holding a public hearing, may also establish higher income levels for rental housing or for owner occupancy housing upon finding that higher income levels are needed to address local housing market conditions. The higher income level for rental housing may not exceed eighty percent of the county area median family income. The higher income level for owner occupancy housing may not exceed one hundred percent of the county area median family income. These established higher income levels are considered "low-income" for the purposes of this section;
(c) The jurisdiction shall establish a maximum rent level or sales price for each low-income housing unit developed under the terms of a program and may adjust these levels or prices based on the average size of the household expected to occupy the unit. For renter-occupied housing units, the total housing costs, including basic utilities as determined by the jurisdiction, may not exceed thirty percent of the income limit for the low-income housing unit;
(d) Where a developer is utilizing a housing incentive program authorized under this section to develop market rate housing, and is developing low-income housing to satisfy the requirements of the housing incentive program, the low-income housing units shall be provided in a range of sizes comparable to those units that are available to other residents. To the extent practicable, the number of bedrooms in low-income units must be in the same proportion as the number of bedrooms in units within the entire development. The low-income units shall generally be distributed throughout the development and have substantially the same functionality as the other units in the development;
(e) Low-income housing units developed under an affordable housing incentive program shall be committed to continuing affordability for at least fifty years. A local government, however, may accept payments in lieu of continuing affordability. The program shall include measures to enforce continuing affordability and income standards applicable to low-income units constructed under this section that may include, but are not limited to, covenants, options, or other agreements to be executed and recorded by owners and developers;
(f) Programs authorized under subsection (1) of this section may apply to part or all of a jurisdiction and different standards may be applied to different areas within a jurisdiction or to different types of development. Programs authorized under this section may be modified to meet local needs and may include provisions not expressly provided in this section or RCW 82.02.020
;
(g) Low-income housing units developed under an affordable housing incentive program are encouraged to be provided within developments for which a bonus or incentive is provided. However, programs may allow units to be provided in a building located in the general area of the development for which a bonus or incentive is provided; and
(h) Affordable housing incentive programs may allow a payment of money or property in lieu of low-income housing units if the jurisdiction determines that the payment achieves a result equal to or better than providing the affordable housing on-site, as long as the payment does not exceed the approximate cost of developing the same number and quality of housing units that would otherwise be developed. Any city or county shall use these funds or property to support the development of low-income housing, including support provided through loans or grants to public or private owners or developers of housing.
(3) Affordable housing incentive programs enacted or expanded under this section may be applied within the jurisdiction to address the need for increased residential development, consistent with local growth management and housing policies, as follows:
(a) The jurisdiction shall identify certain land use designations within a geographic area where increased residential development will assist in achieving local growth management and housing policies;
(b) The jurisdiction shall provide increased residential development capacity through zoning changes, bonus densities, height and bulk increases, parking reductions, or other regulatory changes or other incentives;
(c) The jurisdiction shall determine that increased residential development capacity or other incentives can be achieved within the identified area, subject to consideration of other regulatory controls on development; and
(d) The jurisdiction may establish a minimum amount of affordable housing that must be provided by all residential developments being built under the revised regulations, consistent with the requirements of this section.
(4) To provide more affordable housing options, tiny house communities may be part of an incentive program permitted under this section.
[
2022 c 275 s 2
;
2009 c 80 s 1
;
2006 c 149 s 2
.]
NOTES:
Findings
—
Intent
—
2022 c 275:
"In 2019 the legislature enacted a statutory framework encouraging the construction of tiny houses and tiny house communities. These homes provide a unique opportunity in the affordable housing market. It is the objective of the legislature to facilitate more development of housing that people with lower incomes can own and remove barriers that would prevent the development of tiny houses and tiny house communities." [
2022 c 275 s 1
.]
Construction
—
2022 c 275:
"This act shall be liberally construed to carry out its purposes and objectives." [
2022 c 275 s 3
.]
Findings
—
2006 c 149:
"The legislature finds that as new market-rate housing developments are constructed and housing costs rise, there is a significant and growing number of low-income households that cannot afford market-rate housing in Washington state. The legislature finds that assistance to low-income households that cannot afford market-rate housing requires a broad variety of tools to address this serious, statewide problem. The legislature further finds that absent any incentives to provide low-income housing, market conditions will result in housing developments in many areas that lack units affordable to low-income households, circumstances that can cause adverse socioeconomic effects.
The legislature encourages cities, towns, and counties to enact or expand affordable housing incentive programs, including density bonuses and other incentives, to increase the availability of low-income housing for renter and owner occupancy that is located in largely market-rate housing developments throughout the community, consistent with local needs and adopted comprehensive plans. While this act establishes minimum standards for those cities, towns, and counties choosing to implement or expand upon an affordable housing incentive program, cities, towns, and counties are encouraged to enact programs that address local circumstances and conditions while simultaneously contributing to the statewide need for additional low-income housing." [
2006 c 149 s 1
.]
Construction
—
2006 c 149:
"The powers granted in this act are supplemental and additional to the powers otherwise held by local governments, and nothing in this act shall be construed as a limit on such powers. The authority granted in this act shall extend to any affordable housing incentive program enacted or expanded prior to June 7, 2006, if the extension is adopted by the applicable local government in an ordinance or resolution." [
2006 c 149 s 4
.]
RCW 36.70A.545
Increased density bonus for affordable housing located on property owned by a religious organization.
(1) Any city or county fully planning under this chapter must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local needs for any affordable housing development of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization provided that:
(a) The affordable housing development is set aside for or occupied exclusively by low-income households;
(b) The affordable housing development is part of a lease or other binding obligation that requires the development to be used exclusively for affordable housing purposes for at least fifty years, even if the religious organization no longer owns the property; and
(c) The affordable housing development does not discriminate against any person who qualifies as a member of a low-income household based on race, creed, color, national origin, sex, veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability; or otherwise act in violation of the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.).
(2) A city or county may develop policies to implement this section if it receives a request from a religious organization for an increased density bonus for an affordable housing development.
(3) An affordable housing development created by a religious institution within a city or county fully planning under RCW 36.70A.040
must be located within an urban growth area as defined in RCW 36.70A.110
.
(4) The religious organization developing the affordable housing development must pay all fees, mitigation costs, and other charges required through the development of the affordable housing development.
(5) If applicable, the religious organization developing the affordable housing development should work with the local transit agency to ensure appropriate transit services are provided to the affordable housing development.
(6) This section applies to any religious organization rehabilitating an existing affordable housing development.
(7) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Affordable housing development" means a proposed or existing structure in which one hundred percent of all single-family or multifamily residential dwelling units within the development are set aside for or are occupied by low-income households at a sales price or rent amount that may not exceed thirty percent of the income limit for the low-income housing unit;
(b) "Low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income is less than eighty percent of the median family income, adjusted for household size, for the county where the affordable housing development is located; and
(c) "Religious organization" has the same meaning as in RCW 36.01.290
.
[
2019 c 218 s 3
.]
RCW 36.70A.550
Aquifer conservation zones.
(1) Any city coterminous with, and comprised only of, an island that relies solely on groundwater aquifers for its potable water source and does not have reasonable access to a potable water source outside its jurisdiction may designate one or more aquifer conservation zones.
Aquifer conservation zones may only be designated for the purpose of conserving and protecting potable water sources.
(2) Aquifer conservation zones may not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within aquifer conservation zones qualify for critical area designation and have been designated as such under RCW 36.70A.060
(2).
(3) Any city may consider whether an area is within an aquifer conservation zone when determining the residential density of that particular area. The residential densities within conservation zones, in combination with other densities of the city, must be sufficient to accommodate projected population growth under RCW 36.70A.110
.
(4) Nothing in this section may be construed to modify the population accommodation obligations required of jurisdictions under this chapter.
[
2007 c 159 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.570
Regulation of forest practices.
(1) Each county, city, and town assuming regulation of forest practices as provided in RCW 76.09.240
(1) and (2) shall adopt development regulations that:
(a) Protect public resources, as defined in RCW 76.09.020, from material damage or the potential for material damage;
(b) Require appropriate approvals for all phases of the conversion of forestlands, including clearing and grading;
(c) Are guided by the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020
and by the purposes and policies of the forest practices act as set forth in RCW 76.09.010
; and
(d) Are consistent with or supplement development regulations that protect critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060
.
(2) If necessary, each county, city, or town that assumes regulation of forest practices under RCW 76.09.240
shall amend its comprehensive plan to ensure consistency between its comprehensive plan and development regulations.
(3) Before a county, city, or town may regulate forest practices under RCW 76.09.240
(1) and (2), it shall update its development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.130
and, if applicable, RCW 36.70A.215
. Forest practices regulations adopted under RCW 76.09.240
(1) and (2) may be adopted as part of the legislative action taken under RCW 36.70A.130
or
36.70A.215
.
[
2007 c 236 s 2
.]
RCW 36.70A.590
Complying with requirements relating to surface and groundwater resources.
For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this chapter relating to surface and groundwater resources, a county or city may rely on or refer to applicable minimum instream flow rules adopted by the department of ecology under chapters
90.22
and
90.54
RCW. Development regulations must ensure that proposed water uses are consistent with RCW 90.44.050
and with applicable rules adopted pursuant to chapters
90.22
and
90.54
RCW when making decisions under RCW 19.27.097
and
58.17.110
.
[
2018 c 1 s 102
.]
NOTES:
Intent
—
2018 c 1:
See note following RCW 90.94.010
.
Effective date
—
2018 c 1:
See RCW 90.94.900
.
RCW 36.70A.600
Cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040
—
Increasing residential building capacity
—
Housing action plan authorized
—
Grant assistance.
(1) A city planning pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040
is encouraged to take the following actions in order to increase its residential building capacity:
(a) Authorize development in one or more areas of not fewer than five hundred acres that include at least one train station served by commuter rail or light rail with an average of at least fifty residential units per acre that require no more than an average of one on-site parking space per two bedrooms in the portions of multifamily zones that are located within the areas;
(b) Authorize development in one or more areas of not fewer than two hundred acres in cities with a population greater than forty thousand or not fewer than one hundred acres in cities with a population less than forty thousand that include at least one bus stop served by scheduled bus service of at least four times per hour for twelve or more hours per day with an average of at least twenty-five residential units per acre that require no more than an average of one on-site parking space per two bedrooms in portions of the multifamily zones that are located within the areas;
(c) Authorize at least one duplex, triplex, quadplex, sixplex, stacked flat, townhouse, or courtyard apartment on each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single-family residences unless a city documents a specific infrastructure of physical constraint that would make this requirement unfeasible for a particular parcel;
(d) Authorize a duplex, triplex, quadplex, sixplex, stacked flat, townhouse, or courtyard apartment on one or more parcels for which they are not currently authorized;
(e) Authorize cluster zoning or lot size averaging in all zoning districts that permit single-family residences;
(f) Adopt a subarea plan pursuant to RCW 43.21C.420
;
(g) Adopt a planned action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440
(1)(b)(ii), except that an environmental impact statement pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030
is not required for such an action;
(h) Adopt increases in categorical exemptions pursuant to RCW 43.21C.229
for residential or mixed-use development;
(i) Adopt a form-based code in one or more zoning districts that permit residential uses. "Form-based code" means a land development regulation that uses physical form, rather than separation of use, as the organizing principle for the code;
(j) Authorize a duplex on each corner lot within all zoning districts that permit single-family residences;
(k) Allow for the division or redivision of land into the maximum number of lots through the short subdivision process provided in chapter
58.17
RCW;
(l) Authorize a minimum net density of six dwelling units per acre in all residential zones, where the residential development capacity will increase within the city. For purposes of this subsection, the calculation of net density does not include the square footage of areas that are otherwise prohibited from development, such as critical areas, the area of buffers around critical areas, and the area of roads and similar features;
(m) Create one or more zoning districts of medium density in which individual lots may be no larger than three thousand five hundred square feet and single-family residences may be no larger than one thousand two hundred square feet;
(n) Authorize accessory dwelling units in one or more zoning districts in which they are currently prohibited;
(o) Remove minimum residential parking requirements related to accessory dwelling units;
(p) Remove owner occupancy requirements related to accessory dwelling units;
(q) Adopt new square footage requirements related to accessory dwelling units that are less restrictive than existing square footage requirements related to accessory dwelling units;
(r) Adopt maximum allowable exemption levels in WAC 197-11-800(1) as it existed on June 11, 2020, or such subsequent date as may be provided by the department of ecology by rule, consistent with the purposes of this section;
(s) Adopt standards for administrative approval of final plats pursuant to RCW 58.17.100
;
(t) Adopt ordinances authorizing administrative review of preliminary plats pursuant to RCW 58.17.095
;
(u) Adopt other permit process improvements where it is demonstrated that the code, development regulation, or ordinance changes will result in a more efficient permit process for customers;
(v) Update use matrices and allowable use tables that eliminate conditional use permits and administrative conditional use permits for all housing types, including single-family homes, townhomes, multifamily housing, low-income housing, and senior housing, but excluding essential public facilities;
(w) Allow off-street parking to compensate for lack of on-street parking when private roads are utilized or a parking demand study shows that less parking is required for the project;
(x) Develop a local program that offers homeowners a combination of financing, design, permitting, or construction support to build accessory dwelling units. A city may condition this program on a requirement to provide the unit for affordable homeownership or rent the accessory dwelling unit for a defined period of time to either tenants in a housing subsidy program as defined in RCW 43.31.605
(14) or to tenants whose income is less than eighty percent of the city or county median family income. If the city includes an affordability requirement under the program, it must provide additional incentives, such as:
(i) Density bonuses;
(ii) Height and bulk bonuses;
(iii) Fee waivers or exemptions;
(iv) Parking reductions; or
(v) Expedited permitting; and
(y) Develop a local program that offers homeowners a combination of financing, design, permitting, or construction support to convert a single-family home into a duplex, triplex, or quadplex where those housing types are authorized. A local government may condition this program on a requirement to provide a certain number of units for affordable homeownership or to rent a certain number of the newly created units for a defined period of time to either tenants in a housing subsidy program as defined in RCW 43.31.605
(14) or to tenants whose income is less than eighty percent of the city or county median family income. If the city includes an affordability requirement, it must provide additional incentives, such as:
(i) Density bonuses;
(ii) Height and bulk bonuses;
(iii) Fee waivers or exemptions;
(iv) Parking reductions; or
(v) Expedited permitting.
(2) A city planning pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040
may adopt a housing action plan as described in this subsection. The goal of any such housing plan must be to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices that are accessible to a greater variety of incomes, including strategies aimed at the for-profit single-family home market. A housing action plan may utilize data compiled pursuant to RCW 36.70A.610
. The housing action plan should:
(a) Quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households, with documentation of housing and household characteristics, and cost-burdened households;
(b) Develop strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types, needed to serve the housing needs identified in (a) of this subsection;
(c) Analyze population and employment trends, with documentation of projections;
(d) Consider strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting from redevelopment;
(e) Review and evaluate the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070, including an evaluation of success in attaining planned housing types and units, achievement of goals and policies, and implementation of the schedule of programs and actions;
(f) Provide for participation and input from community members, community groups, local builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups; and
(g) Include a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of the housing action plan.
(3) The adoption of ordinances, development regulations and amendments to such regulations, and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement the actions specified in subsection (1) of this section, with the exception of the action specified in subsection (1)(f) of this section, are not subject to administrative or judicial appeal under chapter
43.21C
RCW.
(4) Any action taken by a city prior to April 1, 2023, to amend its comprehensive plan or adopt or amend ordinances or development regulations, solely to enact provisions under subsection (1) of this section is not subject to legal challenge under this chapter.
(5) In taking action under subsection (1) of this section, cities are encouraged to utilize strategies that increase residential building capacity in areas with frequent transit service and with the transportation and utility infrastructure that supports the additional residential building capacity.
(6) A city that is planning to take at least two actions under subsection (1) of this section, and that action will occur between July 28, 2019, and April 1, 2021, is eligible to apply to the department for planning grant assistance of up to one hundred thousand dollars, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for that purpose. The department shall develop grant criteria to ensure that grant funds awarded are proportionate to the level of effort proposed by a city, and the potential increase in housing supply or regulatory streamlining that could be achieved. Funding may be provided in advance of, and to support, adoption of policies or ordinances consistent with this section. A city can request, and the department may award, more than one hundred thousand dollars for applications that demonstrate extraordinary potential to increase housing supply or regulatory streamlining.
(7) A city seeking to develop a housing action plan under subsection (2) of this section is eligible to apply to the department for up to one hundred thousand dollars.
(8) The department shall establish grant award amounts under subsections (6) and (7) of this section based on the expected number of cities that will seek grant assistance, to ensure that all cities can receive some level of grant support. If funding capacity allows, the department may consider accepting and funding applications from cities with a population of less than twenty thousand if the actions proposed in the application will create a significant amount of housing capacity or regulatory streamlining and are consistent with the actions in this section.
(9) In implementing chapter 348, Laws of 2019, cities are encouraged to prioritize the creation of affordable, inclusive neighborhoods and to consider the risk of residential displacement, particularly in neighborhoods with communities at high risk of displacement.
[
2022 c 246 s 1
;
2020 c 173 s 1
;
2019 c 348 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.610
Housing supply and affordability report.
(1) The Washington center for real estate research at the University of Washington shall produce a series of reports as described in this section that compiles housing supply and affordability metrics for each city planning under RCW 36.70A.040
with a population of 10,000 or more.
(a) The initial report, completed by October 15, 2020, must be a compilation of objective criteria relating to income, employment, housing and rental prices, housing affordability by housing tenure, and other metrics relevant to assessing housing supply and affordability for all income segments, including the percentage of cost-burdened households of each jurisdiction. This report may also include city-specific median income data for those cities implementing the multifamily tax exemption program under chapter
84.14
RCW.
(b) The report completed by October 15, 2021, must include an analysis of the private rental housing market for each area outlining the number of units, vacancy rates, and rents by unit type, where possible. This analysis should separate market rate multifamily rental housing developments and other smaller scale market rate rental housing. This analysis should also incorporate data from the Washington state housing finance commission on subsidized rental housing in the area consistent with the first report under this subsection.
(c) The report completed by October 15, 2022, must also include data relating to actions taken by cities under chapter 348, Laws of 2019 as well as detailed information on development regulations, levies and fees, and zoning related to housing development.
(d) The report completed by October 15, 2024, and every two years thereafter, must also include relevant data relating to buildable lands reports prepared under RCW 36.70A.215, where applicable, and updates to comprehensive plans under this chapter.
(e) The report completed by October 15, 2026, and every two years thereafter, must also include:
(i)(A) Except as provided in (e)(i)(B) of this subsection, an analysis of the estimated existing housing units and existing housing needs within each county at the following income levels: 0 to 30 percent of the area median income, 30 to 50 percent of the area median income, 50 to 80 percent of the area median income, 80 to 100 percent of the area median income, 100 to 120 percent of the area median income, and greater than 120 percent of the area median income;
(B) If a county's estimated existing housing units, existing housing needs, or both, cannot be determined at the income levels under (e)(i)(A) of this subsection or at the individual county level due to insufficient data, alternative thresholds may be used to best determine existing housing units and existing housing needs;
(ii) Each county's progress in closing the gap between estimated existing housing units within the county and existing housing needs; and
(iii) Each county's progress in meeting emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing needs within the county.
(2) The Washington center for real estate research shall collaborate with the Washington housing finance commission and the office of financial management to develop the metrics compiled in the series of reports under this section.
(3) The series of reports under this section must be submitted, consistent with RCW 43.01.036, to the standing committees of the legislature with jurisdiction over housing issues and this chapter.
[
2025 c 390 s 1
;
2020 c 173 s 6
;
2019 c 348 s 3
.]
NOTES:
Short title
—
2025 c 390:
"This act may be known and cited as the affordable housing action act." [
2025 c 390 s 3
.]
RCW 36.70A.620
Cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040
—
Minimum residential parking requirements.
NOTES:
Reviser's note:
RCW 36.70A.620
was amended by 2025 c 139 s 8 without reference to its repeal by
2025 c 204 s 6
. It has been decodified for publication purposes under RCW 1.12.025
.
RCW 36.70A.622
Residential parking regulation.
(1) Cities and counties planning under this chapter shall enforce land use regulations for residential development as provided in this section:
(a) Garages and carports may not be required as a way to meet minimum parking requirements for residential development;
(b) Parking spaces that count towards minimum parking requirements may be enclosed or unenclosed;
(c) Parking spaces in tandem must count towards meeting minimum parking requirements at a rate of one space for every 20 linear feet with any necessary provisions for turning radius. For purposes of this subsection, "tandem" is defined as having two or more vehicles, one in front of or behind the others with a single means of ingress and egress;
(d) Existence of legally nonconforming gravel surfacing in existing designated parking areas may not be a reason for prohibiting utilization of existing space in the parking area to meet local parking standards, up to a maximum of six parking spaces;
(e) Parking spaces may not be required to exceed eight feet by 20 feet, except for required parking for people with disabilities;
(f) Any county planning under this chapter, and any cities within those counties with a population greater than 6,000, may not require off-street parking as a condition of permitting a residential project if compliance with tree retention would otherwise make a proposed residential development or redevelopment infeasible; and
(g) Parking spaces that consist of grass block pavers may count toward minimum parking requirements.
(2) Existing parking spaces that do not conform to the requirements of this section by June 6, 2024, are not required to be modified or resized, except for compliance with the Americans with disabilities act. Existing paved parking lots are not required to change the size of existing parking spaces during resurfacing if doing so will be more costly or require significant reconfiguration of the parking space locations.
(3) The provisions in subsection (1) of this section do not apply to portions of cities within a one-mile radius of a commercial airport in Washington with at least 9,000,000 annual enplanements.
[
2024 c 274 s 1
.]
RCW 36.70A.630
Local design review
—
Requirements and restrictions.
(1) For purposes of this section, "design review" means a formally adopted local government process by which projects are reviewed for compliance with design standards for the type of use adopted through local ordinance.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, counties and cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040
may apply in any design review process only clear and objective development regulations governing the exterior design of new development. For purposes of this section, a clear and objective development regulation:
(a) Must include one or more ascertainable guideline, standard, or criterion by which an applicant can determine whether a given building design is permissible under that development regulation; and
(b) May not result in a reduction in density, height, bulk, or scale below the generally applicable development regulations for a development proposal in the applicable zone.
(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section do not apply to development regulations that apply only to designated landmarks or historic districts established under a local preservation ordinance.
(4) Any design review process must be conducted concurrently, or otherwise logically integrated, with the consolidated review and decision process for project permits set forth in RCW 36.70B.120
(3), and no design review process may include more than one public meeting.
(5) A county or city must comply with the requirements of this section at the same time as the jurisdiction's next periodic comprehensive plan update required under RCW 36.70A.130
.
[
2025 c 148 s 2
;
2023 c 333 s 1
.]