When cities are given legislative and administrative power over rural voters, that is the issue which gives rise to standing. When cities are given a monopoly over all future development, and citizens such as Petitioner Buchanan denied rights to develop that currently exist, that is the interest which gives rise to standing. Petitioner Weaver defends his claim to standing with a statement that he did attend multiple meetings held by the County Commissioners relating to both the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and Plan 2015. Six of the eight issues listed in the petition are seeking the interpretation of RCW 36.70A and RCW 36.115. Petitioners allege that the statutes are so interrelated that a review of compliance with RCW 36.70A cannot be made in this case without a review of agreements under RCW 36.115, Local Service Agreements.
Petitioners admit, however, that no such agreements currently exist.
The Board lacks jurisdiction to hear petitions regarding local service agreements. Even if the Board accepted Petitioners arguments that the agreements are necessary for a review of compliance with the GMA, we must still dismiss those issues as the agreements have not yet been written. If the Respondents have correctly interpreted and implemented RCW 36.70A and RCW 36.115, are those statutes violative of the following constitutional restrictions . Petitioners are well aware this Board has no jurisdiction to review constitutional issues. We can only wonder at the Petitioners motivation to include that issue in a petition for our review.