reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.170 - Natural resource lands and critical areas—Designations.

RCW 36.70A.170
Natural resource lands and critical areas—Designations.
(1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and each city, shall designate where appropriate:
(a) Agricultural lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products;
(b) Forestlands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial production of timber;
(c) Mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals; and
(d) Critical areas.
(2) In making the designations required by this section, counties and cities shall consider the guidelines established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050.
[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 17.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.171 - Playing fields—Compliance with this chapter.

RCW 36.70A.171
Playing fields—Compliance with this chapter.
In accordance with RCW 36.70A.030, 36.70A.060, * 36.70A.1701, and 36.70A.130, playing fields and supporting facilities existing before July 1, 2004, on designated recreational lands shall be considered in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
[ 2005 c 423 § 5.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.1701 expired June 30, 2006.
Intent—Effective date—2005 c 423: See notes following RCW 36.70A.030.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.172 - Critical areas—Designation and protection—Best available science to be used.

RCW 36.70A.172
Critical areas—Designation and protection—Best available science to be used.
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
(2) If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision, the growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas.
[ 2010 c 211 § 3; 1995 c 347 § 105.]
NOTES:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.175 - Wetlands to be delineated in accordance with manual.

RCW 36.70A.175
Wetlands to be delineated in accordance with manual.
Wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380.
[ 1995 c 382 § 12.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.180 - Chapter implementation—Intent.

RCW 36.70A.180
Chapter implementation—Intent.
It is the intent of the legislature that counties and cities required to adopt a comprehensive plan under RCW 36.70A.040(1) begin implementing this chapter on or before July 1, 1990, including but not limited to: (1) Inventorying, designating, and conserving agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands, and critical areas; and (2) considering the modification or adoption of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing the comprehensive land use plans. It is also the intent of the legislature that funds be made available to counties and cities beginning July 1, 1990, to assist them in meeting the requirements of this chapter.
[ 2012 1st sp.s. c 5 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 19.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.211 - Siting of schools—Rural areas, when authorized—Impact fees.

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 § 2.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.212 - Siting of schools—Periodic updates.

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 § 3.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.130 was amended by 2023 c 280 § 1, changing subsection (1)(b) to subsection (1)(c).
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.252 - Growth management hearings board—Consolidation into environmental and land use hearings office.

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 § 2; 2010 c 210 § 15.]
NOTES:
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.260 - Growth management hearings board—Regional panels.

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 § 3; 2010 c 211 § 5; 1994 c 249 § 30; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 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.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.305 - Expedited review.

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 § 4.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: The reference to RCW 36.70A.300 appears to refer to the amendments made by 1996 c 325 § 3, which was vetoed by the governor.
Severability—Effective date—1996 c 325: See notes following RCW 36.70A.270.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.310 - Growth management hearings board—Limitations on appeal by the state.

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 § 11; 1994 c 249 § 32; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 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.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.320 - Presumption of validity—Burden of proof—Plans and regulations.

RCW 36.70A.320
Presumption of validity—Burden of proof—Plans and regulations.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (5) and (6) 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.
[ 2023 c 228 § 8; 1997 c 429 § 20; 1995 c 347 § 111; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 13.]
NOTES:
Prospective application—1997 c 429 §§ 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.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.3201 - Growth management hearings board—Legislative intent and finding.

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 § 12; 1997 c 429 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 54.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.330 - Noncompliance.

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) 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. 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. 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 forty-five 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.
[ 2021 c 312 § 2; 1997 c 429 § 21; 1995 c 347 § 112; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 14.]
NOTES:
Prospective application—1997 c 429 §§ 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.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.332 - Training regarding findings of noncompliance.

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 § 3.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.335 - Order of invalidity issued before July 27, 1997.

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 § 22.]
NOTES:
Prospective application—1997 c 429 §§ 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.340 - Noncompliance and sanctions.

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 § 604; 2011 c 120 § 2; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 26.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2013 c 225: See note following RCW 82.38.010.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.345 - Sanctions.

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 § 13; 1994 c 249 § 33; 1993 sp.s. c 6 § 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.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.350 - New fully contained communities.

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 § 16.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.362 - Master planned resorts—Existing resort may be included.

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 § 1.]
NOTES:
*Reviser's note: RCW 36.70A.360 was amended by 1998 c 112 § 2, changing subsection (1) to subsection (4)(a).
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.365 - Major industrial developments.

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 § 1.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.370 - Protection of private property.

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 § 18.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.380 - Extension of designation date.

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 § 39.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.385 - Environmental planning pilot projects.

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 § 30; 1995 c 399 § 43; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 20.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.390 - Moratoria, interim zoning controls—Public hearing—Limitation on length—Exceptions.

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 § 5; 1992 c 207 § 6.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.410 - Treatment of residential structures occupied by persons with handicaps.

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 § 23.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.420 - Transportation projects—Findings—Intent.

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 § 1.]
NOTES:
Captions not law—1994 c 258: "Section captions used in this act constitute no part of the law." [ 1994 c 258 § 6.]
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.430 - Transportation projects—Collaborative review process.

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 § 2.]
NOTES:
Captions not law—1994 c 258: See note following RCW 36.70A.420.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.450 - Family day-care provider's home facility—County or city may not prohibit in residential or commercial area—Conditions.

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 § 22; 2007 c 17 § 13; 2003 c 286 § 5; 1995 c 49 § 3; 1994 c 273 § 17.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2018 c 58: See note following RCW 28A.655.080.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.460 - Watershed restoration projects—Permit processing—Fish habitat enhancement project.

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 § 15; 2003 c 39 § 21; 1998 c 249 § 11; 1995 c 378 § 11.]
NOTES:
Findings—Purpose—Report—Effective date—1998 c 249: See notes following RCW 77.55.181.
2023 Revised Code of Washington › Title 36 - Counties › Chapter 36.70A - Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties and Cities. › 36.70A.481 - Construction—Chapter 347, Laws of 1995.

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 § 13.]