Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.010

Legislative findings

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth.
[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) wash · cites it 4× “" RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA provides counties with the discretion to designate an area as rural or to designate it differently to allow for increased growth and development.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash · cites it 2× “One of the central requirements of the GMA, and the one at issue here, is that counties and cities which plan under it must designate UGAs “within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.” RCW 36.70A.110(1).…”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash · cites it 2× “One of the central requirements of the GMA, and the one at issue here, is that counties and cities which plan under it must designate UGAs "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.”
Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2016) wash · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70A.010. ¶36 Importantly, the GMA concentrates future growth into urban growth areas.”
King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Board (1993) wash · cites it 2× “17, § 1 (codified at RCW 36.70A.010). One key element of the GMA is the designation of what are called "urban growth areas".”
Whatcom County v. Brisbane (1994) wash · cites it 4× “[8] RCW 36.70A.010. [9] WAC 365-190-020. [10] RCW 36.”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70A.010. Under the GMA., communities must create comprehensive plans to express general land use policies in the community and development regulations to implement those plans.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007) wash · cites it 2× “020(10) (providing that local governments will “[p]rotect the environment”); RCW 36.70A.010 (describing the legislature’s intent in adopting the GMA to provide for “comprehensive land use planning”).”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2008) wash “” RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA provides a “framework” of goals and requirements to guide local governments who have “the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning.”
Thurston County v. W. WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (2008) wash “" RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA provides a "framework" of goals and requirements to guide local governments who have "the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning.”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007) wash “” RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA requires counties to develop a “ ‘comprehensive plan,’ ” which sets out the “generalized coordinated land use policy statement” of the county’s governing body.”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007) wash “" RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA requires counties to develop a *31 "`comprehensive plan,'" which sets out the "generalized coordinated land use policy statement" of the county's governing body.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.010(1) — 1 case
Ccnrc v. Cccu (1999) washctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.