Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.011

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that this chapter is intended to recognize the importance of rural lands and rural character to Washington's economy, its people, and its environment, while respecting regional differences. Rural lands and rural-based economies enhance the economic desirability of the state, help to preserve traditional economic activities, and contribute to the state's overall quality of life.
The legislature finds that to retain and enhance the job base in rural areas, rural counties must have flexibility to create opportunities for business development. Further, the legislature finds that rural counties must have the flexibility to retain existing businesses and allow them to expand. The legislature recognizes that not all business developments in rural counties require an urban level of services; and that many businesses in rural areas fit within the definition of rural character identified by the local planning unit.
Finally, the legislature finds that in defining its rural element under RCW 36.70A.070(5), a county should foster land use patterns and develop a local vision of rural character that will: Help preserve rural-based economies and traditional rural lifestyles; encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents; foster opportunities for small-scale, rural-based employment and self-employment; permit the operation of rural-based agricultural, commercial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns; be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; foster the private stewardship of the land and preservation of open space; and enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life.
[ 2002 c 212 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Woods v. Kittitas County
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007) wash “” RCW 36.70A.011. The GMA also recognizes that circumstances may vary by county and allows counties to consider local circumstances when determining rural density and use patterns as long as they create a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes with the GMA…”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007) wash “" RCW 36.70A.011. The GMA also recognizes that circumstances may vary by county and allows counties to consider local circumstances when determining rural density and use patterns as long as they create a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes with the GMA…”
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.011, .070(5). The GMA encourages development in established urban areas, open space retention, the preservation of rural areas, the protection of critical areas, and discourages sprawling low density rural development.”
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 72 Twenty years after enacting EFSLA, the legislature enacted the GMA in order to coordinate and plan economic growth and development among communities, local governments, and corporations.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶73 Twenty years after enacting EFSLA, the legislature enacted the GMA in order to coordinate and plan economic growth and development among communities, local governments, and corporations.”
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.011, .070(5). The GMA encourages development in established urban areas, open space retention, the preservation of rural areas, the protection of critical areas, and discourages sprawling low density rural development.”
Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.011. A county must include in its GMA plan a rural element containing land not designated agriculture, which rural element “shall permit rural development, forestry, and agriculture in rural areas.”
Clallam County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH (2005) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.011. The legislature has found that in defining its rural element, a county should foster land use patterns that preserve rural lifestyle and provide opportunities for small-scale, rural-based employment and self-employment.”
Summit Waller Community Association v. Pierce County (2019) washctapp · cites it 2× “); RCW 36.70A.011 (Legislative findings on the GMA’s rural lands provisions.”
King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (2024) wash “” RCW 36.70A.011. The GMA was established to provide a framework for land use planning and regulation of development, in response to unplanned growth and a lack of common goals.”
Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King County (2025) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.011, .070. The rural element must provide for a variety of uses and densities and must include several measures to address rural development such as assuring -7- No.”
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.