Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020
Planning goals
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and, where specified, also guide the development of regional policies, plans, and strategies adopted under RCW 36.70A.210 and chapter 47.80 RCW. The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and, where specified, regional plans, policies, and strategies:
(1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
(3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled, and are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
(4) Housing. Plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
(5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
(6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
(7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space and green space, enhance recreational opportunities, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.
(10) Environment. Protect and enhance the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
(11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process, including the participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
(13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
(14) Climate change and resiliency. Ensure that comprehensive plans, development regulations, and regional policies, plans, and strategies under RCW 36.70A.210 and chapter 47.80 RCW adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice.
(15) Shorelines of the state. For shorelines of the state, the goals and policies of the shoreline management act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 shall be considered an element of the county's or city's comprehensive plan.
Notes:
For a 14th goal: See RCW 36.70A.480.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154
cases (6 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)
“The GMA specifically allows counties to consider local circumstances when planning this element, providing that [b]ecause circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop…”
King County v. Central Puget Sound (2000)
“Despite the fact the statute specifically states its goals "are not listed in order of priority," RCW 36.70A.020, the majority concludes a county's duty to conserve agricultural land is a higher priority than creating recreational facilities, in essence making meaningless other…”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2000)
“Despite the fact the statute specifically states its goals “are not listed in order of priority,” RCW 36.70A.020, the majority concludes a county’s duty to conserve agricultural land is a higher priority than creating recreational facilities, in essence making meaningless other…”
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“See RCW 36.70A.020(1) (Urban growth) and (2) (Reduce sprawl).”
Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2016)
“” RCW 36.70A.020. Read collectively, these goals convey some conceptual guidance for growth management.”
Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2006)
“RCW 36.70A.020; WAC 365-195-070(1). ¶ 32 The GMA was to be a "bottom-up" approach, allowing local cities and counties the authority to make decisions based on their local needs in order to harmonize and balance the 13 statewide planning goals.”
Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2005)
“RCW 36.70A.020. One of these goals is to “[m]aintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive .”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005)
“” RCW 36.70A.020 (emphasis added). Additionally, while the GMA goals “collectively convey some conceptual guidance for growth management,” the GMA “explicitly denies any order of priority among the thirteen goals” and it is evident that “some of them are mutually competitive.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005)
“" *1144 RCW 36.70A.020 (emphasis added). Additionally, while the GMA goals "collectively convey some conceptual guidance for growth management" the GMA "explicitly denies any order of priority among the thirteen goals" and it is evident that "some of them are mutually…”
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005)
“RCW 36.70A.020. These goals include, inter alia, encouraging development within urban areas, reducing the conversion of undeveloped land into low-density development, retaining open space, protecting the environment, and protecting private property rights.”
Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n (2002)
“RCW 36.70A.020; WAC 365-195-070(1). *1165 A number of goals would be furthered by installing the four-inch sewer line to replace the existing obsolete treatment facilities before they fail and spill pollution into Puget Sound.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“” RCW 36.70A.020. ¶11 The lack of priority in the planning goals becomes especially problematic when local governments are faced with land that qualifies as both agricultural land and as a critical area (for example, a parcel of agricultural land that abuts a water source).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(1) — 30 cases
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“See RCW 36.70A.020(1) (Urban growth) and (2) (Reduce sprawl).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(10) — 18 cases
Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2016)
“” RCW 36.70A.020. Read collectively, these goals convey some conceptual guidance for growth management.”
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“The GMA specifically allows counties to consider local circumstances when planning this element, providing that [b]ecause circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop…”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“” RCW 36.70A.020. ¶11 The lack of priority in the planning goals becomes especially problematic when local governments are faced with land that qualifies as both agricultural land and as a critical area (for example, a parcel of agricultural land that abuts a water source).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(11) — 13 cases
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“See RCW 36.70A.020(1) (Urban growth) and (2) (Reduce sprawl).”
1000 Friends v. McFarland (2006)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(12) — 11 cases
James v. County of Kitsap (2005)
James v. Kitsap County (2005)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(15) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(2) — 20 cases
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005)
“” RCW 36.70A.020 (emphasis added). Additionally, while the GMA goals “collectively convey some conceptual guidance for growth management,” the GMA “explicitly denies any order of priority among the thirteen goals” and it is evident that “some of them are mutually competitive.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005)
“" *1144 RCW 36.70A.020 (emphasis added). Additionally, while the GMA goals "collectively convey some conceptual guidance for growth management" the GMA "explicitly denies any order of priority among the thirteen goals" and it is evident that "some of them are mutually…”
Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n (2002)
“RCW 36.70A.020; WAC 365-195-070(1). *1165 A number of goals would be furthered by installing the four-inch sewer line to replace the existing obsolete treatment facilities before they fail and spill pollution into Puget Sound.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(3) — 3 cases
Miotke v. Spokane County (2014)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(4) — 6 cases
Paul Stickney & Stefan Birgh, Apps. v. Central Puget Snd Growth Management Hearings Board, Res. (2019)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(5) — 5 cases
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“The GMA specifically allows counties to consider local circumstances when planning this element, providing that [b]ecause circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(6) — 15 cases
Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2005)
“RCW 36.70A.020. One of these goals is to “[m]aintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive .”
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“See RCW 36.70A.020(1) (Urban growth) and (2) (Reduce sprawl).”
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005)
“RCW 36.70A.020. These goals include, inter alia, encouraging development within urban areas, reducing the conversion of undeveloped land into low-density development, retaining open space, protecting the environment, and protecting private property rights.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(7) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(8) — 34 cases
King County v. Central Puget Sound (2000)
“Despite the fact the statute specifically states its goals "are not listed in order of priority," RCW 36.70A.020, the majority concludes a county's duty to conserve agricultural land is a higher priority than creating recreational facilities, in essence making meaningless other…”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2000)
“Despite the fact the statute specifically states its goals “are not listed in order of priority,” RCW 36.70A.020, the majority concludes a county’s duty to conserve agricultural land is a higher priority than creating recreational facilities, in essence making meaningless other…”
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“See RCW 36.70A.020(1) (Urban growth) and (2) (Reduce sprawl).”
Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2006)
“RCW 36.70A.020; WAC 365-195-070(1). ¶ 32 The GMA was to be a "bottom-up" approach, allowing local cities and counties the authority to make decisions based on their local needs in order to harmonize and balance the 13 statewide planning goals.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(9) — 12 cases
King County v. Central Puget Sound (2000)
“Despite the fact the statute specifically states its goals "are not listed in order of priority," RCW 36.70A.020, the majority concludes a county's duty to conserve agricultural land is a higher priority than creating recreational facilities, in essence making meaningless other…”
Stevens County v. Futurewise (2008)
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2000)
“Despite the fact the statute specifically states its goals “are not listed in order of priority,” RCW 36.70A.020, the majority concludes a county’s duty to conserve agricultural land is a higher priority than creating recreational facilities, in essence making meaningless other…”
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005)
“RCW 36.70A.020. These goals include, inter alia, encouraging development within urban areas, reducing the conversion of undeveloped land into low-density development, retaining open space, protecting the environment, and protecting private property rights.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(l) — 3 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.020(l1) — 1 case
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.