Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.140
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. In enacting legislation in response to the board's decision pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300 declaring part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulation invalid, the county or city shall provide for public participation that is appropriate and effective under the circumstances presented by the board's order. Errors in exact compliance with the established program and procedures shall not render the comprehensive land use plan or development regulations invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed.
Notes:
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011)
“70 RCW, the [PEA], where the County has imposed the requirements of the [PEA] upon itself as part of its process for adopting site specific plan amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140, the Board has jurisdiction to review whether the County has complied with these provisions as a…”
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“2d 374 (1999) (noting that "counties are required to `provid[e] for early and continuous public participation'" (alteration in original) (quoting RCW 36.70A.140)). ¶ 39 As this court has noted, "the GMA does not dictate a specific manner of achieving a variety of rural densities.”
Whatcom County v. Brisbane (1994)
“RCW 36.70A.140 provides: Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.”
City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002)
“But it ruled that "provisions of the ILA, if any, that are included as Plan or zoning code amendments are subject to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.140 during the plan or zoning code amendment process.”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999)
“" RCW 36.70A.140. Citizens who attend and participate in the comprehensive plan hearings have standing to challenge provisions later adopted in a county's comprehensive plan.”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999)
“” RCW 36.70A.140. Citizens who attend and participate in the comprehensive plan hearings have standing to challenge provisions later adopted in a county’s comprehensive plan.”
CHEVRON USA INC. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2004)
“035 and RCW 36.70A.140, and due process did not require Woodway to give Chevron individualized notice.”
Caswell v. Pierce County (2000)
“2d 374 (quoting RCW 36.70A.140). [8] RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a).”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005)
“” RCW 36.70A.140. Under the second, notice must be “reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other[s] affected .”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2004)
“035 and RCW 36.70A.140, and due process did not require Woodway to give Chevron individualized notice.”
City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2002)
“But it ruled that “provisions of the ILA, if any, that are included as Plan or zoning code amendments are subject to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.140 during the plan or zoning code amendment process.”
BRINNON GROUP v. Jefferson County (2011)
“70 RCW, the [PEA], where the County has imposed the requirements of the [PEA] upon itself as part of its process for adopting site specific plan amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140, the Board has jurisdiction to review whether the County has complied with these provisions as a…”
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.