Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) (a) There is hereby created within the environmental and land use hearings office established by RCW 43.21B.005 a growth management hearings board for the state of Washington. The board shall consist of five members qualified by experience or training in pertinent matters pertaining to land use law or land use planning and who have experience in the practical application of those matters. All five board members shall be appointed by the governor. At least three members of the board shall be admitted to practice law in this state, one each residing respectively in the central Puget Sound, eastern Washington, and western Washington regions. At least two members of the board shall have been a city or county elected official, one each residing respectively in eastern Washington and western Washington. No more than three members of the five-member board may be members of the same major political party. No more than two members at the time of their appointment or during their term may reside in the same county. Board members shall operate on a full-time basis, shall receive an annual salary to be determined by the governor pursuant to RCW 43.03.040, shall receive reimbursement for travel expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties in accordance with RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060, and shall be considered employees of the state of Washington subject to chapter 42.52 RCW.
(2) Each member of the board shall be appointed for a term of six years, and until their successors are appointed. A vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the governor for the unexpired portion of the term in which the vacancy occurs.
[ 2020 c 214 s 1; 2010 c 211 s 4; 1994 c 249 s 29; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 5.]

Notes:

Effective date—2010 c 211: "This act takes effect July 1, 2010." [ 2010 c 211 s 18.]
Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: "(1) The three growth management hearings boards are abolished and their powers, duties, and functions are transferred to the growth management hearings board.
(2) All reports, documents, surveys, books, records, files, papers, or written material in the possession of the three growth management hearings boards must be delivered to the custody of the growth management hearings board. All office furnishings, office equipment, motor vehicles, and other tangible property in the possession of the three growth management hearings boards must be made available to the growth management hearings board.
(3) All funds, credits, or other assets held by the three growth management hearings boards must, on July 1, 2010, be transferred to the growth management hearings board. Any appropriations made to the three growth management hearings boards must, on July 1, 2010, be transferred and credited to the growth management hearings board. If any question arises as to the transfer of any personnel, funds, books, documents, records, papers, files, equipment, or other tangible property used or held in the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties and functions transferred, the director of financial management shall make a determination as to the proper allocation and certify the same to the state agencies concerned.
(4) All employees of the three growth management hearings boards are transferred to the growth management hearings board. All employees classified under chapter 41.06 RCW, the state civil service law, are assigned to the growth management hearings board to perform their usual duties upon the same terms as formerly, without any loss of rights, subject to any action that may be appropriate thereafter in accordance with the laws and rules governing state civil service.
(5) This section may not be construed to alter any existing collective bargaining unit or the provisions of any existing collective bargaining agreement until the agreement has expired or until the bargaining unit has been modified by action of the public employment relations commission as provided by law.
(6) All rules and pending business before the three growth management hearings boards must be continued and acted upon by the growth management hearings board. All existing contracts and obligations remain in full force and must be performed by the growth management hearings board.
(7) The transfer of the powers, duties, functions, and personnel of the three growth management hearings boards to the growth management hearings board does not affect the validity of any act performed before July 1, 2010.
(8) All cases decided and all orders previously issued by the three growth management hearings boards remain in full force and effect and are not affected by this act." [ 2010 c 211 s 17.]
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “Former RCW 36.70A.250 (1994), .280(1)(a) (2003).”
Quadrant Corp. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 154 Wash. 2d 224 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “See RCW 36.70A.250 through .340. In addition the legislature appointed the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development to provide technical assistance to counties and cities in adopting and implementing their comprehensive plans and development regulations.”
Quadrant Corp. v. State, Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 110 P.3d 1132 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “See RCW 36.70A.250 through .340. In addition the legislature appointed the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development to provide technical assistance to counties and cities in adopting and implementing their comprehensive plans and development regulations.”
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT, 958 P.2d 962 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “32, § 5 (codified at RCW 36.70A.250). [3] The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Cnty., 135 Wash. 2d 542 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “32, § 5 (codified at RCW 36.70A.250). 3 The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound, 14 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 36.70A.250(1). Each board consists of three members "qualified by experience or training in matters pertaining to land use planning and residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the applicable board.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 543 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 36.70A.250(l)(b). Each board consists of three members “qualified by experience or training in matters pertaining to land use planning and residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the applicable board.”
Woods v. Kittitas Cnty., 174 P.3d 25 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.250, .280. GMHBs have limited jurisdiction to decide only petitions challenging comprehensive plans, development regulations, or permanent amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations.”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wa. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 139 P.3d 1096 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 36.70A.250. In this case we are dealing with the Western Washington Growth Management Board (Board).”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash. 2d 488 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 36.70A.250. In this case we are dealing with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board).”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.250. The growth management hearings board members are not elected but are appointed by the governor for six-year terms (without legislative confirmation).”
Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 309 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Former RCW 36.70A.250(l)(a) (1994). We address the same dispute in a similar ease with consistent reasoning.”
Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings, 259 P.3d 227 (Wash. 2011). “See RCW 36.70A.250,.260. The EWGMHB has jurisdiction to consider petitions for review filed under the GMA for matters pertaining to cities and counties located "east of the crest of the Cascade mountains," which includes the Baker Flats area of East Wenatchee.”
Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 172 Wash. 2d 367 (Wash. 2011). “See RCW 36.70A.250, .260. The EWGMHB has jurisdiction to consider petitions for review filed under the GMA for matters pertaining to cities and counties located “east of the crest of the Cascade mountains,” which includes the Baker Flats area of East Wenatchee.”
Moore v. Whitman Cnty., 18 P.3d 566 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 17× “The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 36.70A.250 limits the jurisdiction of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) to counties located east of the Cascade Mountains “that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.”
Clallam Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 130 Wash. App. 127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Pursuant to the GMA, there are three growth management hearings boards in Washington: (1) Western Washington board; (2) Central Puget Sound board; and (3) Eastern Washington board.”
Coffey v. City of Walla Walla, 187 P.3d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “The legislation also created a Growth Management Hearings Board to consider challenges to legislative decisions of local jurisdictions, including allegations of failure to live up to the obligations imposed by the GMA.”
Coffey v. City of Walla Walla, 145 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “See RCW 36.70A.250, .280. Challenges to zoning ordinances and other actions affecting specific pieces of property were to be filed in superior court under a land use petition.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 951 P.2d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “11 RCW 36.70A.250; 36.70A.280(1)(a). 12 See Federated Am.”
Futurewise v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 189 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 36.70A.250. In 2003, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board decided that the GMA retroactively applied even to those critical areas inside shoreline management areas long managed through shoreline master plans properly adopted, amended, and approved by…”
Futurewise v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wash. 2d 242 (Wash. 2008). “RCW 36.70A.250. In 2003, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board decided that the GMA retroactively applied even to those critical areas inside shoreline management areas long managed through shoreline master plans properly adopted, amended, and approved by…”
Thurston Cnty. v. W. WASH. BD., 154 P.3d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.250. Legislatively created agencies can act in a quasi-judicial capacity without violating separation of powers principles.”
Thurston Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 137 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.250. Legislatively created agencies can act in a quasi-judicial capacity without violating separation of powers principles.”
Stafne v. Snohomish Cnty., 234 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 36.70A.250(1)(b). At oral argument the County conceded that it would have filed a motion to dismiss if Stafhe had filed a petition with the CPSGMHB challenging the Council’s decision to reject his docketing proposal.”
Stevens Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 262 P.3d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 36.70A.250(1). *689 ¶13 The Board correctly noted development regulations are presumed valid in the FDO.”
Swinomish Indian v. W. Washington, 166 P.3d 1198 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.250. The growth management hearings board members are not elected but are appointed by the governor for six-year terms (without legislative confirmation).”
Clallam Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth, 121 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The earning or productive capacity of farm and agricultural lands shall be the "net cash rental," capitalized at a "rate of interest" charged on long term loans secured by a mortgage on farm or agricultural land plus a component for property taxes. [8] Pursuant to the GMA, there…”
Stafne v. Snohomish Cnty., 234 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 36.70A.250(1)(b). [9] At oral argument the County conceded that it would have filed a motion to dismiss if Stafne had filed a petition with the CPSGMHB challenging the Council's decision to reject his docketing proposal.”
Citizens v. Columbia Cnty., 966 P.2d 338 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “3 RCW 36.70A.250. 4 RCW 36.70A.280(1), (2).”
Shaw Fam. v. Advocates for Resp. Dev't, 236 P.3d 975 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “This comprehensive plan must "be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map." Former RCW 36.”
Shaw Fam., LLC v. Advocates for Responsible Dev., 157 Wash. App. 364 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “13 See RCW 36.70A.250(1)(c); former RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a); former RCW 36.”
Futurewise v. City Of Ridgefield (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 36.70A.250, .280. 6 No. 50406-5-II Under RCW 36.”
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024). “” RCW 36.70A.250(1). 9 King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley, No.”
Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearing Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Former RCW 36.70A.250(1){a) (1994). 10 No. 30725-5-111 Spokane County v.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250(1) — 5 cases
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound, 14 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 36.70A.250(1). Each board consists of three members "qualified by experience or training in matters pertaining to land use planning and residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the applicable board.”
Stevens Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 262 P.3d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 36.70A.250(1). *689 ¶13 The Board correctly noted development regulations are presumed valid in the FDO.”
Moore v. Whitman Cnty., 18 P.3d 566 (Wash. 2001). “The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 36.70A.250 limits the jurisdiction of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) to counties located east of the Cascade Mountains “that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.”
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024). “” RCW 36.70A.250(1). 9 King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley, No.”
Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearing Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Former RCW 36.70A.250(1){a) (1994). 10 No. 30725-5-111 Spokane County v.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250(1)(a) — 1 case
Moore v. Whitman Cnty., 18 P.3d 566 (Wash. 2001). “The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 36.70A.250 limits the jurisdiction of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) to counties located east of the Cascade Mountains “that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250(1)(b) — 3 cases
Stafne v. Snohomish Cnty., 234 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 36.70A.250(1)(b). At oral argument the County conceded that it would have filed a motion to dismiss if Stafhe had filed a petition with the CPSGMHB challenging the Council’s decision to reject his docketing proposal.”
Stafne v. Snohomish Cnty., 234 P.3d 225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 36.70A.250(1)(b). [9] At oral argument the County conceded that it would have filed a motion to dismiss if Stafne had filed a petition with the CPSGMHB challenging the Council's decision to reject his docketing proposal.”
Moore v. Whitman Cnty., 18 P.3d 566 (Wash. 2001). “The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 36.70A.250 limits the jurisdiction of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) to counties located east of the Cascade Mountains “that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250(1)(c) — 3 cases
Shaw Fam. v. Advocates for Resp. Dev't, 236 P.3d 975 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “This comprehensive plan must "be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map." Former RCW 36.”
Shaw Fam., LLC v. Advocates for Responsible Dev., 157 Wash. App. 364 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “13 See RCW 36.70A.250(1)(c); former RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a); former RCW 36.”
Moore v. Whitman Cnty., 18 P.3d 566 (Wash. 2001). “The plain and unambiguous language of RCW 36.70A.250 limits the jurisdiction of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) to counties located east of the Cascade Mountains “that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250(l)(a) — 1 case
Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 309 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Former RCW 36.70A.250(l)(a) (1994). We address the same dispute in a similar ease with consistent reasoning.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.250(l)(b) — 1 case
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 543 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 36.70A.250(l)(b). Each board consists of three members “qualified by experience or training in matters pertaining to land use planning and residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the applicable board.”
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.