Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either:
(a) That, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the board to hear petitions alleging noncompliance based on a city or county's actions taken to implement the requirements of RCW 36.70A.680, 36.70A.681, or 36.70A.536 within an urban growth area;
(b) That the 20-year growth management planning population projections adopted by the office of financial management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted;
(c) That the approval of a work plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(a) is not in compliance with the requirements of the program established under RCW 36.70A.710;
(d) That regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(b) are not regionally applicable and cannot be adopted, wholly or partially, by another jurisdiction;
(e) That a department certification under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(c) is erroneous;
(f) That the department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed greenhouse gas emissions reduction subelement or amendments by a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 was not in compliance with the joint guidance issued by the department pursuant to RCW 70A.45.120;
(g) That the department's final decision to approve or reject actions by a city implementing RCW 36.70A.635 is clearly erroneous; or
(h) That the department's determination of compliance of a housing element and any related housing development regulations under RCW 36.70A.835 is clearly erroneous.
(2) A petition may be filed only by: (a) The state, or a county or city that plans under this chapter; (b) a person who has participated orally or in writing before the county or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested; (c) a person who is certified by the governor within 60 days of filing the request with the board; or (d) a person qualified pursuant to RCW 34.05.530.
(3) For purposes of this section, "person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, state agency, governmental subdivision or unit thereof, or public or private organization or entity of any character.
(4) To establish participation standing under subsection (2)(b) of this section, a person must show that his or her participation before the county or city was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the board.
(5) When considering a possible adjustment to a growth management planning population projection prepared by the office of financial management, the board shall consider the implications of any such adjustment to the population forecast for the entire state.
The rationale for any adjustment that is adopted by the board must be documented and filed with the office of financial management within ten working days after adoption.
If adjusted by the board, a county growth management planning population projection shall only be used for the planning purposes set forth in this chapter and shall be known as the "board adjusted population projection." None of these changes shall affect the official state and county population forecasts prepared by the office of financial management, which shall continue to be used for state budget and planning purposes.
[ 2025 c 386 s 3; 2025 c 269 s 2. Prior: 2023 c 334 s 7; 2023 c 332 s 6; 2023 c 228 s 7; (2014 c 147 s 3 expired December 31, 2020); 2011 c 360 s 17; 2010 c 211 s 7; 2008 c 289 s 5; 2003 c 332 s 2; 1996 c 325 s 2; 1995 c 347 s 108; 1994 c 249 s 31; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 9.]
Notes:
State representation—Short title—2025 c 269: See notes following RCW 36.70A.835.
Finding—2023 c 332: See note following RCW 36.70A.635.
Expiration date—2014 c 147 s 3: "Section 3 of this act expires December 31, 2020." [ 2014 c 147 s 4.]
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Findings—2008 c 289: "(1) The legislature recognizes that the implications of a changed climate will affect the people, institutions, and economies of Washington. The legislature also recognizes that it is in the public interest to reduce the state's dependence upon foreign sources of carbon fuels that do not promote energy independence or the economic strength of the state. The legislature finds that the state, including its counties, cities, and residents, must engage in activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence upon foreign oil.
(2) The legislature further recognizes that: (a) Patterns of land use development influence transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and the need for foreign oil; (b) fossil fuel-based transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington; and (c) the state and its residents will not achieve emission reductions established in *RCW 80.80.020 without a significant decrease in transportation emissions.
(3) The legislature, therefore, finds that it is in the public interest of the state to provide appropriate legal authority, where required, and to aid in the development of policies, practices, and methodologies that may assist counties and cities in addressing challenges associated with greenhouse gas emissions and our state's dependence upon foreign oil." [ 2008 c 289 s 1.]
Application—2008 c 289: "This act is not intended to amend or affect chapter 353, Laws of 2007." [ 2008 c 289 s 6.]
Intent—2003 c 332: "This act is intended to codify the Washington State Court of Appeals holding in Wells v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 100 Wn. App. 657 (2000), by mandating that to establish participation standing under the growth management act, a person must show that his or her participation before the county or city was reasonably related to the person's issue as presented to the growth management hearings board." [ 2003 c 332 s 1.]
Severability—Effective date—1996 c 325: See notes following RCW 36.70A.270.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Severability—Application—1994 c 249: See notes following RCW 34.05.310.
Definitions: See RCW 36.70A.703.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Somers v. Snohomish County
Somers v. Snohomish County (2001)
“" [36] Nevertheless, the court ultimately recognized that a GMHB has the authority to look to pre-Act ordinances to determine whether the county was otherwise in compliance with the Act, but that that authority arose from RCW 36.70A.280(1). [37] That statute provides that "[a]…”
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998)
“[3] The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280 and .290, and to order compliance with the Act within a reasonable time.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998)
“3 The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280 and .290, and to order compliance with the Act within a reasonable time.”
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011)
“3d 1096 (2006) (citing RCW 36.70A.280, .302). The Board may also find that a county is not in compliance with the GMA’s requirements and remand to enable the county to comply with the GMA’s requirements.”
Somers v. Snohomish County (2001)
“” 36 Nevertheless, the court ultimately recognized that a GMHB has the authority to look to pre-Act ordinances to determine whether the county was otherwise in compliance with the Act, but that that authority arose from RCW 36.70A.280(1). 37 That statute provides that “[a]…”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014)
“RCW 36.70A.280(1). The growth board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a comprehensive plan or building regulation violates the GMA.”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland (2011)
“The statute provides, in pertinent part: The growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either: (a) That, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, a state agency, county or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance…”
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county's comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition (2013)
“1 RCW 36.70A.280(l)(a); former RCW 36.70A.290(2) (1995); Somers v.”
Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2006)
“`needs of the industry' argument is clearly erroneous" and that "the definition of long-term significance refers to the growing capacity and productivity of the soil." Id. at 10. We granted review.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county’s comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2006)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board “shall find compliance” unless it determines that a county action “is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements” of the GMA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(1) — 35 cases
Somers v. Snohomish County (2001)
“" [36] Nevertheless, the court ultimately recognized that a GMHB has the authority to look to pre-Act ordinances to determine whether the county was otherwise in compliance with the Act, but that that authority arose from RCW 36.70A.280(1). [37] That statute provides that "[a]…”
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998)
“[3] The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280 and .290, and to order compliance with the Act within a reasonable time.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998)
“3 The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280 and .290, and to order compliance with the Act within a reasonable time.”
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011)
“3d 1096 (2006) (citing RCW 36.70A.280, .302). The Board may also find that a county is not in compliance with the GMA’s requirements and remand to enable the county to comply with the GMA’s requirements.”
Somers v. Snohomish County (2001)
“” 36 Nevertheless, the court ultimately recognized that a GMHB has the authority to look to pre-Act ordinances to determine whether the county was otherwise in compliance with the Act, but that that authority arose from RCW 36.70A.280(1). 37 That statute provides that “[a]…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(1)(a) — 38 cases
Somers v. Snohomish County (2001)
“" [36] Nevertheless, the court ultimately recognized that a GMHB has the authority to look to pre-Act ordinances to determine whether the county was otherwise in compliance with the Act, but that that authority arose from RCW 36.70A.280(1). [37] That statute provides that "[a]…”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014)
“RCW 36.70A.280(1). The growth board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a comprehensive plan or building regulation violates the GMA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(2) — 7 cases
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county's comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county’s comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(2)(b) — 6 cases
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county's comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county’s comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(2)(d) — 2 cases
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county's comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county’s comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(3) — 7 cases
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county's comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county’s comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(4) — 4 cases
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county's comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007)
“RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board must presume that a county’s comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(b)(2) — 2 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280(l)(a) — 25 cases
Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition (2013)
“1 RCW 36.70A.280(l)(a); former RCW 36.70A.290(2) (1995); Somers v.”
Somers v. Snohomish County (2001)
“” 36 Nevertheless, the court ultimately recognized that a GMHB has the authority to look to pre-Act ordinances to determine whether the county was otherwise in compliance with the Act, but that that authority arose from RCW 36.70A.280(1). 37 That statute provides that “[a]…”
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011)
“3d 1096 (2006) (citing RCW 36.70A.280, .302). The Board may also find that a county is not in compliance with the GMA’s requirements and remand to enable the county to comply with the GMA’s requirements.”
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.