Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70A

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.3201

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature intends that the board applies a more deferential standard of review to actions of counties and cities than the preponderance of the evidence standard provided for under existing law. In recognition of the broad range of discretion that may be exercised by counties and cities consistent with the requirements of this chapter, the legislature intends for the board to grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter. Local comprehensive plans and development regulations require counties and cities to balance priorities and options for action in full consideration of local circumstances. The legislature finds that while this chapter requires local planning to take place within a framework of state goals and requirements, the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of this chapter, and implementing a county's or city's future rests with that community.
[ 2010 c 211 s 12; 1997 c 429 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: "Except as otherwise specifically provided in RCW 36.70A.335, sections 1 through 21, chapter 429, Laws of 1997 are prospective in effect and shall not affect the validity of actions taken or decisions made before July 27, 1997." [ 1997 c 429 s 53.]
Severability—1997 c 429: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1997 c 429 s 54.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) wash · cites it 14× “, RCW 36.70A.3201. Deference to local governments is required, and the GMA sets a high standard before a local decision is overturned.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash · cites it 5× “Quadrant maintains that RCW 36.70A.3201 establishes a “clear directive” that deference should be afforded county and city planning decisions, especially when weighing “local circumstances,” id.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash · cites it 5× “Quadrant maintains that RCW 36.70A.3201 establishes a "clear directive" that deference should be afforded county and city planning decisions, especially when weighing "local circumstances," id.”
Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2006) wash · cites it 6× “RCW 36.70A.3201. But while the Board must defer to Lewis County's choices that are consistent with the GMA, the Board itself is entitled to deference in determining what the GMA requires.”
Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2006) wash · cites it 6× “RCW 36.70A.3201. But while the Board must defer to Lewis County’s choices that are consistent with the GMA, the Board itself is entitled to deference in determining what the GMA requires.”
Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm (2005) wash · cites it 6× “RCW 36.70A.3201, enacted by Laws of 1997, ch.”
Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n (2002) wash · cites it 4× “070(5)(d)(iv), the provision cited by County allowing for more intensive rural development, requires a showing of necessity. Because that provision does not define "necessary" it is not helpful in ascertaining the meaning of that term.”
Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n (2002) wash · cites it 4× “070(5)(d)(iv), the provision cited by County allowing for more intensive rural development, requires a showing of necessity.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007) wash · cites it 5× “Although RCW 36.70A.3201 requires the Board to give deference to a county, the county’s actions must be consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA.”
City of Arlington v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. (2008) wash · cites it 4× “RCW 36.70A.3201. But while the Board must defer to Lewis County's choices that are consistent with the GMA, the Board itself is entitled to deference in determining what the GMA requires.”
City of Arlington v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2008) wash · cites it 3× “RCW 36.70A.3201 (emphasis added). City of Redmond v.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2008) wash · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70A.3201. Great deference is accorded to a local government’s decisions that are “consistent with the requirements and goals” of the GMA.”
Show all 71 citing cases →
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.