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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350

New fully contained communities

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may establish a process as part of its urban growth areas, that are designated under RCW 36.70A.110, for reviewing proposals to authorize new fully contained communities located outside of the initially designated urban growth areas.
(1) A new fully contained community may be approved in a county planning under this chapter if criteria including but not limited to the following are met:
(a) New infrastructure is provided for and impact fees are established consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050;
(b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are implemented;
(c) Buffers are provided between the new fully contained communities and adjacent urban development;
(d) A mix of uses is provided to offer jobs, housing, and services to the residents of the new community;
(e) Affordable housing is provided within the new community for a broad range of income levels;
(f) Environmental protection has been addressed and provided for;
(g) Development regulations are established to ensure urban growth will not occur in adjacent nonurban areas;
(h) Provision is made to mitigate impacts on designated agricultural lands, forestlands, and mineral resource lands;
(i) The plan for the new fully contained community is consistent with the development regulations established for the protection of critical areas by the county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170.
(2) New fully contained communities may be approved outside established urban growth areas only if a county reserves a portion of the twenty-year population projection and offsets the urban growth area accordingly for allocation to new fully contained communities that meet the requirements of this chapter. Any county electing to establish a new community reserve shall do so no more often than once every five years as a part of the designation or review of urban growth areas required by this chapter. The new community reserve shall be allocated on a project-by-project basis, only after specific project approval procedures have been adopted pursuant to this chapter as a development regulation. When a new community reserve is established, urban growth areas designated pursuant to this chapter shall accommodate the unreserved portion of the twenty-year population projection.
Final approval of an application for a new fully contained community shall be considered an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan prepared pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070 designating the new fully contained community as an urban growth area.
[ 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 16.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash · cites it 22× “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. [3] King County took alternative means to comply with the Board's order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash · cites it 21× “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. 3 Rang County took alternative means to comply with the Board’s order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2003) washctapp · cites it 14× “The Board ruled that for the development to continue, the County either needed to provide proper justification for its UGA designation or redesignate the development as a fully contained community under RCW 36.70A.350. Eventually, the parties appealed this decision to the…”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash · cites it 2× “Addressing the merits of Friends' challenge to Bear Creek, the Board entered a finding of noncompliance and remanded to the County with instructions to delete the Bear Creek UGA, to justify it, or to redesignate it as a Fully Contained Community under RCW 36.70A.350. The Board…”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999) wash · cites it 2× “Addressing the merits of Friends’ challenge to Bear Creek, the Board entered a finding of noncompliance and remanded to the County with instructions to delete the Bear Creek UGA, to justify it, or to redesignate it as a Fully Contained Community under RCW 36.70A.350. The Board…”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) washctapp · cites it 2× “The Board remanded to the County with instructions to either delete the Bear Creek UPDs from the UGA, make it a fully contained community if it met the requirements of RCW 36.70A.350, or adequately justify its inclusion in the UGA pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.”
City of Arlington v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. (2008) wash “110(1), which states in pertinent part: An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already…”
City of Arlington v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2008) wash “110(1), which states in pertinent part: An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already…”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland (2011) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.350. RCW 36.70A.360. Where an individual project does not meet the requirements of the planned action ordinance or where the earlier-completed EIS did not adequately address all probable significant adverse environmental impacts of a particular proposed project, that…”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland (2011) washctapp “[11] RCW 36.70A.350. [12] RCW 36.70A.360. [13] Where an individual project does not meet the requirements of the planned action ordinance or where the earlier-completed EIS did not adequately address all probable significant adverse environmental impacts of a particular proposed…”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GMHB (2003) washctapp · cites it 14× “The Board ruled that for the development to continue, the County either needed to provide proper justification for its UGA designation or redesignate the development as a fully contained community under RCW 36.70A.350. Eventually, the parties appealed this decision to the…”
Arlington v. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2007) washctapp “110(1), which states in pertinent part: An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(1) — 2 cases
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. [3] King County took alternative means to comply with the Board's order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. 3 Rang County took alternative means to comply with the Board’s order.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(1)(a) — 3 cases
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. 3 Rang County took alternative means to comply with the Board’s order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. [3] King County took alternative means to comply with the Board's order.”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash “Addressing the merits of Friends' challenge to Bear Creek, the Board entered a finding of noncompliance and remanded to the County with instructions to delete the Bear Creek UGA, to justify it, or to redesignate it as a Fully Contained Community under RCW 36.70A.350. The Board…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(1)(g) — 3 cases
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. 3 Rang County took alternative means to comply with the Board’s order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. [3] King County took alternative means to comply with the Board's order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GMHB (2003) washctapp “The Board ruled that for the development to continue, the County either needed to provide proper justification for its UGA designation or redesignate the development as a fully contained community under RCW 36.70A.350. Eventually, the parties appealed this decision to the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(2) — 2 cases
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. 3 Rang County took alternative means to comply with the Board’s order.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash “110, or (3) redesignate the area an FCC pursuant to RCW 36.70A.350. [3] King County took alternative means to comply with the Board's order.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(g) — 1 case
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GMHB (2003) washctapp “The Board ruled that for the development to continue, the County either needed to provide proper justification for its UGA designation or redesignate the development as a fully contained community under RCW 36.70A.350. Eventually, the parties appealed this decision to the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(l)(a) — 1 case
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999) wash “Addressing the merits of Friends’ challenge to Bear Creek, the Board entered a finding of noncompliance and remanded to the County with instructions to delete the Bear Creek UGA, to justify it, or to redesignate it as a Fully Contained Community under RCW 36.70A.350. The Board…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.350(l)(g) — 1 case
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2003) washctapp “The Board ruled that for the development to continue, the County either needed to provide proper justification for its UGA designation or redesignate the development as a fully contained community under RCW 36.70A.350. Eventually, the parties appealed this decision to the…”
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.