Chapter § 8.7 Process for Modifying Adopted Zoning

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§8.7 PROCESS FOR MODIFYING ADOPTED ZONING

The GMA has significantly altered the way in which comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances may be amended, as discussed below.

(1) Area-wide zone changes

Prior to the GMA, there was virtually no limit on the timing or nature of comprehensive plan or area zoning changes. See Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview Cmty. Council v. Snohomish Cnty., 96 Wn. 2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981). RCW 36.70A.130(2) now provides that, with limited exceptions, comprehensive plan amendments for those counties acting under the GMA may occur only once a year, in accordance with the local jurisdiction's established procedures for reviewing such revisions. Concrete Nor' West v. WWGMHB, 185 Wn. App. 745, 342 P.3d 351 (2015) RCW 36.70A.130(2) further specifies that all such changes to the comprehensive plan "shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained." RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b).

Although a local jurisdiction's adoption and amendment of zoning regulations are not subject to any GMA-specified time limitation, the Act does require that zoning and other "development regulations" be "consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan" adopted pursuant to the GMA. RCW 36.70A.040(3); see RCW 36.70A.120. As such, if a proposed zoning regulation is inconsistent with existing comprehensive plan provisions, its adoption could likely occur only after the inconsistent plan provision is first revised during the annual plan amendment process.

RCW 36.70A.130 further requires all GMA jurisdictions to periodically review their comprehensive plans within statutorily specified timelines and, if needed, revise their comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure that the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the Act. RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a). As noted above, the requirement for zoning code consistency with the comprehensive plan now also applies to cities and counties not planning under the GMA. See RCW 35.63.125 (cities); RCW 35A.63.105 (optional municipal code cities); RCW 36.70.545 (counties).

(2) Property-specific rezones

Area-wide amendments to zoning discussed above are to be distinguished from the parcel-specific amendments to a zoning map that may occur through a rezoning process. Where area zoning adoption and amendment occurs through legislative action, a site-specific rezone is considered a form of quasi-judicial project permit decision initiated by application of the property owner. Unlike area zoning, such parcel-specific, quasi-judicial decisions are subject to appearance of fairness requirements, with appropriate consideration limited to matters set forth in a formal record of proceedings and precluding improper bias. See Raynes v. City of Leavenworth, 118 Wn.2d 237, 244-45, 821 P.2d 1204 (1992) (to determine if an action is quasi-judicial, courts consider: (1) whether a court could have been charged with making the agency's decision; (2) whether the action is a type that courts have historically performed; (3) whether the action involves the application of existing law to past or present facts for the purpose of declaring or enforcing liability; and (4) whether the action resembles the ordinary business of the courts as opposed to that of legislators or administrators).

Comment: Prior to the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW the characterization of a land use decision as "quasi-judicial" determined whether judicial review properly occurred through statutory writ procedures in Chapter 7.16 RCW or by other means. Raynes, 118 Wn.2d at 244-45. The

...