skip navigation
MRSC logo

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Planning Commissions

This page provides an overview of planning commissions for cities, towns, and counties in Washington State, including relevant laws, responsibilities, qualifications, examples of rules of procedure, and more.

Overview

Cities, towns, and counties that fully plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) are required to have planning commissions to review and make recommendations on comprehensive plans, land use regulations, and community development issues to the agency's governing body (the council or board of commissioners).

Cities and counties that are not required to adopt comprehensive plans under RCW 36.70A.040 but voluntarily choose to do so must create planning commissions. These planning commissions are required to review those plans according to RCW 35.63.080-120.

Non-GMA cities or counties that do not adopt comprehensive plans are not legally required to have planning commissions. However, creating a planning commission is a good practice because it is a citizen advisory body that represents the jurisdiction.

Many tribes also use planning commissions to advise their tribal councils. Counties, cities, towns, and other agencies and boards can collaborate with these tribal commissions on issues including land use, transportation planning, climate adaptation strategies, and more. For more information on tribal planning, visit the Department of Commerce Tribal Planning webpage.

Statutes

The following statutes apply to creation, organization and powers of planning commissions:

Cities, Towns, and Counties Planning under the GMA

  • RCW 35.63.100 – All GMA cities and towns; requires planning commission to develop and recommend comprehensive plans
  • RCW 35A.63.060 – GMA code cities; requires "planning agency" (which can be a commission) to develop comprehensive plans
  • RCW 36.70.400 – GMA counties; requires planning commission to develop and recommend comprehensive plans

All Cities and Towns Generally

  • Ch. 35.63 RCW – Planning Commissions; applicable to all cities and towns.
    • RCW 35.63.020 – Provides additional authority for first-class cities
  • Ch. 35A.63 RCW – Planning and Zoning in Code Cities; allows creation of a planning agency, which can either be a planning commission or professional roles like planning director or planning staff.

All Counties Generally

Regional Planning Commissions

Responsibilities

The city/town council or board of county commissioners directs the planning commission’s projects and seeks feedback from them.

Local governments appoint planning commissioners to represent the city, town, or county at large, not particular interests. The primary role of the planning commission is to prepare and review the comprehensive plan, any proposed amendments, and the zoning/development code for council or board approval, acting as policy advisors, not policymakers.

Some local governments also authorize planning commissions to review certain types of development proposals, such as conditional use permits, critical areas reasonable use permits, and shoreline development permits. When planning commissions perform this role, the commission typically make a recommendation that the local governing body can approve, approve with conditions, or deny.

In some jurisdictions, the planning commission or hearing examiner may hold a public hearing and decide on certain land use actions. In these cases, the planning commission's decision would be subject to appeal to the local governing body.

Important: When planning commissions are involved in reviewing site-specific development proposals, their recommendations or decisions are considered quasi-judicial and therefore subject to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (chapter 42.36 RCW). For more information, see our page Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.

Sometimes, a planning commission may express interest in municipal matters outside of its scope of work. If the planning commission requires that information to consider an item it has been directed to review (for example, a periodic comprehensive plan update), then it has more latitude. Otherwise, the commission should avoid discussing such matters during their meetings.

City and Town Planning Commissions

The requirements for city and town planning commissions may vary depending on the city classification and local ordinances/policies.

Towns and Second-Class Cities

Towns and second-class cities must have at least three and not more than 12 planning commissioners, who must be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city/town council (RCW 35.63.020). The exact number is set by ordinance or resolution, and up to one-third may be city or county officials serving in an "ex officio" capacity.

Any ex officio members serve for the duration of their tenure in office, while the appointed members serve either four-year or six-year staggered terms as determined by local legislative action. Planning commissioners must serve without compensation (RCW 35.63.030).

City/town councilmembers and certain other local government officials may be ineligible for appointment to the planning commission, as described later in the section on Incompatible Offices.

The planning commission must hold at least one regular meeting in each month for at least nine months each year (RCW 35.63.040).

Below are examples of town planning commission provisions:

Code Cities

Chapter 35.63 RCW (summarized above for towns and second-class cities) applies broadly to all incorporated cities and towns. However, code cities have significant flexibility to adopt their own rules if desired regarding planning commission membership, organization, and expenses (see RCW 35A.63.020). For example, code cities could adopt different membership requirements, different term lengths, or provide for compensation of planning commissioners.

In code cities, the elected mayor or appointed city manager has the authority to appoint planning commissioners, though council approval may be required by ordinance (see RCW 35A.12.090 for mayor-council cities and RCW 35A.13.080 for council-manager cities).

Below are examples of code city planning commission provisions:

First-Class Cities

Similar to code cities, first-class cities have significant flexibility to adopt their own planning commission rules and extend planning commission membership, duties, and powers beyond those in chapter 35.63 RCW (see RCW 35.63.020).

Below are examples of first-class city planning commission provisions:

County Planning Commissions

Charter counties have more flexibility than non-charter counties in shaping their planning commissions.

Charter Counties

Similar to code cities, charter counties have broad legislative powers in matters of local concern, so long as their action does not conflict with any constitutional provision or state law. See King County Council v. Public Disclosure Comm’n. (1980) and AGO 1991 No. 17. This legislative authority gives charter counties discretion to adopt planning commission ordinances with varied terms regarding membership, organization, expenses, and other local matters.

Below are examples of planning commission provisions from charter counties:

Non-Charter Counties

Non-charter counties have less flexibility than charter counties since they are required to follow the parameters set forth in RCW 36.70.070-.120.

The planning commission must consist of five, seven, or nine members as provided by ordinance. Department heads may serve on the planning commission in an "ex officio" capacity as follows (RCW 36.70.070):

Size of planning commission Maximum number of ex officio members
provided by ordinance
5 1
7 2
9 3

The remaining members are appointed by the chair of the board of county commissioners with the approval of a majority of the board. In lieu of one ex officio member only, one staff member who is not a department head may be appointed to the commission.

To choose the appointive commissioners, RCW 36.70.080 states that:

[E]ach member of the board shall submit to the chair a list of nominees residing in his or her commissioner district, and the chair shall make his or her appointments from such lists so that as nearly as mathematically possible, each commissioner district shall be equally represented on the commission.

The appointed planning commissioners serve four-year staggered terms (RCW 36.70.090).

Each county planning commission must hold at least one regular meeting per month, although the meeting may be canceled if there are no pending items over which the planning commission has jurisdiction. See RCW 36.70.130, which applies to each "planning agency" as the term is defined in RCW 36.70.020.

There are no statutes governing compensation for county planning commissioners.

County commissioners and certain other local government officials may be ineligible for appointment to the planning commission, as described below in the section on Incompatible Offices.

Below are examples of planning commission provisions from non-charter counties:

Planning Commissioner Qualifications

Most planning commissioners have experience with land use, elected office, engineering, traffic, or development. However, some are laypeople with little experience other than an interest in developing their community.

State law does not mandate required qualifications for planning commissioners, but cities, towns, and counties can adopt their own required qualifications, such as residency requirements.

Below are selected examples of planning commission job descriptions and applications:

Incompatible Offices

A planning commissioner is considered a "public officer" (see AGO 2016 No. 7) and may be restricted from serving in other governmental roles.

For example, MRSC’s position is that city councilmembers or county commissioners should not serve on their own planning commissions, since planning commissioners are subordinate to the legislative body and make recommendations for the legislative body’s approval, creating an incompatibility.

For more information, see our page on Incompatible Offices.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

Planning commissioners are subject to the code of ethics in state law (chapter 42.23 RCW) as well as any local code of ethics policies. Under the state code of ethics, planning commissioners are prohibited, for example, from using their position to securing special privileges and from receiving a gift from a third party for a matter related to their planning commissioner services.

For more information, see our page on Ethics and Conflict of Interest.

Public Meetings and Rules of Procedure

Planning commissions are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and must provide public notice of their meetings; see RCW 42.30.020(1)(c).

Below are several MRSC webpages discussing public meeting procedures and requirements:

Planning commissions should adopt rules of procedure governing their public meetings and public hearings; below are examples:

Cities and Towns

Counties

Interacting with Elected Officials and Staff

In terms of best practices for elected officials working with planning commissions, here are some tips:

  • Jurisdictions often have their own rules addressing councilmember attendance at planning commission meetings. If a quorum of councilmembers attend the commission meeting and then act, they may be violating the OPMA. While a quorum of the council can attend a commission meeting together, they cannot take any "action." "Action" is defined broadly in the OPMA and includes simple discussion.
  • Councils and county commissions should also consider the distinction between legislative actions and quasi-judicial actions considered by the planning commission. Outside of the OPMA, there is no legal problem with a councilmember attending a commission meeting where legislative action is considered. Nevertheless, an independent advisory body should be able to consider their recommendations without influence from the legislative body that appointed them.

MRSC generally recommends that councilmembers do not attend planning commission meetings because of concerns with appearance of fairness issues.

For more information, see our page Advisory Boards and Commissions.

Examples of Policies for Interactions with Planning Commissioners

Vacancies and Removals

Typically, cities, towns, and counties will have rules governing the conduct of their boards and commissions, including addressing vacancies and the removal of commissioners.

Any vacancies that occur during a term must be filled, and the appointee will serve for the remainder of the unexpired term. See RCW 35.63.030 for cities and towns and RCW 36.70.100 for counties and consult your local charter, codes, or policies.

The mayor or chair of the board of county commissioners, as appropriate, may only remove a planning commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and only with the approval of the council/board of commissioners after a public hearing. See RCW 35.63.030 for cities/towns and RCW 36.70.110 for counties.

However, first-class cities, code cities, and charter counties likely have additional flexibility regarding removal of a planning commissioner. For example, some jurisdictions have adopted provisions allowing for removal after a specific number of unexcused absences, although other jurisdictions may consider too many unexcused absences to fall under "neglect of duty."

Examples of Attendance and Removal Regulations

  • Bainbridge Island Ordinance No. 2019-01 (2019) – Establishes uniform procedures for removal or resignation of advisory board members, as well as for demoting the chair of an advisory board.
  • Edmonds Municipal Code Section 1.05.010 – Attendance Required – Remote Participation Allowed; sets expectations for percentage of meetings required as well describing expectations for remote participation in meetings.
  • Pierce County Code Section 2.78.050 – Removal from Office; establishes grounds for removal, to be approved by a majority of the council.
  • Quincy Municipal Code Section 2.30.060 – Removal; mayor can remove commissioners for "incapacity, incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office or for a disqualifying change of residence." "Neglect of duty" is defined as unexcused absence from two consecutive meetings or from four meetings in a year.

Similar Offices

Some board members, commissioners, and staff may perform similar, but distinct, responsibilities to those undertaken by planning commissioners. These include:

  • The Board of Adjustments, which considers zoning adjustment requests.
  • The Design Review Board/Architectural Review Board, which reviews consistency with adopted design standards, and may be a sub-committee of the planning commission.
  • The Historic Preservation Commission, which is typically responsible for reviewing applications for historic landmark status and permits for the alteration of historic properties. For more information, see our page on Historic Preservation.
  • Hearing Examiners, who consider site-specific rezones, special use permit approvals, variances, etc. as assigned by the council. For more information, see our page on Hearing Examiners.
  • The Zoning Board, which considers applications of zoning ordinances and appeals of the zoning administrator’s decisions.

Selected Court Decisions

Below is a selection of court decisions that are relevant to the role of the planning commission.

Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011) – Held that the county’s legislative body can make changes to the comprehensive plan amendment recommended by the county planning commission without referring the proposed change or alteration to the planning commission for further public comment and redrafting before the revised plan amendment may be adopted if the public already has had a full opportunity to comment on the proposed change or alteration.

The court also held that a county planning commission's delay in providing the signatures of its chairperson and secretary on a comprehensive plan map containing revisions recommended to the county's legislative body for its consideration and approval as required by RCW 36.70A.400 does not render the legislative body's approval of the plan void if the record shows that the delay did not prevent the legislative body from understanding the planning commission's recommendation.

Citizens to Preserve Pioneer Park LLC v. Mercer Island (2001) – Addresses whether the city council exceeded its authority, as an appellate tribunal, when it interpreted and applied zoning variance criteria regarding visual impacts differently than the commission. The court held that the municipal code did not preclude the council from finding facts, that the council was allowed to modify the decision of the commission, but that the council did not disregard or change the basic facts on which the planning commission relied.

Concerned Coupeville Citizens v. Town of Coupeville (1991), review denied – The court decided:

It is clear that under RCW 35.63.060, a planning commission "may act as the research and fact-finding agency of the municipality." A commission acting in such a capacity, however, does not possess fact-finding powers that are final and unreviewable by the municipality. This is made clear by the terms of RCW 35.63.120, which empowers the council or board to "modify or disaffirm any decision of the commission."

Buchsieb/Danard, Inc. v. Skagit County (1982), affirmed (1983) – Held that the Planning Enabling Act, chapter 36.70 RCW, provides that reports and recommendations of the planning commission relating to plats, subdivisions and other "official controls" are advisory only, the final decision as to such controls resting with the county board.

D.E.B.T., Ltd. v. Board of Clallam County Comm'rs (1979) – Addressed whether the board of county commissioners had authority to reject the recommendation of the planning commission and require that the proposed development comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The court noted that chapter 35.63 RCW, which authorizes the creation of planning commissions and the adoption of comprehensive plans by municipalities within the state, gives to planning commissions only the power to make recommendations to the board of county commissioners (RCW 35.63.060 and RCW 35.63.100). The adoption or rejection of such recommendations is in the sound discretion of the board, and the board may disaffirm any decision of the planning commission (RCW 35.63.120).

Lutz v. Longview (1974) (abrogated on other grounds by Yim v. City of Seattle (2019)) – Addressed the separation of functions and powers of the planning commission and the city council, holding that a city council cannot delegate its legislative authority to adopt zoning modifications (where the city council allowed the planning department to adopt a new public utility district zone that differed from existing zones) to the planning commission.

Chrobuck v. Snohomish County (1971) – Confirmed that the appearance of fairness doctrine applies to planning commissions, requiring that their quasi-judicial proceedings, including their hearings and fact-finding processes, be fair and impartial.

Recommended Resources

In addition to MRSC's resources on Planning & Growth Management, Economic Development, and Climate & Environment, below are some other organizations and resources for planning commissioners and staff that work with these commissions.

Washington State

National


Last Modified: February 19, 2026