Ask MRSC - Planning & Growth Management

MRSC’s understanding is that the procedures for a plat alteration in RCW 58.17.215 apply only in one circumstance related to a short plat. RCW 58.17.060(1), which addresses short plat procedures, states in relevant part:

The legislative body of a city, town, or county shall adopt regulations and procedures, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions or alteration or vacation thereof. When an alteration or vacation involves a public dedication, the alteration or vacation shall be processed as provided in RCW 58.17.212 or 58.17.215.

So, unless the original short plat had involved a public dedication, the county would process a short plat amendment using the locally adopted short plat procedures.

Below are some examples of city codes related to model homes in Washington state:

• Bellingham Municipal Code Sec. 23.04.110 – Model Homes/Units in Preliminary Plats.
• Lake Stevens Municipal Code Sec. 14.44.025 – Model Homes.
• Monroe Municipal Code Sec. 22.68.050 – Model Homes.
• Oak Harbor Municipal Code Ch. 21.100 – Model Homes.
• Sedro Woolley Municipal Code Ch. 17.98 – Model Homes.
• Sultan Municipal code Sec. 19.10.125 – Model Homes.
• Tacoma Land Use Regulatory Code Sec. 13.04.300 – Model Home.

And the City of Marysville has the following FAQ on their website:

• Marysville FAQs: When can I submit building permits for model homes?

Additional code examples can be found through a Google custom city code search using the term “Model Home” in the General Code and Municode sites.

In response to your question about whether impact fees can be used to pay for an updated impact fee study, MRSC’s general answer is that impact fees cannot be used to pay for studies. RCW 82.02.050(4)(a) states that impact fees:

[s]hall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; [Emphasis added]

RCW 82.02.050(5)(a) states:

Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.070 or the provisions for comprehensive plan adoption contained in chapter 36.70, 35.63, or 35A.63 RCW. [Emphasis added]

The type of study you describe does not fall under the category of “system improvements” or for a “public facility.”

We recommend that you discuss this matter with your agency’s attorney, as well.

Most of the guidance and municipal codes we found for electric scooters or ‘motorized foot scooters’ are to ensure scooters are used in designated areas, are used safely, and do not obstruct public rights-of-way when parked.

Below are some examples of municipal codes with sections on motorized foot scooters (however they do not specifically include parking guidance):

• Bellevue Municipal Code Sec. 11.48.210 – Motorized Foot Scooters.
• Sequim Municipal Code Ch. 10.23 – Motorized Scooters and other Wheeled Devices.
• Tacoma Municipal Code Ch. 11.06 – Motorized Scooters and Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices.
• King County Municipal Code Ch. 14A.40 – Motorized Foot Scooters.

For many cities, electric standing scooters were introduced as part of pilot programs and shared mobility programs. Various cities have implemented strategies and guidelines to support micromobility, including electric scooters. These shared mobility programs are more centered on electric scooter vendors conducting user education on scooter use, safety, and parking requirements. Below are some examples:

• Redmond: RFQ 10809, Attachment A - Scope of Work/ Shared Mobility Permit Contract (Draft) – See Section C on page 6 for information on parking requirements.
• Seattle Department of Transportation: Free-Floating Shared Micromobility Permit Requirements (2024) – See Page 12 for a list of parking requirements that electric scooter vendors must comply with.
• Tacoma: Micromobility Program – This webpage provides information about two parking pilot programs on Ruston Way and at Point Defiance Park that terminated September 2023. According to the Active Transportation Coordinator & Principal Transportation Planner, they worked with Tacoma Metro Parks and Razor (the electric scooter vendor) to find preferred locations for the scooters to park to avoid blocking pedestrian access and marked these areas with spray paint stencils. Razor then used their app to geofence those areas so users could only end trips in those specific parking locations along the waterfront.

While these programs and guidelines do not specifically mandate scooter parking, they indicate a trend toward supporting sustainable transportation options, including micromobility solutions like electric scooters.

To our knowledge, de-annexation has rarely, if ever, been formally initiated in any Washington city. Looking at  our Local Ballot Measure Database that goes back to 2011, it does not appear any city has tried to reduce its boundaries since that date. Even so, MRSC gets occasional questions on de-annexation indicating that at least some cities have considered it. There is little specific guidance such as a court case or attorney general  opinion or even past experience on any issue related to de-annexation procedures. 

Nevertheless, we think that de-annexing the land would need to follow the procedure for reducing a city boundary at Chapter 35.16 RCW. The process may be initiated either by a petition signed by at least 10% of the voters voting at the last general municipal election or by resolution of the city legislative body. Regardless of how  the process is initiated, an election must be held on the issue, and proper notice must be given. Both those living within the area to be de-annexed and all other city residents are to vote on the de-annexation. Approval of three-fifths of the votes cast is required to authorize de-annexation. The legislative body would then adopt an ordinance defining and fixing the city's revised corporate limits.  

A "reduction of city or town limits" (de-annexation) is exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review (RCW 43.21C.227). The action to reduce city limits may be subject to potential review by a boundary review board (BRB).  

If this involves moving territory from one city to another city, then the process in RCW 35.10.217 for annexation of an area from one city to another would be followed. 

Yes, a jurisdiction may appoint a youth advisor on a planning commission. Chapter 35.63 RCW (applicable to first- and second-class cities and towns) does not place many restrictions on who may serve on a planning commission (not even residency, age, or citizenship). For code cities, RCW 35A.63.020 provides, in relevant part:

By ordinance a code city may create a planning agency and provide for its membership, organization, and expenses. The planning agency shall serve in an advisory capacity to the chief administrative officer or the legislative body, or both, as may be provided by ordinance and shall have such other powers and duties as shall be provided by ordinance...

Below are a few cities that designate a spot on their planning commissions for youth or student representatives:

• Auburn Municipal Code Sec. 2.45.010(B) – Establishes an ex officio “youth representative” position on their planning commission.
• Edmonds Municipal Code Ch. 10.03 – Allows a student representative (high school or college student) on any board or commission.
• Pacific Municipal Code Sec 2.36.030 – One planning commission position is reserved for a 16- to 21-year-old, with a one-year term.

MRSC’s Youth Participation in Local Government page includes examples of youth on other boards and commissions. Also see our Planning Commissions page, which includes Examples of Planning Commissions if you’d like to review how other jurisdictions have constituted their commissions.

No, state law does not require cities to maintain a historic preservation commission. These commissions are formed by local ordinance and are at a city’s option. From our page on Historic Preservation:

Local Historic Preservation

Local historic designations and districts offer the most robust protections. They can effectively limit alterations or demolition of properties and add additional review to permitting to ensure historic character is preserved.

Many Washington jurisdictions have code provisions establishing local historic designations and register programs. These provisions create a process for nominating landmarks and criteria for evaluating historic significance. Ordinances may also place limits on alteration and demolition of historic landmarks or make permits subject to approval by the preservation board or commission.

In addition to designating an individual historic building, local governments often establish historic districts to preserve the unique character of an entire area. Designation of historic districts may have nomination processes similar to those for local landmarks but often result in new zoning designations or overlay district that implements stricter permitting and review processes to protect historic elements.

Local historic preservation efforts are typically spearheaded by a historic preservation commission or board, either with or without staff assistance. The commission and its responsibilities are established by local ordinance. This often-appointed group is comprised of architects, historians, real estate professionals, and residents with an interest in historic preservation. The commission is typically responsible for reviewing applications for historic landmark status and permits for the alteration of historic properties.

Below are several resources and code examples:

Washington State Resources

• Data Center Knowledge: Washington State Approves More Data Center Tax Breaks (2022) – Discusses HB 1846
• Grant County Economic Development Council: Data Centers – Located in Moses Lake
• Washington State Department of Ecology: Data Centers – Includes a list of data centers regulated by Ecology (air quality permits)
• Washington Technology Industry Association (WTIA): The Outsized Impact of Data Centers in Rural Washington (2022) – Includes statistics on jobs, output, tax revenues, key considerations, and more

Washington State City Codes and Ordinances

• Airway Heights Municipal Code Ch. 12.19 – Noted as a commercial, industrial land use for the purposes of transportation impact fees
• Bridgeport Municipal Code Sec. 17.08.110 – Definition of “Server Farm” notes that it requires a large amount of power to run and keep cool. They are allowed in several zones, but in most cases cannot occupy grade level commercial street frontage.
• Entiat Municipal Code Ch. 18.52 – Data centers must be harmonious with surroundings with regard to dust, smoke, etc.
• Moses Lake Ordinance No. 2899 – Ordinance relating to cryptocurrency mining, server farm, and data center operations. Focus is on electrical consumption. Notes fire safety hazard.
• Quincy Municipal Code Ch. 20.40 – District Use Chart. Listed as a CUP in B-D and L-I zones and permitted use in G-I.
• Renton Municipal Code Sec. 4-11-040 – See “Data Center” definition, which references another code section regarding warehousing (data centers are included)
• Seattle Municipal Code Sec. 3.23.050 – Regarding agreements for data center colocation space and services
• Shoreline Municipal Code Ch. 15.05 – Construction and Building Codes. Includes data centers.
• Sumas Municipal Code Sec. 12.08.015 – Notes that server farms are considered a “high density load”
• Warden
  • Municipal Code Sec. 17.06.010 – See definition of “Data Center, Server Farm and Clusters,” which includes this as a “high energy use intensity”
  • Municipal Code Sec. 17.40.030 – Server farms are allowed in industrial zones, subject to these standards (per table 1 footnote):

    a. The use of cargo containers, railroad cars, semi-truck trailers, and other similar storage containers for any component of the operation is strictly prohibited.

    b. Written verification prior to building permit issuance from Grant County Public Utility District (PUD) that the proposed development meets the PUD requirements.

    c. Written verification, prior to occupancy permit, of passed final inspection of the electrical permit from Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

• Wenatchee Municipal Code Sec. 10.48.310 – Includes standards for cryptocurrency mining and data centers

MRSC Resource

• Bitcoin Comes to Washington (2018) – This article focuses on electricity consumption and PUDs.

Additional Resources

• Data Center Dynamics (DCD): City of Santa Clara to study impact of data center discharge on sewage system (2020)
• Dgtl Infra: Data Center Water Usage - A Comprehensive Guide (2024) – A comprehensive analysis of data center water usage
• IOPScience: The environmental footprint of data centers in the United States (2021) – Technical, but includes some good information, including the water footprint of data centers
• The Salt Lake Tribune: Yes, data centers use a lot of water. But a Utah company shows it doesn’t have to be that way (2022) – Uses closed, recirculating pipes with refrigerant to cool its servers. The article states that construction of the site helped fund a culinary water tank, which helps the city during peak demand periods. The spent water that the site discharges irrigates the park and city hall and a nearby subdivision. Facebook offsets its water impacts.
• The Washington Post: A new front in the water wars - Your internet use (2023) – Data centers rank among the top 10 water-consuming commercial industries in the United States. In The Dalles, Google disclosed that its data centers consume more than 25% of the town’s supply. Efficiency has improved.
• Water Footprint Calculator: Data Center Water Usage: Tackling Challenges Amid Historic Droughts, Wildfires (2022) – Notes that “The water use is primarily dedicated to dissipating heat produced by server farms that house data centers. According to one industry analyst, a 15-megawatt data center can use up to 360,000 gallons of water a day.” Discusses direct (to cool servers) and indirect (power plants that use water for cooling needs) water usage.

While you will need to confirm this with your city attorney, we think this action would likely fall within the following categorical exemption and therefore be exempt from SEPA review. WAC 197-11-800(19) provides:

(19) Procedural actions. The proposal, amendment or adoption of legislation, rules, regulations, resolutions or ordinances, or of any plan or program shall be exempt if they are:
(a) Relating solely to governmental procedures, and containing no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment.
(b) Text amendments resulting in no substantive changes respecting use or modification of the environment.
(c) Agency SEPA procedures.

In MRSC’s opinion, no. The building permit is unconnected to the delinquent utility account and the city cannot precondition issuance of a building permit on payment of a utility bill.

There are two reasons why this type of procedure is legally suspect. The first is that the statutory provisions that relate to collection of delinquent utility bills do not provide for this type of collection method. So, it is not clear that agencies have the authority to link the issuance of a building permit to payment of delinquent accounts.

Second, this type of requirement likely would violate the provisions of RCW 82.02.020. That statute prohibits local governments from imposing any tax, fee, or charge, directly or indirectly, on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land except as specifically authorized by statute. A city can recover its actual costs of processing applications, inspections, and reviewing plans, however collection of delinquent utility payments is unrelated to the costs to the city of processing the application.

One case involving allowable charges that may be imposed on the issuance of building permits is Home Builders Association of Kitsap County v. Bainbridge Island (2007). The court in that case invalidated some charges that were being imposed by the city based on RCW 82.02.020. The charges in that case were related more closely to the building permit issuance than trying to recover delinquent utility bills.

Again, our conclusion is that this type of charge would be prohibited by RCW 82.02.020.

Below are some city code examples related to special event venues (i.e., events occurring outside private residences):

• Grandview Municipal Code Sec. 5.25.050 – Special event permit applications are required for a variety of event types (including some private events) and must include provisions for parking. Events conducted in event centers, churches, schools, and wineries are exempt from permit requirements (see Section 5.25.030).
• Normandy Park Municipal Code Sec. 4.12.110 – Special event permits may be denied if parking or shuttle accommodations are not adequate to prevent impacts on general parking and traffic near the event venue.

Below are some county code examples:

• Clark County Code Sec. 40.240.290 – Regulations for commercial events including weddings, receptions, farm dinners, or similar events. Includes event parking requirements.
• Pierce County Code Sec. 18J.15.190.D.8 – Outdoor receptions or parties are not permitted at public outdoor event facilities, with the exception of wedding ceremonies that comply with amplified noise restrictions.

Also, the City of Pasadena in California has a helpful webpage on Special Events FAQs ( see If an event is on private property, what type of permits do I need?). The city defines “party, gathering, or events” in the Municipal Code Section 9.43.010, but doesn’t include it as a use in its zoning tables in Section 17.20.020). Rather, it includes clubs, lodges, private meeting halls – this might be a place where parties, gatherings, or events are held, but they could also potentially be held in other private property settings.

Below are examples from both Washington State and elsewhere. The out-of-state examples are probably more in line with the shorter, more graphically oriented plan you are interested in. Nevertheless, several Washington plans also do a nice job incorporating graphics, even while being heavier on text.

Washington state:

• Aberdeen Comprehensive Plan (2022 draft) – Graphics are interspersed throughout
• Bellevue Comprehensive Plan – A clean format with several nice graphics
• Mount Vernon Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2016-2036) – Includes a variety of types of graphics
• Sammamish Comprehensive Plan – The city issued a call to artists for artwork in the Comprehensive Plan, which is a great way to get the community involved
• Tacoma Comprehensive Plan 2015 – The Transportation Chapter, among others, integrates graphic elements nicely to break up text
• Walla Walla Comprehensive Plan Update 2040 (2018) – Includes plenty of text, but nearly every page has at least one graphic
• Woodinville 2015 Comprehensive Plan (2015) – In addition to text, includes many charts, graphics, maps, and photos

Other states:

• Fort Collins, CO City Plan (2019) – Horizontal format with many graphics. Each “outcome area” has its own color scheme
• Horizon City, TX Shaping Our Horizon 2030: A Comprehensive and Strategic Plan (2020) – Horizontal format, concise plan, and graphics are woven throughout
• Memphis, TN 3.0 Comprehensive Plan (2021) – Over 400 pages but includes nice graphics
• Plano, TX Comprehensive Plan (2021) – Concise plan in a horizontal and user-friendly format

RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850 authorize counties, cities, and towns planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to impose various types of impact fees, including for transportation, schools, parks, and fire protection facilities. For non-GMA cities, there is authority in the Local Transportation Act (LTA), Chapter 39.92 RCW, to impose transportation impact fees to mitigate the impact on infrastructure from development.

As we note on our Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns (p. 144), this allows for a fee charged to developers to mitigate the impacts on infrastructure and capital facilities because of increased demand resulting from new development. Revenues are restricted and may only be used for transportation. The fee may be imposed by any city, but since typically impact fees are assessed under the GMA rather than LTA the city cannot impose both. Since your city does not plan under GMA that restriction does not apply. Also, the fee does not require voter approval. The fee must be limited to the “amount that the local government can demonstrate is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development.” See RCW 39.92.030(4).

The fee authorized under Chapter 39.92 RCW does not run afoul of the prohibition on development fees in RCW 82.02.020. That section specifically says that “Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from imposing transportation impact fees authorized pursuant to Chapter 39.92 RCW.”

Our inquiry database indicates that the City of Lacey imposes a Local Transportation Act fee. See Lacey Municipal Code Ch. 14.21.

MRSC’s Selected Funding Sources for Public Facilities webpage includes several additional examples of ways to help mitigate impacts resulting from development, including the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) mitigation, voluntary agreements, and local improvement districts.

Here are some resources that should be helpful:

• U.S. Census Bureau:
  • Home-based Workers - Notes that the American Community Survey (ACS) includes a question for those 16 and over who were employed and at work in the previous week, on the method of transportation usually used to get to work. Home-based workers are those who reported “work from home” on this question.
  • This recent Census article highlights that the number of people primarily working from home tripled between 2019 and 2021 (with Washington State having one of the highest percentages of home-based workers) and indicates that the Census will release additional ACS statistics over the next few months.
• Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM):
  • American Community Survey (ACS) - Includes ACS resources and state contacts to reach out to for assistance.
  • County and City Data - Offers a collection of links to information about specific Washington counties and cities.
• Washington State Employment Security Department: Employment Estimates - Provides monthly estimates of nonfarm employment, by industry, in Washington state.

Additionally, some cities do their own employment studies (either in-house or through consultants) that would analyze various local employment data to inform their comprehensive plans.

The city can apply its sign regulations provided it is a uniform application of the code (in other words, all applicants are treated similarly) and it does not impose an unjustified substantial burden on religious exercise. However, you should check with your attorney on this issue.

The law involved is a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc) which impacts land use decisions involving religious organizations. In order to show that a land use regulation – such as a sign code regulation - violates RLUIPA, the church must establish that the government imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiff’s religious exercise. The government is then required to show that the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

Here are two good resources to review:

• Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys (WSAMA): Religious Land Use Issues in Washington State (2008 Fall Conference) – Slide presentation
• Department of Justice Statement & Guidance on RLUIPA (2010) – Including Q&A section

Below is one of the Q&As relevant to your question from the Dept. of Justice guidance linked above:

Does RLUIPA exempt religious assemblies and institutions from local zoning laws? No. RLUIPA is not a blanket exemption from zoning laws. As a general matter, religious institutions must apply for the same permits, follow the same requirements, and go through the same land-use processes as other land users. RLUIPA does not pre-empt or replace the normal zoning code. Rather, it imposes a number of safeguards and requirements on local governments regarding zoning that impact religious uses by requiring that:

• the zoning law or its application not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification pursued through the least restrictive means,
• the zoning law not treat religious uses less favorably than nonreligious assemblies and institutions,
• the law not discriminate based on religion or religious denomination, and
• the jurisdiction not totally or unreasonably restrict religious uses.

When there is a conflict between RLUIPA and the zoning code or how it is applied, RLUIPA, as a federal civil rights law, takes precedence and the zoning law must give way. So long as a municipality applies its codes uniformly and does not impose an unjustified substantial burden on religious exercise, it may apply traditional zoning concerns – such as regulations addressing traffic, hours of use, parking, maximum capacity, intensity of use, setbacks, frontage – to religious uses just as they are applied to any other land uses.

Again, we recommend discussing the question with your city attorney. Our guidance at MRSC is general and not intended to substitute for the advice of your legal counsel.

Here are a few examples that might be useful:

• Bellevue Mobility Implementation Plan Report (2022) – See page 70, which discusses Seattle’s use of mode share to determine transportation concurrency. “Under this system, the city requires a transportation impact analysis of a proposed development to determine whether the mode share of the occupied building would meet SOV mode share standards established for different areas…”
• Issaquah Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2015) – See page 2, which states, “Consistent with the Transportation Concurrency and multi-modal transportation impact fees in the City, these guidelines pertain to all modes of transportation, both motorized and non-motorized. The purpose of these Guidelines is to establish requirements and procedures to ensure timely and consistent analysis.”
• Walla Walla Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2018) – See page 11, which states that an analysis of multi-modal access and circulation is required.

Here are several examples from both cities and counties:

• Bothell Municipal Code Sec. 12.26.070 – Lots of Record
• Camas Zoning Code Sec. 18.41.040 – Buildable Lot of Record
• Clark County Code Sec. 40.520.010 – Legal Lot Determination
• Covington Municipal Code Sec. 17.15.070 – Determining and maintaining legal status of a lot
• King County Code Sec. 19A.08.070 – Determining and maintaining legal status of a lot
• La Center Municipal Code Ch. 18.225 – Legal Lot Determination
• Lewis County Code Sec. 16.02.050 – Legal lot criteria for building or transfer of ownership
• Port Townsend Municipal Code Ch. 18.18 – Subdivision and Recognition of Lots of Record
• SeaTac Municipal Code Sec. 14.26.040 – Lot Status
• Thurston County Code Sec. 18.04.045 – Legal lot criteria for building or transfer of ownership