We affirm the Court of Appeals in part and reverse in part. We hold a party may challenge a county's failures to revise aspects of a comprehensive plan that are directly affected by new or recently amended GMA provisions if a petition is filed within 60 days after publication of the county's seven year update. We hold a party may challenge a county's failure to revise its UGA designations following a 10 year update only if there is a different OFM population projection for the county. We reverse the Court of Appeals' holding that a county must identify and justify the use of a land market supply factor in its comprehensive plan. We remand the case to the Board to determine whether a land market supply factor was used and whether, Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 80115-1 based on local circumstances, the County's UGA designations were clearly erroneous. We reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling that densities greater than one dwelling unit per five acres cannot be considered in determining whether a comprehensive plan provides for a variety of rural densities. We remand the case to the Board to consider whether the various densities identified by the County in the rural element and/or the use of innovative zoning techniques are sufficient to achieve a variety of rural densities.
So, the summarize:
The State Supreme Court mostly upheld the decision which seems to be the crux of the Tim Ford vs. Robin Hunt Appeals Court race (Hunt was on the appeals court that originally made the decision considered by the court).
R. Scott's dumb argument, no matter how or how many times its copied, its still dumb.
The State Supreme Court's email notification tool is freaking awesome.