Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.13
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.13.005 (2026)

Annexations beyond urban growth areas prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No city or town located in a county in which urban growth areas have been designated under RCW 36.70A.110 may annex territory beyond an urban growth area.
[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 30.]

Notes:

Severability—Part, section headings not law—1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “17, §§ 30, 31 (codified at RCW 35.13.005, RCW 35A.14.005). King County is one of the counties required by the GMA to designate urban growth areas and has developed a number of policies and a schedule for accomplishing the designation within the statutory timeframe.”
Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 298 P.3d 704 (Wash. 2013). “110(1), and no city may annex territory outside of a UGA, RCW 35.13.005; RCW 35A.14.005. ¶3 On November 16, 2007, Respondents John Karpinski, Clark County Natural Resources Council, and Futurewise (collectively the Challengers) filed a petition with the Growth Management…”
Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. App. 204 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Under RCW 35.13.005, “[n]o city or town located in a county in which urban growth areas have been designated under RCW 36.”
Clark Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgt., 254 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Under RCW 35.13.005, "[n]o city or town located in a county in which urban growth areas have been designated under RCW 36.”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “Finally, the Association relies on RCW 35.13.005, which provides: “No city or town located in a county in which urban growth areas have been designated under RCW 36.”
Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 35.13.005 ” 21 On the other hand, nothing in the GMA prohibits inclusion of agricultural lands in an urban growth area.”
Friends Of Clark Cnty. & Futurewise, V Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Article XI, section 11 of the Washington Constitution states, “Any county, city, town, or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.” RCW 35.”
Clark Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Review Bd. (Wash. 2013). “l10(1), and no city may annex territory outside of a UGA, RCW 35.13.005; RCW 35A.l4.005. 2 No. 85989-2 On November 16, 2007, Respondents John Karpinski, Clark County Natural Resources Council, and Futurewise (the Challengers) filed a petition with the Growth Management Hearings…”
Stewart v. BRB, 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 35.13.005." [21] On the other hand, nothing in the GMA prohibits inclusion of agricultural lands in an urban growth area.”
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.