Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.63
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.63.100 (2026)

Restrictions—Recommendations of commission—Hearings—Adoption of comprehensive plan—Certifying—Filing or recording

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The commission may recommend to its council or board the plan prepared by it as a whole, or may recommend parts of the plan by successive recommendations; the parts corresponding with geographic or political sections, division or subdivisions of the municipality, or with functional subdivisions of the subject matter of the plan, or in the case of counties, with suburban settlement or arterial highway area. It may also prepare and recommend any amendment or extension thereof or addition thereto.
Before the recommendation of the initial plan to the municipality the commission shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, giving notice of the time and place by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and in the official gazette, if any, of the municipality.
The council may adopt by resolution or ordinance and the board may adopt by resolution the plan recommended to it by the commission, or any part of the plan, as the comprehensive plan.
A true copy of the resolution of the board adopting or embodying such plan or any part thereof or any amendment thereto shall be certified by the clerk of the board and filed with the county auditor. A like certified copy of any map or plat referred to or adopted by the county resolution shall likewise be filed with the county auditor. The auditor shall record the resolution and keep on file the map or plat.
The original resolution or ordinance of the council adopting or embodying such plan or any part thereof or any amendment thereto shall be certified by the clerk of the city and filed by him or her. The original of any map or plat referred to or adopted by the resolution or ordinance of the council shall likewise be certified by the clerk of the city and filed by him or her. The clerk shall keep on file the resolution or ordinance and map or plat.
[ 2009 c 549 s 2116; 1967 ex.s. c 144 s 8; 1965 c 7 s 35.63.100. Prior: 1935 c 44 s 8; RRS s 9322-8.]

Notes:

Effective date—1967 ex.s. c 144: The effective date of 1967 ex.s. c 144 is July 30, 1967.
Severability—1967 ex.s. c 144: See note following RCW 36.900.030.
Validation—1967 ex.s. c 144: "Any city comprehensive plan and all amendments thereto which have been filed or recorded with the county auditor prior to the effective date of this 1967 amendatory act shall be valid and need not be refiled with the clerk of the city to remain valid and in full force and effect." [ 1967 ex.s. c 144 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1963–2006 · leading case: Peste v. Mason Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peste v. Mason Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “¶19 The County responds that its CP and DRs are presumed valid, that Peste failed to timely appeal the adoption of the CP and DRs, that strict compliance with the GMA’s notice procedures is not required, and that Peste’s challenge is an unlawful collateral attack on its CP.”
Peste v. Mason Cnty., 136 P.3d 140 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “¶ 19 Mason County responds that its CP and DRs are presumed valid; that Peste failed to timely appeal the adoption of the CP and DRs; that strict compliance with the GMA's notice procedures is not required; and that Peste's challenge is an unlawful collateral attack on its CP.”
Shelton v. City of Bellevue, 435 P.2d 949 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 5× “) RCW 35.63.100. We perceive, from the permissive nature of the language utilized in the foregoing statutory excerpts, that the legislature intended that the municipal legislative body be vested with power to either (a) adopt by legislative enactment, in part or in whole, an…”
Southwick, Inc. v. City of Lacey, 795 P.2d 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “" Other statutes specifically grant local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to provide for ordered development and prevent overcrowding of land, to provide adequate streets and other amenities, to conserve natural beauty and other resources, RCW 35.63.100,…”
Jones v. Town of Woodway, 425 P.2d 904 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 3× “300 (town ordinances) and RCW 35.63.100 (zoning). RCW 35.27.300 provides: Every ordinance shall be published at least once in a newspaper published in the town or, if there is no such newspaper, it shall be printed and posted in at least three public places therein.”
State Ex Rel. Stand. Mining & Dev. Corp. v. City of Auburn, 510 P.2d 647 (Wash. 1973). “Provision is made in RCW 35.63.100 for the holding of public hearings before the.”
Stockwell v. City of Ritzville, 663 P.2d 151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “The trial court declared the ordinance was invalidly enacted due to the Council's failure to comply strictly with the requirements of RCW 35.63.100. Specifically, the zoning map, incorporated by reference in the ordinance, was not certified as required by that statute.”
State v. Thomasson, 378 P.2d 441 (Wash. 1963). “RCW 35.63.100 says, in part: U “Before the recommendation of the initial plan to the municipality the commission shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, giving notice of the time and place by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality and…”
Mayer Built Homes, Inc. v. Town of Steilacoom, 564 P.2d 1170 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “There is no reference to any emergency situation, nor is there any indication in the ordinance or elsewhere in the record that the Town deviated from the regular notice and hearing procedures specified in RCW 35.63.100 et seq. Ordinance No. 475 in fact makes several substantive…”
Nelson v. City of Seattle, 395 P.2d 82 (Wash. 1964). “Concerning this mandatory comprehensive plan, RCW 35.63.100 reads, in part: “ . . . A copy of the ordinance or resolution adopting or embodying such plan or any part thereof or any amendment thereto, duly certified as a true copy by the clerk of the municipality, shall be filed…”
City of Medina v. Rose, 418 P.2d 462 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 2× “Although no map was attached to the ordinance, it did not violate RCW 35.63.100: The commission may recommend to its council or board *451 the plan prepared by it as a whole, or may recommend parts of the plan by successive recommendations; the parts corresponding with…”
D.E.B.T. Ltd. v. Bd. of Clallam Cnty. Commissioners, 600 P.2d 628 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “1 See also RCW 35.63.100. The adoption or rejection of such recommendations is in the sound discretion of the Board, see Lillions v.”
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.