Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.340 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When the comprehensive plan containing the mandatory subjects as set forth in RCW 36.70.330 shall have been approved by motion by the board and certified, it may thereafter be progressively amplified and augmented in scope by expanding and increasing the general provisions and proposals for all or any one of the required elements set forth in RCW 36.70.330 and by adding provisions and proposals for the optional elements set forth in RCW 36.70.350. The comprehensive plan may also be amplified and augmented in scope by progressively including more completely planned areas consisting of natural homogeneous communities, distinctive geographic areas, or other types of districts having unified interests within the total area of the county. In no case shall the comprehensive plan, whether in its entirety or area by area or subject by subject be considered to be other than in such form as to serve as a guide to the later development and adoption of official controls.
[ 1963 c 4 s 36.70.340. Prior: 1959 c 201 s 34.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70.340 states the comprehensive plan shall not "be considered to be other than .”
Smith v. Skagit Cnty., 453 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70.340. Its adoption must be preceded by at least one public hearing.”
Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish Cnty., 662 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1983). “On July 23, 1979, Snohomish County adopted the Sno-homish/Lake Stevens Area Comprehensive Plan, as authorized by RCW 36.70.340. The Soper Hill site is included in the comprehensive plan area and was designated suburban residential in the comprehensive plan.”
Toandos Peninsula Ass'n v. Jefferson Cnty., 648 P.2d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 36.70.340 states the comprehensive plan shall not "be considered to be other than .”
West Hill Citizens for Controlled Dev. Density v. King Cnty. Council, 627 P.2d 1002 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “RCW 36.70.340. Barrie , at 848. The contention raised by West Hill is clearly controlled by Barrie , and must be rejected.”
Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “See also RCW 36.70.340 (“In no case shall the comprehensive plan, .”
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.