Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70A

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.080

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A comprehensive plan may include additional elements, items, or studies dealing with other subjects relating to the physical development within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to:
(a) Conservation;
(b) Solar energy; and
(c) Recreation.
(2) A comprehensive plan may include, where appropriate, subarea plans, each of which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3)(a) Cities that qualify as a receiving city may adopt a comprehensive plan element and associated development regulations that apply within receiving areas under chapter 39.108 RCW.
(b) For purposes of this subsection, the terms "receiving city" and "receiving area" have the same meanings as provided in RCW 39.108.010.
[ 2011 c 318 s 801; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 8.]

Notes:

Rules—2011 c 318: See note following RCW 39.108.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “See also RCW 36.70A.080 (optional elements of comprehensive plans).”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “See also RCW 36.70A.080 (optional elements of comprehensive plans).”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland (2011) washctapp “130(2)(a)(ii); see also RCW 36.70A.080. RCW 36.70A.350. RCW 36.70A.”
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011) washctapp “” RCW 36.70A.080(2). A. Board’s Conclusion ¶65 The Board rejected Brinnon Group’s argument.”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland (2011) washctapp “130(2)(a)(ii); see also RCW 36.70A.080. [11] RCW 36.70A.350. [12] RCW 36.”
United Development Corp. v. City of Mill Creek (2001) washctapp “Public Park Impact Assessment The City evaluated its public park needs, and established service standards in the parks and open space element of its comprehensive plan, adopted under RCW 36.70A.080. UDC concedes the City’s level of service standard is “a nationwide benchmark…”
Montlake Community Club v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2002) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.080(2). The Club contends that the adoption of the subarea ordinance amended the comprehensive plan, or is inconsistent with it, and therefore presents a new opportunity to argue that level of service standards must be specific to each individual arterial.”
Montlake Community v. Central Pugent Sound (2002) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.080(2). The Club contends that the adoption of the subarea ordinance amended the comprehensive plan, or is inconsistent with it, and therefore presents a new opportunity to argue that level of service standards must be specific to each individual arterial.”
BRINNON GROUP v. Jefferson County (2011) washctapp “" RCW 36.70A.080(2). A. BOARD'S CONCLUSION ¶ 65 The Board rejected Brinnon Group's argument.”
BD Lawson Partners, LP v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp · cites it 2× “130(2)(a)(i); RCW 36.70A.080(2). ¶11 The GMA also defines “development regulations”: “Development regulations” or “regulation” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas…”
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011) washctapp “" RCW 36.70A.080(2). A. BOARD'S CONCLUSION ¶ 65 The Board rejected Brinnon Group's argument.”
Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King County (2025) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.080(2). In the late 1990s, King County completed a subarea planning process for Fall City.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.080(2) — 7 cases
Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County (2011) washctapp “” RCW 36.70A.080(2). A. Board’s Conclusion ¶65 The Board rejected Brinnon Group’s argument.”
Montlake Community Club v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2002) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.080(2). The Club contends that the adoption of the subarea ordinance amended the comprehensive plan, or is inconsistent with it, and therefore presents a new opportunity to argue that level of service standards must be specific to each individual arterial.”
Montlake Community v. Central Pugent Sound (2002) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.080(2). The Club contends that the adoption of the subarea ordinance amended the comprehensive plan, or is inconsistent with it, and therefore presents a new opportunity to argue that level of service standards must be specific to each individual arterial.”
BRINNON GROUP v. Jefferson County (2011) washctapp “" RCW 36.70A.080(2). A. BOARD'S CONCLUSION ¶ 65 The Board rejected Brinnon Group's argument.”
BD Lawson Partners, LP v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp “130(2)(a)(i); RCW 36.70A.080(2). ¶11 The GMA also defines “development regulations”: “Development regulations” or “regulation” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas…”
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.