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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues.
[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 123 Wash. App. 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 123 Wash. App. 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “RCW 36.70A.100 requires that a city’s comprehensive plan be “coordinated with, and consistent with,” those of adjacent cities.”
CHEVRON USA INC. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 93 P.3d 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “RCW 36.70A.100 requires that a city's comprehensive plan be "coordinated with, and consistent with," those of adjacent cities.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.100. RCW 36.70A.210(1) provides that "a `county-wide planning policy [CPP]' is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this…”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wash. 2d 161 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.100. RCW 36.70A.210(1) provides that “a ‘county-wide planning policy [CPP]’ is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this…”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 951 P.2d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “This framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required in RCW 36.70A.100.[ 18 ] Under the GMA, the legislative authority of the County *14 was required to convene a meeting with representatives of each city located within the County to…”
Diehl v. Mason Cnty., 972 P.2d 543 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “5 See RCW 36.70A.100 (“The comprehensive plan of each county or city .”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Anderson, 881 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1994). “See RCW 36.70A.100. The benefit of an authoritative determination for future guidance is therefore minimal at this time.”
City of Seattle v. Yes for Seattle, 93 P.3d 176 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The GMA requires the counties, and the cities within them, to develop comprehensive growth plans and development regulations to meet the comprehensive goals.”
Low Income Hous. Inst. v. City of Lakewood, 77 P.3d 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 36.70A.100. The City claims that LIHI takes a statement in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (that the supply of affordable housing is likely to decrease significantly by 2017) out of context, arguing that it is “isolated language” that is buried in a table.”
Postema v. Snohomish Cnty., 922 P.2d 176 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “After noting that the GMA is silent as to whether a county’s *584 comprehensive plan takes precedence over a city’s, the-Board reasoned that the county had implicit authority to allocate a city’s population, citing RCW 36.70A.100 (counties and cities sharing common borders must…”
Paul Stickney & Stefan Birgh, Apps. v. Cent. Puget Snd Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “” It also concluded that the housing element was “inconsistent with the Countywide Planning Policies for King County because [it] failed to address the City’s ‘share’ of countywide housing needs, contrary to RCW 36.70A.100 and RCW 36.70A.210(1).” The GMHB issued a compliance…”
Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “, RCW 36.70A.100. King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.