Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.100
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2004)
“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. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2004)
“RCW 36.70A.100 requires that a city's comprehensive plan be "coordinated with, and consistent with," those of adjacent cities.”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999)
“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 County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999)
“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 County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“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 County (1999)
“5 See RCW 36.70A.100 (“The comprehensive plan of each county or city .”
Snohomish County v. Anderson (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 (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 Housing Institute v. City of Lakewood (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 County (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. Central Puget Snd Growth Management Hearings Board, Res. (2019)
“” 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 Board (2000)
“, RCW 36.70A.100. King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd.”
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.