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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.115 (2026)

Comprehensive plans and development regulations must provide sufficient land capacity for development

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management.
(2) This analysis shall include the reasonable measures findings developed under RCW 36.70A.215, if applicable to such counties and cities.
[ 2017 3rd sp.s. c 16 s 1; 2009 c 121 s 3; 2003 c 333 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2022 · leading case: Friends Of Clark Cnty. & Futurewise, V Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friends Of Clark Cnty. & Futurewise, V Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “For the first time in its reply brief, CCCU contests the County’s actions under RCW 36.70A.115. RCW 36.70A.115 requires counties to ensure there is sufficient land capacity for development.”
Paul Stickney & Stefan Birgh, Apps. v. Cent. Puget Snd Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 36.70A.115 requires the city to “provide sufficient capacity of land” in its comprehensive plan.”
City of Kennewick v. Futurewise (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “110 and RCW 36.70A.115. Id. The Board treated Futurewise’s challenge that the County’s action created low- density sprawl in violation of GMA development goals and County CPPs as a corollary 17 No.”
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.