Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.120 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its comprehensive plan.
Notes:
Effective date—1993 sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 36.70A.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “Former RCW 36.70A.120. Most relevant to this case, cities and towns within a county with designated urban *655 growth areas are prohibited from annexing territory outside of an urban growth area.”
Glenrose Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 971 P.2d 82 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “” RCW 36.70A.120. The court therefore summarily reversed the decision of the Spokane City Council to accept the proposed Muirfield Annexation subject to the approval of the Boundary Review Board.”
Clean v. City of Spokane, 947 P.2d 1169 (Wash. 1997). “The City responds it has yet to adopt a comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act (the Act) and, therefore, cannot have violated the Act. The trial court agreed and adopted the City's reasoning without elaboration.”
CLEAN v. City of Spokane, 133 Wash. 2d 455 (Wash. 1997). “(3) Has the City failed to comply with the Growth Management Act? Appellants assert the City has violated the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.120) by failing to follow its comprehensive plan.”
Ferry Cnty. v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 339 P.3d 478 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “040 and implementing development regulations under RCW 36.70A.120 and may alter such designations and development regulations to insure consistency.”
Matson v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 904 P.2d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “070 and implementing development regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.120, if a public hearing is held on such proposed actions.”
Concrete Nor'West v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 342 P.3d 351 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “CNW argued that because RCW 36.70A.120, part of the GMA, requires counties and cities to “perform [their] activities .”
Holbrook, Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 49 P.3d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “ding resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the environmental impact statement; (ii) The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; (iii) The proposed change only corrects…”
Futurewise v. City Of Ridgefield (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 36.70A.120. The legislature created the GMHB to hear petitions alleging violations of the GMA.”
Wright's Crossing, Llc v. Island Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “1 RCW 36.70A.120 requires that a county perform its activities in conformity with its 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.