Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.020
Definitions
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2418-S2.SL) ***
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to a local government body or officer, including the legislative body, following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed.
(2) "Local government" means a county, city, or town.
(3) "Open record hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the local government to conduct such hearings, that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to a local government's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record predecision hearing." An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit.
(4)(a) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones which do not require a comprehensive plan amendment, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection.
(b) "Project permit" or "project permit application" does not include building permits.
(5) "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review or architectural control board meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the local government's project permit application file.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000)
“The GMA defines what a “development regulation” is and, more helpfully, what it is not: “A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or…”
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(1) (emphasis added). ¶17 The SEPA provisions of chapter 43.”
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(4). ¶17 Regional hearings boards have exclusive jurisdiction to review petitions alleging a county did not comply with the GMA in adopting or amending its comprehensive plan or development regulations.”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007)
“030(7); RCW 36.70B.020(4); Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007)
“030(7); RCW 36.70B.020(4); Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wash.”
Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition (2013)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(4). ¶13 The hearings board has exclusive jurisdiction to review petitions alleging a county did not comply with the GMA in adopting or amending its comprehensive plan or development regulations.”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland (2011)
“A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020,[ 5 ] even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“To determine whether a project permit included site-specific rezones, this court in Wenatchee Sportsmen relied on RCW 36.70B.020(4), which reads: [109] (4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a…”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“RCW 36.70B.020(4) (emphasis added). See State ex rel.”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland (2011)
“A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020,[ [5] ] even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city.”
Schnitzer West, Llc v. City Of Puyallup (2016)
“means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits,…”
Feil v. E. WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. HEARINGS (2011)
“70A.040. Significantly, the GMA expressly excludes from the definition of "development regulations" a "decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.020(1) — 5 cases
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(1) (emphasis added). ¶17 The SEPA provisions of chapter 43.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.020(2)(a) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.020(3) — 4 cases
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(1) (emphasis added). ¶17 The SEPA provisions of chapter 43.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.020(4) — 38 cases
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(4). ¶17 Regional hearings boards have exclusive jurisdiction to review petitions alleging a county did not comply with the GMA in adopting or amending its comprehensive plan or development regulations.”
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000)
“The GMA defines what a “development regulation” is and, more helpfully, what it is not: “A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or…”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007)
“030(7); RCW 36.70B.020(4); Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007)
“030(7); RCW 36.70B.020(4); Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wash.”
Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition (2013)
“” RCW 36.70B.020(4). ¶13 The hearings board has exclusive jurisdiction to review petitions alleging a county did not comply with the GMA in adopting or amending its comprehensive plan or development regulations.”
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.