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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A county or city shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. The county or city legislative body or a planning commission, hearing examiner, or other body designated by the legislative body to conduct the public hearing may conduct the hearing. If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement.
[ 1995 c 347 s 505.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—1995 c 347 ss 502-506: See note following RCW 36.70B.170.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1999–2013 · leading case: Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty., 315 P.3d 1065 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty., 315 P.3d 1065 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70B.200. Development agreements that relate to “a project permit application” are subject to the same judicial review under LUPA, including LUPA’s strict 21-day deadline for seeking judicial review of land use decisions.”
Nolte v. City of Olympia, 982 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “12 RCW 36.70B.200 provides: *949 A county or city shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing.”
BELLEAU WOODS II, LLC v. City of Bellingham, 208 P.3d 5 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 25 The city attached to its reply brief two declarations from city officials to the effect that no public hearing occurred and no ordinance or resolution was passed approving of the planned development contract for Belleau Woods.”
Belleau Woods II, LLC v. City of Bellingham, 150 Wash. App. 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶25 The city attached to its reply brief two declarations from city officials to the effect that no public hearing occurred and no ordinance or resolution was passed approving of the planned development contract for Belleau Woods. We grant the motion by Belleau Woods to strike…”
Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty. (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70B.200. Development agreements that relate to "a project permit application'' are subject to the same judicial review under LUPA, including LUPA's strict 21-day deadline for seeking judicial review of land use decisions.”
Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty. (Wash. 2013). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70B.200. Development agreements that relate to "a project permit application'' are subject to the same judicial review under LUPA, including LUPA's strict 21-day deadline for seeking judicial review of land use decisions.”
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.