Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) "Energy overlay zone" means a formal plan enacted by the county legislative authority that establishes suitable areas for siting renewable resource projects based on currently available resources and existing infrastructure with sensitivity to adverse environmental impact.

(2) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on:

(a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and similar types of public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area-wide rezones and annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses;

(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and

(c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in a court of limited jurisdiction, a petition may not be brought under this chapter.

Where a local jurisdiction allows or requires a motion for reconsideration to the highest level of authority making the determination, and a timely motion for reconsideration has been filed, the land use decision occurs on the date a decision is entered on the motion for reconsideration, and not the date of the original decision for which the motion for reconsideration was filed.

(3) "Local jurisdiction" means a county, city, or incorporated town.

(4) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, public or private organization, or governmental entity or agency.

(5) "Renewable resources" has the same meaning provided in RCW 19.280.020.

[ 2010 c 59 s 1; 2009 c 419 s 1; 1995 c 347 s 703.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 178 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Cave Props. v. City Of Bainbridge Island, 199 Wash. App. 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cave Props. v. City Of Bainbridge Island, 199 Wash. App. 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “LUPA provides appellate jurisdiction only over a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 64 .”

Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 13× “" Former RCW 36.70C.020(1) (1995). [1] Final land use decisions include decisions that relate to the enforcement of ordinances "regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.”

Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 12× “; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of…”

Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 54 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 6× “at 285 (quoting RCW 36.70C.020(1)). Samuel’s Furniture, Inc.”

Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State, 175 P.3d 1050 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 7× “180(1), (2), which would include an implicit decision by a local government that a substantial development permit is not required. Thus, such a land use decision is not exempt from the requirements of LUPA.”

Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston Cnty., 423 P.3d 223 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 3× “Although the term "determination" is not statutorily defined, the legislature has provided an illustrative list of actions that could trigger such a "determination." That list includes (a) "[a]n application for project permits or other governmental approval required by law…”

Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wash. 2d 825 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 6× “060(2) with what constitutes a land use decision under RCW 36.70C.020. Dissent at 857. A decision may be final for purposes of RCW 36.”

Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “It limits standing to the applicant, the owner of the property on which the subdivision is proposed, any owner entitled to special notice under RCW 58.”

Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 305 P.3d 246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “Former RCW 36.70C.020 (1997). The statute was amended in 2009, setting forth the definition of “land use decision” — the content of which remained the same — in subsection (2) of RCW 36.”

Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “130(B)(1) requires parties to administratively appeal a land use decision within 14 days.”

Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 340 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.020(2). ¶13 The issuance of a permit may qualify as a final land use decision if there is not a way to administratively appeal the permit under the applicable code.”

Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances *791 or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction…”

Show all 178 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1) — 63 cases

Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State, 175 P.3d 1050 (Wash. 2008). “180(1), (2), which would include an implicit decision by a local government that a substantial development permit is not required. Thus, such a land use decision is not exempt from the requirements of LUPA.”

Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002). “It limits standing to the applicant, the owner of the property on which the subdivision is proposed, any owner entitled to special notice under RCW 58.”

Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2002).

Heller Bldg., LLC v. City of Bellevue, 194 P.3d 264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1)(a) — 12 cases

Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). “" Former RCW 36.70C.020(1) (1995). [1] Final land use decisions include decisions that relate to the enforcement of ordinances "regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.”

Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 225 P.3d 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 305 P.3d 246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Former RCW 36.70C.020 (1997). The statute was amended in 2009, setting forth the definition of “land use decision” — the content of which remained the same — in subsection (2) of RCW 36.”

Coffey v. City of Walla Walla, 187 P.3d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1)(b) — 4 cases

Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Vogel v. City of Richland, 255 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Samuel's Furniture v. Dep't of Ecology, 19 P.3d 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1)(c) — 8 cases

Richards v. City of Pullman, 142 P.3d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Heller Bldg., LLC v. City of Bellevue, 194 P.3d 264 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Brotherton v. Jefferson Cnty., 249 P.3d 666 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2) — 73 cases

Cave Props. v. City Of Bainbridge Island, 199 Wash. App. 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “LUPA provides appellate jurisdiction only over a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 64 .”

Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 340 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2014). “RCW 36.70C.020(2). ¶13 The issuance of a permit may qualify as a final land use decision if there is not a way to administratively appeal the permit under the applicable code.”

Mercer Island Citizens v. Tent City 4, 232 P.3d 1163 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011).

Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 257 P.3d 641 (Wash. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(a) — 33 cases

Schnitzer W., LLC v. City of Puyallup, Mun. Corp., 416 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2018).

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 309 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston Cnty., 423 P.3d 223 (Wash. 2018). “Although the term "determination" is not statutorily defined, the legislature has provided an illustrative list of actions that could trigger such a "determination." That list includes (a) "[a]n application for project permits or other governmental approval required by law…”

Kittitas Cnty. v. Kittitas Cnty. Conservation Coalition, 308 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(b) — 9 cases

Ina Tateuchi v. City Of Bellevue, 478 P.3d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Pioneer Square Hotel Co. & Aph Corp. v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

Viking Jv, Llc, V. City Of Puyallup (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Pioneer Square Hotel Co. & Aph Corp. v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(c) — 9 cases

James Chumbley v. Snohomish Cnty., 386 P.3d 306 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 257 P.3d 641 (Wash. 2011).

Pac. Cnty. v. Daniel A. Driscoll, D/b/a Oysterville Sea Farms (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Greensun Grp. Llc. v. City Of Bellevue (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(e) — 1 case

Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (Wash. 2009). “; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(3) — 10 cases

Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 54 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2002). “at 285 (quoting RCW 36.70C.020(1)). Samuel’s Furniture, Inc.”

Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wash. 2d 825 (Wash. 2008). “060(2) with what constitutes a land use decision under RCW 36.70C.020. Dissent at 857. A decision may be final for purposes of RCW 36.”

Klineburger v. King Cnty., 356 P.3d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(b) — 1 case

Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(l)(a) — 9 cases

Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan Cnty., 4 P.3d 123 (Wash. 2000).

Ward v. Bd. of Skagit Cnty. Commissioners, 936 P.2d 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Coffey v. City of Walla Walla, 145 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 139 Wash. App. 125 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(l)(b) — 6 cases

Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 54 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2002). “at 285 (quoting RCW 36.70C.020(1)). Samuel’s Furniture, Inc.”

Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances *791 or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction…”

Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “130(B)(1) requires parties to administratively appeal a land use decision within 14 days.”

Vogel v. City of Richland, 161 Wash. App. 770 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 19 P.3d 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(l)(c) — 4 cases

Post v. City of Tacoma, 165 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Brotherton v. Jefferson Cnty., 160 Wash. App. 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Richards v. City of Pullman, 134 Wash. App. 876 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

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.