Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.070 (2026)
Land use petition—Required elements
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A land use petition must set forth:
(1) The name and mailing address of the petitioner;
(2) The name and mailing address of the petitioner's attorney, if any;
(3) The name and mailing address of the local jurisdiction whose land use decision is at issue;
(4) Identification of the decision-making body or officer, together with a duplicate copy of the decision, or, if not a written decision, a summary or brief description of it;
(5) Identification of each person to be made a party under RCW 36.70C.040(2) (b) through (d);
(6) Facts demonstrating that the petitioner has standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060;
(7) A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed;
(8) A concise statement of facts upon which the petitioner relies to sustain the statement of error; and
(9) A request for relief, specifying the type and extent of relief requested.
[ 1995 c 347 s 708.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011).
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “¶ 19 In contrast, RCW 36.70C.070's form and content requirements do not directly further *981 LUPA's purpose to establish "expedited appeal procedures" and provide "timely judicial review.”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. KITTITAS Cnty., LLC, 184 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 3 KWCR served the statutorily required parties, but apparently failed to attach copies of the County's MDNS and plat approval decisions to the petition filed at the county, as required under RCW 36.70C.070. The court received copies of every other page of the attachments.”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. Kittitas Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶3 KWCR served the statutorily required parties but apparently failed to attach copies of the County’s MDNS and plat approval decisions to the petition filed at the county, as required under RCW 36.70C.070. The court received copies of all other pages of the attachments.”
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 108 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “030(2), the civil rules apply to "procedural matters under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter." ¶ 46 Here, Quality Rock accurately emphasizes that (1) it properly served the petition on Black Hills; and (2) the petition's body identified…”
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 126 Wash. App. 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶45 LUPA provides further guidance on the required elements of the petition under RCW 36.70C.070, which provides that the petition shall include the “[identification of each person to be made a party under RCW 36.”
Woods v. Kittitas Cnty., 162 Wash. 2d 597 (Wash. 2007). “¶9 In June 2004, Woods filed a LUPA petition, RCW 36.70C.070, in superior court, challenging BOCC’s decision.”
Woods v. Kittitas Cnty., 174 P.3d 25 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 9 In June 2004, Woods filed a LUPA petition, RCW 36.70C.070, in superior court, challenging the BOCC decision.”
West v. Stahley, 155 Wash. App. 691 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 36.70C.070. West also raises the following issues: res judicata, collateral estoppel, appearance of fairness, mandamus, prohibition, declaratory judgment, nuisance, antiSLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation), taxpayer claims (attorney general’s failure to…”
City of Selah v. Steve Owens & Janet Owens (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “] RCW 36.70C.070 (emphasis added). (1) A petitioner or other party may request the court to stay or suspend an action by the local jurisdiction or another party to implement the decision under review.”
Scott Blomenkamp v. City Of Edmonds & Kautz Route Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Abandoned Argument On Appeal Blomenkamp contends the superior court erred in declining to consider his argument that the Examiner failed to discuss the relationship between his decision and the City's comprehensive plan as required by RCW 35A.”
Med. Lake Cemetery Ass'n v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “See RCW 36.70C.070(7) (“A land use petition must set forth: … (7) A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.070(1) — 1 case
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. KITTITAS Cnty., LLC, 184 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 3 KWCR served the statutorily required parties, but apparently failed to attach copies of the County's MDNS and plat approval decisions to the petition filed at the county, as required under RCW 36.70C.070. The court received copies of every other page of the attachments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.070(4) — 3 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “¶ 19 In contrast, RCW 36.70C.070's form and content requirements do not directly further *981 LUPA's purpose to establish "expedited appeal procedures" and provide "timely judicial review.”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. KITTITAS Cnty., LLC, 184 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 3 KWCR served the statutorily required parties, but apparently failed to attach copies of the County's MDNS and plat approval decisions to the petition filed at the county, as required under RCW 36.70C.070. The court received copies of every other page of the attachments.”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. Kittitas Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶3 KWCR served the statutorily required parties but apparently failed to attach copies of the County’s MDNS and plat approval decisions to the petition filed at the county, as required under RCW 36.70C.070. The court received copies of all other pages of the attachments.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.070(5) — 2 cases
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 108 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “030(2), the civil rules apply to "procedural matters under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter." ¶ 46 Here, Quality Rock accurately emphasizes that (1) it properly served the petition on Black Hills; and (2) the petition's body identified…”
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 126 Wash. App. 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶45 LUPA provides further guidance on the required elements of the petition under RCW 36.70C.070, which provides that the petition shall include the “[identification of each person to be made a party under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.070(7) — 4 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “¶ 19 In contrast, RCW 36.70C.070's form and content requirements do not directly further *981 LUPA's purpose to establish "expedited appeal procedures" and provide "timely judicial review.”
Scott Blomenkamp v. City Of Edmonds & Kautz Route Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Abandoned Argument On Appeal Blomenkamp contends the superior court erred in declining to consider his argument that the Examiner failed to discuss the relationship between his decision and the City's comprehensive plan as required by RCW 35A.”
City of Selah v. Steve Owens & Janet Owens (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “] RCW 36.70C.070 (emphasis added). (1) A petitioner or other party may request the court to stay or suspend an action by the local jurisdiction or another party to implement the decision under review.”
Med. Lake Cemetery Ass'n v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “See RCW 36.70C.070(7) (“A land use petition must set forth: … (7) A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.070(l) — 1 case
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. Kittitas Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶3 KWCR served the statutorily required parties but apparently failed to attach copies of the County’s MDNS and plat approval decisions to the petition filed at the county, as required under RCW 36.70C.070. The court received copies of all other pages of the attachments.”
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.