Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70C

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The superior court, acting without a jury, shall review the record and such supplemental evidence as is permitted under RCW 36.70C.120. The court may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the standards set forth in (a) through (f) of this subsection has been met. The standards are:
(a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless;
(b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise;
(c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court;
(d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts;
(e) The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision; or
(f) The land use decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief.
(2) In order to grant relief under this chapter, it is not necessary for the court to find that the local jurisdiction engaged in arbitrary and capricious conduct. A grant of relief by itself may not be deemed to establish liability for monetary damages or compensation.
(3) Land use decisions made by a local jurisdiction concerning renewable resource projects within a county energy overlay zone are presumed to be reasonable if they are in compliance with the requirements and standards established by local ordinance for that zone. However, for land use decisions concerning wind power generation projects, either:
(a) The local ordinance for that zone is consistent with the department of fish and wildlife's wind power guidelines; or
(b) The local jurisdiction prepared an environmental impact statement under chapter 43.21C RCW on the energy overlay zone; and
(i) The local ordinance for that zone requires project mitigation, as addressed in the environmental impact statement and consistent with local, state, and federal law;
(ii) The local ordinance for that zone requires site specific fish and wildlife and cultural resources analysis; and
(iii) The local jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance that addresses critical areas under chapter 36.70A RCW.
(4) If a local jurisdiction has taken action and adopted local ordinances consistent with subsection (3)(b) of this section, then wind power generation projects permitted consistently with the energy overlay zone are deemed to have adequately addressed their environmental impacts as required under chapter 43.21C RCW.
[ 2009 c 419 s 2; 1995 c 347 s 714.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 290 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000) wash · cites it 7× “elop the property? (2) Was Chelan County’s decision to issue an MDNS for the Highlands project instead of requiring that an environmental impact statement be prepared clearly erroneous? STANDARD OF REVIEW Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if…”
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. City of Woodinville (2011) wash · cites it 8× “The superior court dismissed the petition, holding that Phoenix failed to establish compliance with any of the six standards set out in RCW 36.70C.130(1). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further consideration.”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N (2004) wash · cites it 8× “As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Id. In its LUPA petition, Pinecrest claimed that the City Council decision was "an erroneous interpretation…”
Quality Rock Products, Inc. v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp · cites it 15× “Alleged RCW 36.70C.130 Errors 1. Decisions Outside the Board’s Authority or Jurisdiction — RCW 36.”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates (2004) wash · cites it 7× “As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Id. In its LUPA petition, Pinecrest claimed that the City Council decision was “an erroneous interpretation…”
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp · cites it 10× “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC (2011) washctapp · cites it 7× “130(1): 21 (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is…”
Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground (2002) wash · cites it 5× “130, an appellate court may grant relief from a land use decision if the petitioner carries its burden of establishing at least one of the following six standards: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a…”
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp · cites it 9× “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
Griffin v. Thurston County (2008) wash · cites it 4× “" RCW 36.70C.130(1). These standards include: (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence…”
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014) wash · cites it 4× “” RCW 36.70C.130(l)(a). 3 We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.”
Citizens To Preserve Pioneer Park, L.L.C. v. City of Mercer Island (2001) washctapp · cites it 3× “RCW 36.70C.130(1). The residents argue, under subsection (a), that the city council failed to follow the procedures prescribed for it by the Mercer Island City Code.”
Show all 290 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1) — 178 cases
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. City of Woodinville (2011) wash “The superior court dismissed the petition, holding that Phoenix failed to establish compliance with any of the six standards set out in RCW 36.70C.130(1). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further consideration.”
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000) wash “elop the property? (2) Was Chelan County’s decision to issue an MDNS for the Highlands project instead of requiring that an environmental impact statement be prepared clearly erroneous? STANDARD OF REVIEW Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if…”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N (2004) wash “As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Id. In its LUPA petition, Pinecrest claimed that the City Council decision was "an erroneous interpretation…”
Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County (2006) washctapp
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates (2004) wash “As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Id. In its LUPA petition, Pinecrest claimed that the City Council decision was “an erroneous interpretation…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(a) — 35 cases
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
Griffin v. Thurston County (2008) wash “" RCW 36.70C.130(1). These standards include: (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence…”
Wa State Department Of Transporation, Res. v. City Of Seattle, App. (2016) washctapp
Moss v. City of Bellingham (2001) washctapp
Moss v. City of Bellingham (2001) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(b) — 86 cases
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N (2004) wash “As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Id. In its LUPA petition, Pinecrest claimed that the City Council decision was "an erroneous interpretation…”
Griffin v. Thurston County (2008) wash “" RCW 36.70C.130(1). These standards include: (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence…”
Wa State Department Of Transporation, Res. v. City Of Seattle, App. (2016) washctapp
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002) wash
City of Olympia v. Drebick (2006) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(c) — 46 cases
Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground (2002) wash “130, an appellate court may grant relief from a land use decision if the petitioner carries its burden of establishing at least one of the following six standards: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a…”
Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County (2006) washctapp
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
humbert/birch Creek Construction v. Walla Walla Cty. (2008) washctapp
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(d) — 49 cases
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002) wash
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002) wash
Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (2000) wash
PIONEER PARK v. Mercer Island (2001) washctapp
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(e) — 11 cases
Swoboda v. Town of La Conner (1999) washctapp
Quality Rock Products v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp
Wells v. Whatcom County Water Dist. No. 10 (2001) washctapp
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., App/cross-resp v. East Bellevue Community Council, Et Ano., Resp/cross-app (2017) washctapp
Marvin Entel v. Asotin County (2024) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(f) — 26 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009) wash
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King County (2002) washctapp
Swoboda v. Town of La Conner (1999) washctapp
Wellington River Hollow, LLC v. King County (2002) washctapp
Girton v. City of Seattle (1999) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(2) — 13 cases
Schofield v. Spokane County (1999) washctapp
Henderson v. Kittitas County (2004) washctapp
Henderson v. Kittitas County (2004) washctapp
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1997) wash
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1997) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(2)(d) — 1 case
Citizens To Preserve Pioneer Park, L.L.C. v. City of Mercer Island (2001) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1). The residents argue, under subsection (a), that the city council failed to follow the procedures prescribed for it by the Mercer Island City Code.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(a) — 2 cases
Vogel v. City of Richland (2011) washctapp
Rory Higham v. Pierce County (2016) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(b) — 8 cases
City of University Place v. McGuire (2001) wash
City of University Place v. McGuire (2001) wash
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) washctapp
First Pioneer Trading Co. v. Pierce County (2008) washctapp
Quality Rock Products v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(c) — 5 cases
City of University Place v. McGuire (2001) wash
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp
Seattle SMSA Ltd., Partnership v. San Juan County (1997) wawd
DEER CREEK DEVELOPERS v. Spokane County (2010) washctapp
UNITED DEVELOPMENT v. City of Mill Creek (2001) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(d) — 4 cases
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp
Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake (2007) washctapp
Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp. (2003) washctapp
DEER CREEK DEVELOPERS v. Spokane County (2010) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(e) — 1 case
Quality Rock Products v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l) — 1 case
Quality Rock Products, Inc. v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp “Alleged RCW 36.70C.130 Errors 1. Decisions Outside the Board’s Authority or Jurisdiction — RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(a) — 13 cases
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014) wash “” RCW 36.70C.130(l)(a). 3 We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.”
Watch v. Skagit County (2005) wash
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. City of Woodinville (2011) wash “The superior court dismissed the petition, holding that Phoenix failed to establish compliance with any of the six standards set out in RCW 36.70C.130(1). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further consideration.”
Tugwell v. Kittitas County (1997) washctapp
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(b) — 36 cases
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates (2004) wash “As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Id. In its LUPA petition, Pinecrest claimed that the City Council decision was “an erroneous interpretation…”
City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC (2011) washctapp “130(1): 21 (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is…”
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014) wash “” RCW 36.70C.130(l)(a). 3 We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002) wash
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000) wash “elop the property? (2) Was Chelan County’s decision to issue an MDNS for the Highlands project instead of requiring that an environmental impact statement be prepared clearly erroneous? STANDARD OF REVIEW Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(c) — 9 cases
Holder v. City of Vancouver (2006) washctapp
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground (2002) wash
City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC (2011) washctapp “130(1): 21 (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is…”
McMilian v. King County (2011) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(d) — 16 cases
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000) wash “elop the property? (2) Was Chelan County’s decision to issue an MDNS for the Highlands project instead of requiring that an environmental impact statement be prepared clearly erroneous? STANDARD OF REVIEW Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if…”
Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v. City of Seattle (2010) washctapp
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
Quality Rock Products, Inc. v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp “Alleged RCW 36.70C.130 Errors 1. Decisions Outside the Board’s Authority or Jurisdiction — RCW 36.”
Moss v. City of Bellingham (2001) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(e) — 3 cases
Quality Rock Products, Inc. v. Thurston County (2007) washctapp “Alleged RCW 36.70C.130 Errors 1. Decisions Outside the Board’s Authority or Jurisdiction — RCW 36.”
Durland v. San Juan County (2012) washctapp
Wells v. Whatcom County Water District No. 10 (2001) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(f) — 7 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009) wash
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (2013) wash
Peste v. Mason County (2006) washctapp
Young v. Pierce County (2004) washctapp “RCW 36.70C.130(1): (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such…”
Wells v. Whatcom County Water District No. 10 (2001) washctapp
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.