Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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 Cnty., 4 P.3d 123 (Wash. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan Cnty., 4 P.3d 123 (Wash. 2000). · 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 Dev., INC. v. City of Woodinville, 256 P.3d 1150 (Wash. 2011). · 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, 87 P.3d 1176 (Wash. 2004). · 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 Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 139 Wash. App. 125 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · 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 & Assocs., 151 Wash. 2d 279 (Wash. 2004). · 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 Cnty., 84 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · 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 Fed. Way v. Town & Country Real Est., LLC, 252 P.3d 382 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · 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, 49 P.3d 860 (Wash. 2002). · 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 Cnty., 120 Wash. App. 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · 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 Cnty., 196 P.3d 141 (Wash. 2008). · 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 Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). · 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, 106 Wash. App. 461 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · 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 Dev., INC. v. City of Woodinville, 256 P.3d 1150 (Wash. 2011). “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 Cnty., 4 P.3d 123 (Wash. 2000). “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, 87 P.3d 1176 (Wash. 2004). “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 Cnty., 129 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Assocs., 151 Wash. 2d 279 (Wash. 2004). “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 Cnty., 84 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “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 Cnty., 196 P.3d 141 (Wash. 2008). “" 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 Dep't Of Transporation, Res. v. City Of Seattle, App., 192 Wash. App. 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wash. App. 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Moss v. City of Bellingham, 31 P.3d 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(b) — 86 cases

Wa State Dep't Of Transporation, Res. v. City Of Seattle, App., 192 Wash. App. 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002).

City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(c) — 46 cases

Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 49 P.3d 860 (Wash. 2002). “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 Cnty., 129 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

humbert/birch Creek Constr. v. Walla Walla Cty., 185 P.3d 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Peste v. Mason Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(d) — 49 cases

Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002).

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

Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap Cnty., 4 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2000).

PIONEER PARK v. Mercer Island, 24 P.3d 1079 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Peste v. Mason Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(e) — 11 cases

Swoboda v. Town of La Conner, 987 P.2d 103 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Quality Rock Prods. v. Thurston Cnty., 159 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Wells v. Whatcom Cnty. Water Dist. No. 10, 19 P.3d 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Puget Sound Energy, Inc., App/cross-resp v. East Bellevue Cmty. Council, Et Ano., Resp/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Marvin Entel v. Asotin Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(1)(f) — 26 cases

Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009).

Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Swoboda v. Town of La Conner, 987 P.2d 103 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Wellington River Hollow, LLC v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Girton v. City of Seattle, 983 P.2d 1135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(2) — 13 cases

Schofield v. Spokane Cnty., 980 P.2d 277 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Henderson v. Kittitas Cnty., 100 P.3d 842 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Henderson v. Kittitas Cnty., 124 Wash. App. 747 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 706 (Wash. 1997).

Hayes v. City of Seattle, 934 P.2d 1179 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(2)(d) — 1 case

Citizens To Preserve Pioneer Park, L.L.C. v. City of Mercer Island, 106 Wash. App. 461 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “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, 255 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Rory Higham v. Pierce Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(b) — 8 cases

City of Univ. Place v. McGuire, 30 P.3d 453 (Wash. 2001).

City of Univ. Place v. McGuire, 144 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 2001).

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 951 P.2d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

First Pioneer Trading Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 191 P.3d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Quality Rock Prods. v. Thurston Cnty., 159 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(c) — 5 cases

City of Univ. Place v. McGuire, 144 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 2001).

Peste v. Mason Cnty., 136 P.3d 140 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Seattle SMSA Ltd., P'ship v. San Juan Cnty., 88 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (W.D. Wash. 1997).

Deer Creek Developers v. Spokane Cnty., 236 P.3d 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

United Dev. v. City of Mill Creek, 26 P.3d 943 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(d) — 4 cases

Peste v. Mason Cnty., 136 P.3d 140 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 P.3d 1213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 62 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

Deer Creek Developers v. Spokane Cnty., 236 P.3d 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(e) — 1 case

Quality Rock Prods. v. Thurston Cnty., 159 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l) — 1 case

Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 139 Wash. App. 125 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “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 Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 36.70C.130(l)(a). 3 We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.”

Watch v. Skagit Cnty., 120 P.3d 56 (Wash. 2005).

Tugwell v. Kittitas Cnty., 951 P.2d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Young v. Pierce Cnty., 120 Wash. App. 175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “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

City of Fed. Way v. Town & Country Real Est., LLC, 252 P.3d 382 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “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 Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 36.70C.130(l)(a). 3 We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.”

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

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(c) — 9 cases

Holder v. City of Vancouver, 147 P.3d 641 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wash. 2d 685 (Wash. 2002).

McMilian v. King Cnty., 161 Wash. App. 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(d) — 16 cases

Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 234 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 139 Wash. App. 125 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Alleged RCW 36.70C.130 Errors 1. Decisions Outside the Board’s Authority or Jurisdiction — RCW 36.”

Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wash. App. 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(e) — 3 cases

Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 139 Wash. App. 125 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Alleged RCW 36.70C.130 Errors 1. Decisions Outside the Board’s Authority or Jurisdiction — RCW 36.”

Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 298 P.3d 757 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Wells v. Whatcom Cnty. Water Dist. No. 10, 105 Wash. App. 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.130(l)(f) — 7 cases

Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (Wash. 2009).

Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 296 P.3d 860 (Wash. 2013).

Peste v. Mason Cnty., 133 Wash. App. 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Wells v. Whatcom Cnty. Water Dist. No. 10, 105 Wash. App. 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

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.