Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302 (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 board may determine that part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulations are invalid if the board:

(a) Makes a finding of noncompliance and issues an order of remand under RCW 36.70A.300;

(b) Includes in the final order a determination, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the continued validity of part or parts of the plan or regulation would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter; and

(c) Specifies in the final order the particular part or parts of the plan or regulation that are determined to be invalid, and the reasons for their invalidity.

(2) A determination of invalidity is prospective in effect and does not extinguish rights that vested under state or local law before receipt of the board's order by the city or county. The determination of invalidity does not apply to a completed development permit application for a project that vested under state or local law before receipt of the board's order by the county or city or to related construction permits for that project.

(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section and (b) of this subsection, a development permit application not vested under state or local law before receipt of the board's order by the county or city vests to the local ordinance or resolution that is determined by the board not to substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter.

(b) Even though the application is not vested under state or local law before receipt by the county or city of the board's order, a determination of invalidity does not apply to a development permit application for:

(i) A permit for construction by any owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for his or her own use or for the use of his or her family on a lot existing before receipt by the county or city of the board's order, except as otherwise specifically provided in the board's order to protect the public health and safety;

(ii) A building permit and related construction permits for remodeling, tenant improvements, or expansion of an existing structure on a lot existing before receipt of the board's order by the county or city; and

(iii) A boundary line adjustment or a division of land that does not increase the number of buildable lots existing before receipt of the board's order by the county or city.

(4) If the ordinance that adopts a plan or development regulation under this chapter includes a savings clause intended to revive prior policies or regulations in the event the new plan or regulations are determined to be invalid, the board shall determine under subsection (1) of this section whether the prior policies or regulations are valid during the period of remand.

(5) A county or city subject to a determination of invalidity may adopt interim controls and other measures to be in effect until it adopts a comprehensive plan and development regulations that comply with the requirements of this chapter. A development permit application may vest under an interim control or measure upon determination by the board that the interim controls and other measures do not substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter.

(6) A county or city subject to a determination of invalidity may file a motion requesting that the board clarify, modify, or rescind the order. The board shall expeditiously schedule a hearing on the motion. At the hearing on the motion, the parties may present information to the board to clarify the part or parts of the comprehensive plan or development regulations to which the final order applies. The board shall issue any supplemental order based on the information provided at the hearing not later than thirty days after the date of the hearing.

(7)(a) If a determination of invalidity has been made and the county or city has enacted an ordinance or resolution amending the invalidated part or parts of the plan or regulation or establishing interim controls on development affected by the order of invalidity, after a compliance hearing, the board shall modify or rescind the determination of invalidity if it determines under the standard in subsection (1) of this section that the plan or regulation, as amended or made subject to such interim controls, will no longer substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter.

(b) If the board determines that part or parts of the plan or regulation are no longer invalid as provided in this subsection, but does not find that the plan or regulation is in compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter, the board, in its order, may require periodic reports to the board on the progress the jurisdiction is making towards compliance.

[ 2010 c 211 s 10; 1997 c 429 s 16.]

Notes:

Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.

Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT, 958 P.2d 962 (Wash. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT, 958 P.2d 962 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 13× “The statute provides: Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302, a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations during the period of remand.”

Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Cnty., 135 Wash. 2d 542 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 12× “The statute provides: Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302, a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations during the period of remand.”

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 322 P.3d 1219 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 5× “RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b). “Upon a finding of invalidity, the underlying provision would be rendered void.”

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 291 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “*659 ¶23 The 1997 legislature recodified the GMA’s invalidity provision in a new, stand-alone section, RCW 36.70A.302. Laws of 1997, ch. 429, § 16.”

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 5× “300(3)(b); the second is a finding of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302. If the Board finds "noncompliance" it may remand the matter to the county and specify action to be taken and a time within which compliance must occur.”

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wash. 2d 161 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 5× “300(3)(b); the second is a finding of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302. If the Board finds “noncompliance” it may remand the matter to the county and specify action to be taken and a time within which compliance must occur.”

Wells v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt., 997 P.2d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 9× “302(3)(b)(i) exemption was inappropriate for Lake Whatcom: The lake's public health and safety role, plus the above interpretation of the SMA's policies (ergo of GMA) makes the exemption provided by RCW 36.70A.302[3](b)(i) inappropriate for Lake Whatcom.”

Wells v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 100 Wash. App. 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “302 has the burden of demonstrating that the ordinance or resolution it has enacted in response to the determination of invalidity will no longer substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter under the standard in RCW 36.70A.302(1). (5) The shoreline…”

Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. App. 204 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “300(3); former RCW 36.70A.302(1) (1997); Lewis County, 157 Wn.”

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “) takes issue with this remedy and argues for remanding to the County. We note, however, that the County may still revise the regulation to come into compliance with the GMA; the statutory scheme provides for such revision upon a board's finding of invalidity.”

Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 159 Wash. App. 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “¶12 Even upon a Board’s finding of noncompliance and order of remand, comprehensive plans and development regulations remain valid “[u]nless a board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302.” RCW 36.70A.300(4). 6 A Board’s authority to make a…”

Clark Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgt., 254 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “300(3); former RCW 36.70A.302(1) (1997); Lewis County, 157 Wash.”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(1) — 24 cases

Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT, 958 P.2d 962 (Wash. 1998). “The statute provides: Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302, a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations during the period of remand.”

Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 298 P.3d 704 (Wash. 2013).

Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Cnty., 135 Wash. 2d 542 (Wash. 1998). “The statute provides: Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302, a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations during the period of remand.”

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

Wells v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt., 997 P.2d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “302(3)(b)(i) exemption was inappropriate for Lake Whatcom: The lake's public health and safety role, plus the above interpretation of the SMA's policies (ergo of GMA) makes the exemption provided by RCW 36.70A.302[3](b)(i) inappropriate for Lake Whatcom.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(1)(a) — 4 cases

Clallam Cnty. v. Dry Creek Coalition, 255 P.3d 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Friends Of Clark Cnty. & Futurewise, V Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

City of Kennewick v. Futurewise (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(1)(b) — 5 cases

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 322 P.3d 1219 (Wash. 2014). “RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b). “Upon a finding of invalidity, the underlying provision would be rendered void.”

Davidson Serles v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 244 P.3d 1003 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Heritage Baptist Church v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt., 413 P.3d 590 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Friends Of Clark Cnty. & Futurewise, V Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(2) — 13 cases

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 322 P.3d 1219 (Wash. 2014). “RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b). “Upon a finding of invalidity, the underlying provision would be rendered void.”

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 291 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “*659 ¶23 The 1997 legislature recodified the GMA’s invalidity provision in a new, stand-alone section, RCW 36.70A.302. Laws of 1997, ch. 429, § 16.”

Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. App. 204 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “300(3); former RCW 36.70A.302(1) (1997); Lewis County, 157 Wn.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(3)(a) — 2 cases

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999). “300(3)(b); the second is a finding of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302. If the Board finds "noncompliance" it may remand the matter to the county and specify action to be taken and a time within which compliance must occur.”

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wash. 2d 161 (Wash. 1999). “300(3)(b); the second is a finding of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302. If the Board finds “noncompliance” it may remand the matter to the county and specify action to be taken and a time within which compliance must occur.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(3)(b)(i) — 3 cases

Wells v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 100 Wash. App. 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “302 has the burden of demonstrating that the ordinance or resolution it has enacted in response to the determination of invalidity will no longer substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter under the standard in RCW 36.70A.302(1). (5) The shoreline…”

Aho Constr. I, Inc. v. City Of Moxee, 430 P.3d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(4) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(6) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(7) — 3 cases

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “) takes issue with this remedy and argues for remanding to the County. We note, however, that the County may still revise the regulation to come into compliance with the GMA; the statutory scheme provides for such revision upon a board's finding of invalidity.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(7)(a) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(b) — 2 cases

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(l)(a) — 1 case

Clallam Cnty. v. Dry Creek Coalition, 161 Wash. App. 366 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(l)(b) — 3 cases

Diehl v. Mason Cnty., 972 P.2d 543 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 159 Wash. App. 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶12 Even upon a Board’s finding of noncompliance and order of remand, comprehensive plans and development regulations remain valid “[u]nless a board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302.” RCW 36.70A.300(4). 6 A Board’s authority to make a…”

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 353 P.3d 680 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(l)(c) — 1 case

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 173 Wash. App. 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

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.