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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302

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
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash · 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 County (1998) wash · 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 County (2014) wash · 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 County (2013) washctapp · 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 County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash · 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 County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999) wash · 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. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp · 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. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) washctapp · 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 County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp · cites it 6× “300(3); former RCW 36.70A.302(1) (1997); Lewis County, <a href="/opinion/4908569/lewis-county-v-western-washington-growth-management-hearings-board/" aria-description="Citation for case: Lewis County v.”
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.302(7). [9] "Although stare decisis plays only a limited role in the administrative agency context, agencies should strive for equality of treatment.”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2010) washctapp · 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 County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT. (2011) washctapp · cites it 6× “300(3); former RCW 36.70A.302(1) (1997); Lewis County, <a href="/opinion/4908569/lewis-county-v-western-washington-growth-management-hearings-board/" aria-description="Citation for case: Lewis County v.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(1) — 24 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “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 County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) wash
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “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 County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) washctapp
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “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 County v. Dry Creek Coalition (2011) washctapp
Friends Of Clark County And Futurewise, V Clark County (2019) washctapp
City of Kennewick v. Futurewise (2022) washctapp
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(1)(b) — 5 cases
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash “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 (2010) washctapp
Heritage Baptist Church v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management (2018) washctapp
Friends Of Clark County And Futurewise, V Clark County (2019) washctapp
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Mgmt (2015) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(2) — 13 cases
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash “RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b). “Upon a finding of invalidity, the underlying provision would be rendered void.”
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “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 County (1998) wash “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 County (2013) washctapp “*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 County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp “300(3); former RCW 36.70A.302(1) (1997); Lewis County, <a href="/opinion/4908569/lewis-county-v-western-washington-growth-management-hearings-board/" aria-description="Citation for case: Lewis County v.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(3)(a) — 2 cases
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash “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 County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999) wash “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. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “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. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) washctapp “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 Construction I, Inc. v. City Of Moxee (2018) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(4) — 2 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “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 County (1998) wash “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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(6) — 2 cases
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “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. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) washctapp “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…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(7) — 3 cases
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) wash “RCW 36.70A.302(7). [9] "Although stare decisis plays only a limited role in the administrative agency context, agencies should strive for equality of treatment.”
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “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. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) washctapp “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…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(7)(a) — 2 cases
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “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. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) washctapp “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…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(b) — 2 cases
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash “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 County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999) wash “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(l)(a) — 1 case
Clallam County v. Dry Creek Coalition (2011) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(l)(b) — 3 cases
Diehl v. Mason County (1999) washctapp
Davidson Serles & Associates v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2010) washctapp “¶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 County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2015) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.302(l)(c) — 1 case
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) 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.