Washington Supreme Court Emphasizes Strict Compliance with LUPA Service Requirements

Most challenges to local land use decisions in Washington must be brought under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), RCW chapter 36.70C. LUPA governs appeals of permit denials, preliminary plat approvals, variances, conditional use permits, and similar decisions, and it establishes a process that differs from ordinary civil litigation. Critically, the statute imposes a strict 21-day deadline after a land use decision is issued for filing and service, specifies who must be served, and limits the grounds for judicial review. Washington courts strictly enforce these procedural requirements, and a misstep can result in dismissal before the case ever reaches the merits.

In a decision issued on February 12, 2026, for Chandrruangphen (Petitioner) v. City of Sammamish (City), the Washington Supreme Court reinforced that strict compliance standard. The petitioner filed her LUPA petition relating to a cancelled plat alteration application within the 21-day period and hired a legal messenger to serve the city clerk, an official authorized to receive service on behalf of the City under RCW 4.28.080(2). However, the city clerk was working remotely and the process server was unable to personally serve her at City Hall. Service was instead delivered to an office assistant. Although the city clerk knew about the petition before the service deadline and later acknowledged receiving it, the Court held that delivering the documents to an office assistant who then passed them to the clerk did not satisfy LUPA's strict service requirements. Even though that method of "secondhand service" had been accepted by the Court in a non-LUPA case, it did not cure service on a nonstatutorily authorized city employee under LUPA. LUPA requires personal service on specific officials, such as the mayor, city manager, city clerk, or a properly designated agent of the mayor and city manager, and service on any other employee is ineffective. The petitioner later completed service on an authorized official, but three days after the 21-day deadline had expired.

The Court also addressed whether the 21-day deadline was extended by LUPA's three-day mailing rule. Under RCW 36.70C.040(4)(a), if a land use decision is served by mail, the petitioner receives an additional three days before the decision is deemed "issued," which in turn affects when the 21-day appeal period begins to run. The petitioner argued that because the City transmitted its decision by email, the same three-day extension should apply and therefore her second attempt at service was timely. The Court disagreed and held that an emailed decision is not "mailed" within the meaning of the statute, and therefore the three-day extension does not apply. As a result, the 21-day clock began running on the date the email was sent.

This decision highlights the procedural risks in LUPA litigation. City staff may not be familiar with the statutory requirements for service and may indicate, incorrectly, that a receptionist, assistant, or other employee can accept service and provide it to the designated official. As this case demonstrates, failure to personally serve a statutorily authorized official within 21 days will deprive the court of jurisdiction, even if that official acknowledges receipt of the petition before the deadline. Parties pursuing land use appeals under LUPA should verify the proper official for service, account for practical obstacles such as remote work, and ensure that each procedural step is completed within the statutory timeframe.

+++

For guidance on LUPA compliance or other land use matters, please contact DWT's Land Use team.