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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.295

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The superior court may directly review a petition for review filed under RCW 36.70A.290 if all parties to the proceeding before the board have agreed to direct review in the superior court. The agreement of the parties shall be in writing and signed by all of the parties to the proceeding or their designated representatives. The agreement shall include the parties' agreement to proper venue as provided in RCW 36.70A.300(5). The parties shall file their agreement with the board within ten days after the date the petition is filed, or if multiple petitions have been filed and the board has consolidated the petitions pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300, within ten days after the board serves its order of consolidation.
(2) Within ten days of receiving the timely and complete agreement of the parties, the board shall file a certificate of agreement with the designated superior court and shall serve the parties with copies of the certificate. The superior court shall obtain exclusive jurisdiction over a petition when it receives the certificate of agreement. With the certificate of agreement the board shall also file the petition for review, any orders entered by the board, all other documents in the board's files regarding the action, and the written agreement of the parties.
(3) For purposes of a petition that is subject to direct review, the superior court's subject matter jurisdiction shall be equivalent to that of the board. Consistent with the requirements of the superior court civil rules, the superior court may consolidate a petition subject to direct review under this section with a separate action filed in the superior court.
(4)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) and (c) of this subsection, the provisions of RCW 36.70A.280 through 36.70A.330, which specify the nature and extent of board review, shall apply to the superior court's review.
(b) The superior court:
(i) Shall not have jurisdiction to directly review or modify an office of financial management population projection;
(ii) Except as otherwise provided in RCW 36.70A.300(2)(b), shall render its decision on the petition within one hundred eighty days of receiving the certification of agreement; and
(iii) Shall give a compliance hearing under RCW 36.70A.330(2) the highest priority of all civil matters before the court.
(c) An aggrieved party may secure appellate review of a final judgment of the superior court under this section by the supreme court or the court of appeals. The review shall be secured in the manner provided by law for review of superior court decisions in other civil cases.
(5) If, following a compliance hearing, the court finds that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the court's prior order, the court may use its remedial and contempt powers to enforce compliance.
(6) The superior court shall transmit a copy of its decision and order on direct review to the board, the department, and the governor. If the court has determined that a county or city is not in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, the governor may impose sanctions against the county or city in the same manner as if the board had recommended the imposition of sanctions as provided in RCW 36.70A.330.
(7) After the court has assumed jurisdiction over a petition for review under this section, the superior court civil rules shall govern a request for intervention and all other procedural matters not specifically provided for in this section.
[ 2010 c 211 s 9; 1997 c 429 s 13.]

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 18 cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) wash · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS RCW 36.70A.295(1) provides for judicial review of Board decisions in superior court.”
Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County (2000) wash · cites it 2× “Except as provided in GMA, RCW 36.70A.295, LUPA does not allow direct judicial review of land use decisions that must go before a GMHB: “This chapter [LUPA] does not apply to .”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland (2011) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.295. To allow direct review of challenges properly within the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction outside of RCW 36.”
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Clyde Hill (2016) wash “RCW 36.70A.295. Parties who are aggrieved by a hearings board’s final decision must appeal the decision to the superior court within 30 days.”
Diehl v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2004) wash “Similarly, the legislature specifically chose to apply the civil rules in RCW 36.70A.295, which governs direct judicial review of growth management hearings board decisions and consolidation of a petition for judicial review and a pending civil action.”
Diehl v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD (2004) wash “Similarly, the legislature specifically chose to apply the civil rules in RCW 36.70A.295, which governs direct judicial review of growth management hearing board decisions and consolidation of a petition for judicial review and a pending civil action.”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland (2011) washctapp · cites it 2× “The GMA contains a specific provision providing for direct judicial review where all parties to the proceeding before the Board have agreed to such direct review in the superior court.”
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2003) washctapp “” RCW 36.70A.295(1). City of Redmond, 136 Wn.”
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “Kitsap County, supra, Order on Dispositive Motions, at 8. [31] Alpine v.”
Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. (2007) washctapp “Separation of Powers ¶ 20 But the County argues that the legislature's grant of participation standing without a showing of injury-in-fact violates the separation of powers doctrine.”
Woods v. Kittitas County (2005) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.295; Skagit Surveyors, 135 Wn.”
Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007) washctapp “Separation of Powers ¶20 But the County argues that the legislature’s grant of participation standing without a showing of injury-in-fact violates the separation of powers doctrine.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.295(1) — 3 cases
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) wash “ANALYSIS RCW 36.70A.295(1) provides for judicial review of Board decisions in superior court.”
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2003) washctapp “” RCW 36.70A.295(1). City of Redmond, 136 Wn.”
City of Redmond v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND (2003) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.295(3) — 1 case
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) wash “ANALYSIS RCW 36.70A.295(1) provides for judicial review of Board decisions in superior court.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.295(4)(b)(iii) — 2 cases
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000) washctapp “Kitsap County, supra, Order on Dispositive Motions, at 8. [31] Alpine v.”
Wells v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) 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.