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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300

Final orders

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The board shall issue a final order that shall be based exclusively on whether or not a state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the final order shall be issued within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the petition for review, or, if multiple petitions are filed, within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the last petition that is consolidated.
(b) The board may extend the period of time for issuing a decision to enable the parties to settle the dispute if additional time is necessary to achieve a settlement, and (i) an extension is requested by all parties, or (ii) an extension is requested by the petitioner and respondent and the board determines that a negotiated settlement between the remaining parties could resolve significant issues in dispute. The request must be filed with the board not later than seven days before the date scheduled for the hearing on the merits of the petition. The board may authorize one or more extensions for up to ninety days each, subject to the requirements of this section.
(3) In the final order, the board shall either:
(a) Find that the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW; or
(b) Find that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW, in which case the board shall remand the matter to the affected state agency, county, or city. The board shall specify a reasonable time not in excess of one hundred eighty days, or such longer period as determined by the board in cases of unusual scope or complexity, within which the state agency, county, or city shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. The board may require periodic reports to the board on the progress the jurisdiction is making towards compliance.
(4)(a) Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity under 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.
(b) Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity, state agencies, commissions, and governing boards may not determine a county, city, or town to be ineligible or otherwise penalized in the acceptance of applications or the awarding of state agency grants or loans during the period of remand. This subsection (4)(b) applies only to counties, cities, and towns that have: (i) Delayed the initial effective date of the action subject to the petition before the board until after the board issues a final determination; or (ii) within thirty days of receiving notice of a petition for review by the board, delayed or suspended the effective date of the action subject to the petition before the board until after the board issues a final determination.
(5) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board. Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302, state agencies, commissions, or governing boards shall not penalize counties, cities, or towns during the pendency of an appeal as provided in RCW 43.17.250.
[ 2013 c 275 s 1; 1997 c 429 s 14; 1995 c 347 s 110; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 11.]

Notes:

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.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash · cites it 15× “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash · cites it 15× “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash · cites it 4× “RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b), .302. ¶17 If the growth board finds noncompliance, it remands the matter to the county with instructions to comply within a certain time period.”
Torrance v. King County (1998) wash · cites it 9× “510; RCW 36.70A.300. Instead, Torrance pursued a lawsuit filed December 13, 1996 (prior to the Board’s decision) in King County Superior Court.”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) washctapp · cites it 6× “Under RCW 36.70A.300(2), a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand does not affect the validity of a comprehensive plan during the remand period.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash · cites it 2× “Compare RCW 36.70A.300 (effect of finding of noncompliance) with RCW 36.”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash · cites it 4× “The GMA provides two distinct alternatives when a Growth Management Hearings Board finds that a local government's comprehensive plan or development regulation does not comply with the GMA: the first is a finding of noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b); the second is a…”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash · cites it 2× “[3] Compare RCW 36.70A.300 (effect of finding of noncompliance) with RCW 36.”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2013) washctapp · cites it 7× “It ordered the 14-member Land Use Study Commission, originally created by the 1995 legislation, 18 to further study that issue: The commission shall: (4) Monitor instances state-wide of the vesting of project permit applications during the period that an appeal is pending before…”
Clark County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT. (2011) washctapp · cites it 8× “RCW 36.70A.300, .302, .320(3). Accordingly, insofar as the County argues that the Growth Board committed a legal error by reviewing all the evidence rather than just the portion of the record that the County put forth as supporting its decisions, the County's claim fails.”
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) wash · cites it 2× “The City appealed to the superior court under RCW 36.70A.300(5). 2 Without discussion, the superior court entered a judgment affirming the Board’s decision on November 1, 1996.”
Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2006) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.300(3). Therefore, to the extent that Lewis County's designation of 54,400 acres of agricultural land turns out to be off the mark, the GMA already ensures that the county will decide how to correct that problem.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(1) — 10 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2007) wash
Honesty in Environmental Analysis & Legislation (HEAL) v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1999) washctapp
Davidson Serles & Associates v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2010) washctapp
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2013) washctapp “It ordered the 14-member Land Use Study Commission, originally created by the 1995 legislation, 18 to further study that issue: The commission shall: (4) Monitor instances state-wide of the vesting of project permit applications during the period that an appeal is pending before…”
Citizens v. Columbia County (1998) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(2) — 4 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (1999) washctapp
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) washctapp “Under RCW 36.70A.300(2), a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand does not affect the validity of a comprehensive plan during the remand period.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(2)(a) — 5 cases
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) washctapp “Under RCW 36.70A.300(2), a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand does not affect the validity of a comprehensive plan during the remand period.”
Diehl v. Mason County (1999) washctapp
Irondale Community Action Neighbors v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp
Kenmore Mhp, Llc, V. City Of Kenmore (2022) washctapp
Ican v. Western Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. (2011) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(3) — 14 cases
Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2006) wash “RCW 36.70A.300(3). Therefore, to the extent that Lewis County's designation of 54,400 acres of agricultural land turns out to be off the mark, the GMA already ensures that the county will decide how to correct that problem.”
Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2006) wash
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) washctapp “Under RCW 36.70A.300(2), a finding of noncompliance and an order of remand does not affect the validity of a comprehensive plan during the remand period.”
Torrance v. King County (1998) wash “510; RCW 36.70A.300. Instead, Torrance pursued a lawsuit filed December 13, 1996 (prior to the Board’s decision) in King County Superior Court.”
Davidson Serles & Associates v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2010) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(3)(a) — 3 cases
Hale v. Island County (1997) washctapp
Citizens v. Columbia County (1998) washctapp
Spokane County v. City of Spokane (2009) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(3)(b) — 25 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash “RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b), .302. ¶17 If the growth board finds noncompliance, it remands the matter to the county with instructions to comply within a certain time period.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005) wash “Compare RCW 36.70A.300 (effect of finding of noncompliance) with RCW 36.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005) wash “[3] Compare RCW 36.70A.300 (effect of finding of noncompliance) with RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(4) — 14 cases
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2014) wash “RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b), .302. ¶17 If the growth board finds noncompliance, it remands the matter to the county with instructions to comply within a certain time period.”
Clark County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT. (2011) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.300, .302, .320(3). Accordingly, insofar as the County argues that the Growth Board committed a legal error by reviewing all the evidence rather than just the portion of the record that the County put forth as supporting its decisions, the County's claim fails.”
Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (2000) wash
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.300. Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(4)(a) — 2 cases
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2015) washctapp
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Mgmt (2015) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.300(5) — 47 cases
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998) wash “The City appealed to the superior court under RCW 36.70A.300(5). 2 Without discussion, the superior court entered a judgment affirming the Board’s decision on November 1, 1996.”
Torrance v. King County (1998) wash “510; RCW 36.70A.300. Instead, Torrance pursued a lawsuit filed December 13, 1996 (prior to the Board’s decision) in King County Superior Court.”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (1999) wash “The GMA provides two distinct alternatives when a Growth Management Hearings Board finds that a local government's comprehensive plan or development regulation does not comply with the GMA: the first is a finding of noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b); the second is a…”
King County v. Central Puget Sound (2000) wash
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2000) wash
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.