Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.58

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by the department in accordance with the schedule established by this section.
(2)(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this section, each local government subject to this chapter shall develop or amend its master program for the regulation of uses of shorelines within its jurisdiction according to the following schedule:
(i) On or before December 1, 2005, for the city of Port Townsend, the city of Bellingham, the city of Everett, Snohomish county, and Whatcom county;
(ii) On or before December 1, 2009, for King county and the cities within King county greater in population than ten thousand;
(iii) Except as provided by (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, on or before December 1, 2011, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
(iv) On or before December 1, 2012, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties;
(v) On or before December 1, 2013, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
(vi) On or before December 1, 2014, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties.
(b) Nothing in this subsection (2) shall preclude a local government from developing or amending its master program prior to the dates established by this subsection (2).
(3)(a) Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments required to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, as provided by subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section. Any jurisdiction listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section that has a new or amended master program approved by the department on or after March 1, 2002, but before July 27, 2003, shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable date provided by subsection (4)(b) of this section.
(b) Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments choosing to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section.
(4)(a) Following the updates required by subsection (2) of this section, local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs at least once every 10 years as required by (b) of this subsection. Following the review required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. The purpose of the review is:
(i) To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
(ii) To assure consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
(b) Counties and cities shall take action to review and, if necessary, revise their master programs as required by (a) of this subsection as follows:
(i) On or before June 30, 2029, and every 10 years thereafter, for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within those counties;
(ii) On or before June 30, 2030, and every 10 years thereafter, for Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
(iii) On or before June 30, 2031, and every 10 years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
(iv) On or before June 30, 2032, and every 10 years thereafter, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties.
(5) In meeting the review requirements of subsection (4) of this section, local governments are encouraged to begin the process of developing or amending their master programs early and are eligible for grants from the department as provided by RCW 90.58.250, subject to available funding. Except for those local governments listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the deadline for completion of the new or amended master programs shall be two years after the date the grant is approved by the department. Subsequent master program review dates shall not be altered by the provisions of this subsection.
(6) In meeting the review requirements of subsection (4) of this section, the following shall apply:
(a) Grants to local governments for reviewing master programs pursuant to the schedule established by this section shall be provided at least two years before the adoption dates specified in subsection (4) of this section. To the extent possible, the department shall allocate grants within the amount appropriated for such purposes to provide reasonable and adequate funding to local governments that have indicated their intent to develop or amend master programs during the biennium according to the schedule established by subsection (4) of this section. Any local government that applies for but does not receive funding to comply with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section may delay the development or amendment of its master program until the following biennium.
(b) Local governments with delayed compliance dates as provided in (a) of this subsection shall be the first priority for funding in subsequent biennia, and the periodic review compliance deadline for those local governments shall be two years after the date of grant approval.
(c) Failure of the local government to apply in a timely manner for a master program development or amendment grant in accordance with the requirements of the department shall not be considered a delay resulting from the provisions of (a) of this subsection.
(7) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, all local governments subject to the requirements of this chapter that have not developed or amended master programs on or after March 1, 2002, shall, no later than December 1, 2014, develop or amend their master programs to comply with guidelines adopted by the department after January 1, 2003.
(8) In meeting the review requirements of subsection (4) of this section, local governments may be provided an additional year beyond the deadlines in this section to complete their master program or amendment. The department shall grant the request if it determines that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master program within the additional year.
[ 2023 c 80 s 2; (2023 c 80 s 1 expired July 1, 2025); 2020 c 113 s 2; 2011 c 353 s 13; 2007 c 170 s 1; 2003 c 262 s 2; 1995 c 347 s 305; 1974 ex.s. c 61 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 8.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 80 s 2: "Section 2 of this act takes effect July 1, 2025." [ 2023 c 80 s 4.]
Expiration date—2023 c 80 s 1: "Section 1 of this act expires July 1, 2025." [ 2023 c 80 s 3.]
Effective date—2020 c 113 s 2: "Section 2 of this act takes effect July 1, 2025." [ 2020 c 113 s 3.]
Intent—2011 c 353: See note following RCW 36.70A.130.
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 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Kelly Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2012) ca9 · cites it 3× “See Wash. Rev.Code § 90.58.080 (West 2000) (“Local governments shall develop or amend, within twenty-four months after the adoption of guidelines as provided in RCW 90.”
Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd. (2006) washctapp “Shortly thereafter it withdrew the addendum because it did not include materials POI submitted after the deadline raising concerns about noise and propeller wash impacts on eelgrass.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.080. A “master program” is the “comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies…”
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont (1985) wash · cites it 2× “II SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM The DuPont Shorelines Master Program was approved by DOE in 1975, pursuant to WAC XXX-XX-XXXX; RCW 90.58.080, .090. The DSMP permits ports and water related industry within its urban designation, but subjects them to conditional use requirements.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County (1979) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.080. The programs, once approved by the Department of Ecology, operate as controlling use regulations for the various shorelines of the state.”
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.080(1), .090. A Master Program becomes part of Washington’s shoreline regulations once it is approved by the DOE.”
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007) wash “RCW 90.58.080(2)(a)(iii). It is unclear whether the City planned to ban applications until 2011, thereby allowing erosion damage to continue unabated for 10 years.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “¶ 21 We have held that the SMA does not give Ecology the authority to directly review the local government's decision to issue a substantial development permit.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash “RCW 90.58.080. In this sense, it is “reviewing” local government action.”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009) washctapp “NOTES [1] RCW 90.58.080(1) provides "Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by [Ecology] in accordance with the schedule established by this…”
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2004) washctapp “RCW 90.58.080(2). [4] Sealevel Bulkhead Builders, Inc.”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009) washctapp “RCW 90.58.080(1) provides, “Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by [Ecology] in accordance with the schedule established by this section.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080(1) — 11 cases
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009) washctapp “NOTES [1] RCW 90.58.080(1) provides "Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by [Ecology] in accordance with the schedule established by this…”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009) washctapp “RCW 90.58.080(1) provides, “Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by [Ecology] in accordance with the schedule established by this section.”
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017) washctapp “RCW 90.58.080(1), .090. A Master Program becomes part of Washington’s shoreline regulations once it is approved by the DOE.”
Robertson v. May (2009) washctapp
Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County (2011) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080(2) — 6 cases
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2004) washctapp “RCW 90.58.080(2). [4] Sealevel Bulkhead Builders, Inc.”
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2004) washctapp
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987) wash
Harrington v. Spokane County (2005) washctapp
Harrington v. Spokane County (2005) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080(2)(a)(i) — 3 cases
Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County (2010) washctapp
Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County (2011) wash
CRSP. v. Whatcom County (2010) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080(2)(a)(iii) — 3 cases
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007) wash “RCW 90.58.080(2)(a)(iii). It is unclear whether the City planned to ban applications until 2011, thereby allowing erosion damage to continue unabated for 10 years.”
Kelly Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2012) ca9 “See Wash. Rev.Code § 90.58.080 (West 2000) (“Local governments shall develop or amend, within twenty-four months after the adoption of guidelines as provided in RCW 90.”
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080(4) — 2 cases
Futurewise v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2008) wash
Futurewise v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2008) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.080(7) — 1 case
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017) washctapp “RCW 90.58.080(1), .090. A Master Program becomes part of Washington’s shoreline regulations once it is approved by the DOE.”
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.