Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state. In preparing the master programs, and any amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent feasible:
(a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts;
(b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact;
(c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state;
(d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;
(e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;
(f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate, modern scientific data processing and computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered.
(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, projects of statewide significance, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;
(b) A public access element making provision for public access to publicly owned areas;
(c) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;
(d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element;
(e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;
(f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection;
(g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values;
(h) An element that gives consideration to the statewide interest in the prevention and minimization of flood damages; and
(i) Any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of this chapter.
(3) The master programs shall include such map or maps, descriptive text, diagrams and charts, or other descriptive material as are necessary to provide for ease of understanding.
(4) Master programs will reflect that state-owned shorelines of the state are particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and will give appropriate special consideration to same.
(5) Each master program shall contain provisions to allow for the varying of the application of use regulations of the program, including provisions for permits for conditional uses and variances, to insure that strict implementation of a program will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only if extraordinary circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The concept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the rules adopted by the department relating to the establishment of a permit system as provided in RCW 90.58.140(3).
(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single-family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single-family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.
[ 2009 c 421 s 9; 1997 c 369 s 7; 1995 c 347 s 307; 1992 c 105 s 2; 1991 c 322 s 32; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 10.]
Notes:
Effective date—2009 c 421: See note following RCW 43.157.005.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Findings—Intent—1991 c 322: See note following RCW 86.12.200.
Project of statewide significance—Defined: RCW 43.157.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1 )(a). And “to the extent feasible,” the DOE should “[c]onduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary.”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009)
“020 and the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 before approving the amendment.”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009)
“020 and the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 before approving the amendment.”
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987)
“Further, and consistently, RCW 90.58.100 states that the adopted and approved master programs shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County (1979)
“RCW 90.58.100. Local governments are required by RCW 90.”
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007)
“RCW 90.58.100(6). Thus, the SMA also *698 requires that all SMPs contain methods to achieve “effective” and “timely” protection for shoreline landowners.”
Orion Corporation v. State (1985)
“interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase…”
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont (1985)
“interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase…”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1). No development may occur on a shoreline of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the SMA and a permit is first obtained.”
Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board (1975)
“The apparent intent was to refer to section 10 (RCW 90.58.100). This oversight was subsequently corrected by the code reviser.”
Batchelder v. City of Seattle (1995)
“To insure coordinated development of our shorelines the SMA establishes a permit system, with the primary responsibility for its administration upon local government, for the control of such development consistent with the SMA and the jurisdiction's "shoreline master program".”
Buechel v. Department of Ecology (1994)
“RCW 90.58.100(5). A variance permit may be lawfully granted only within the guidelines set forth in the zoning ordinance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(1) — 13 cases
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1 )(a). And “to the extent feasible,” the DOE should “[c]onduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1). No development may occur on a shoreline of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the SMA and a permit is first obtained.”
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987)
“Further, and consistently, RCW 90.58.100 states that the adopted and approved master programs shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state.”
Brown v. City of Seattle (2003)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(1)(d) — 1 case
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1 )(a). And “to the extent feasible,” the DOE should “[c]onduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(2) — 4 cases
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County (1979)
“RCW 90.58.100. Local governments are required by RCW 90.”
CRSP. v. Whatcom County (2010)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(2)(a) — 1 case
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1 )(a). And “to the extent feasible,” the DOE should “[c]onduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(2)(b) — 1 case
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987)
“Further, and consistently, RCW 90.58.100 states that the adopted and approved master programs shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(2)(g) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(5) — 4 cases
Buechel v. Department of Ecology (1994)
“RCW 90.58.100(5). A variance permit may be lawfully granted only within the guidelines set forth in the zoning ordinance.”
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1 )(a). And “to the extent feasible,” the DOE should “[c]onduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary.”
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987)
“Further, and consistently, RCW 90.58.100 states that the adopted and approved master programs shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(6) — 2 cases
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007)
“RCW 90.58.100(6). Thus, the SMA also *698 requires that all SMPs contain methods to achieve “effective” and “timely” protection for shoreline landowners.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(a) — 1 case
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009)
“020 and the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 before approving the amendment.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.100(l)(a) — 2 cases
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017)
“” RCW 90.58.100(1 )(a). And “to the extent feasible,” the DOE should “[c]onduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary.”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009)
“020 and the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 before approving the amendment.”
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.