Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.58

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.210

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in RCW 43.05.060 through 43.05.080 and 43.05.150, the attorney general or the attorney for the local government shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to ensure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the provisions and programs of this chapter, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Any person who shall fail to conform to the terms of a permit issued under this chapter or who shall undertake development on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining any permit required under this chapter shall also be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars for each violation. Each permit violation or each day of continued development without a required permit shall constitute a separate violation.
(3) The penalty provided for in this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the department or local government, describing the violation with reasonable particularity and ordering the act or acts constituting the violation or violations to cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, requiring necessary corrective action to be taken within a specific and reasonable time.
(4) The person incurring the penalty may appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the penalty. The term "date of receipt" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 43.21B.001. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by the department shall be subject to review by the shorelines hearings board. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by local government shall be subject to review by the local government legislative authority. Any penalty jointly imposed by the department and local government shall be appealed to the shorelines hearings board.
[ 2010 c 210 s 39; 1995 c 403 s 637; 1986 c 292 s 4; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 21.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Severability—1986 c 292: See note following RCW 90.58.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash · cites it 17× “Nor does the fact that the SMA provides Ecology with enforcement authority under RCW 90.58.210 enable Ecology to reverse local government decisions.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash · cites it 15× “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash · cites it 15× “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct *836 review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. King County (1979) wash · cites it 4× “They are also given authority under RCW 90.58.210 to bring court actions to enforce the provisions of the SMA and prevent unauthorized use of the shorelines.”
Hedlund v. White (1992) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.210(1). 7 In this case, then, Hedlund has no SMA cause of action even if White violated the SMA.”
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Board (2009) washctapp · cites it 2× “*461 ¶39 RCW 90.58.210(2) provides that anyone who undertakes development without first obtaining a required permit is subject to a $1,000 civil penalty for “each violation.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, L.L.C. v. Department of Ecology (2005) washctapp · cites it 4× “¶17 The court further stated that the grant of enforcement authority to Ecology under RCW 90.58.210 does not enable Ecology “to reverse local government decisions.”
Dave Honeywell v. Washington State Department Of Ecology (2017) washctapp · cites it 6× “ANALYSIS Each Reoulated Tree as a Separate Violation The Honeywells argue that the SHB erred in affirming the DOE's penalty because RCW 90.58.210 and WAC 173-27-280 limit the DOE to imposing a $1,000 penalty per violation and the Honeywells' single violation was cutting…”
Toandos Peninsula Ass'n v. Jefferson County (1982) washctapp “The permit process, however, is not the only means of insuring compliance with the mandates and policy of the act.”
Brown v. City of Seattle (2003) washctapp “018 which states: “[n]o development shall be undertaken and no use shall be established in the Shoreline District unless the Director has determined that it is consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act and the regulations of this chapter.” SMC 23.60.016. The…”
Washington Shell Fish, Inc. v. Pierce County (2006) washctapp “140(3); RCW 90.58.210(1). This permit system encompasses substantial development permits, conditional use permits, and variances.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2001) washctapp · cites it 2× “at 485 (quoting RCW 90.58.210). Because the City’s threshold jurisdictional determination was not a final decision, it was not appealable under LUPA.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.210(1) — 12 cases
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “Nor does the fact that the SMA provides Ecology with enforcement authority under RCW 90.58.210 enable Ecology to reverse local government decisions.”
Hedlund v. White (1992) washctapp “RCW 90.58.210(1). 7 In this case, then, Hedlund has no SMA cause of action even if White violated the SMA.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct *836 review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Brown v. City of Seattle (2003) washctapp “018 which states: “[n]o development shall be undertaken and no use shall be established in the Shoreline District unless the Director has determined that it is consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act and the regulations of this chapter.” SMC 23.60.016. The…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.210(2) — 6 cases
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “Nor does the fact that the SMA provides Ecology with enforcement authority under RCW 90.58.210 enable Ecology to reverse local government decisions.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct *836 review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Board (2009) washctapp “*461 ¶39 RCW 90.58.210(2) provides that anyone who undertakes development without first obtaining a required permit is subject to a $1,000 civil penalty for “each violation.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, L.L.C. v. Department of Ecology (2005) washctapp “¶17 The court further stated that the grant of enforcement authority to Ecology under RCW 90.58.210 does not enable Ecology “to reverse local government decisions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.210(3) — 4 cases
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “Nor does the fact that the SMA provides Ecology with enforcement authority under RCW 90.58.210 enable Ecology to reverse local government decisions.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct *836 review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Mark Marlow, et ux v. Douglas County (2013) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.210(4) — 2 cases
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash “See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct *836 review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit.”
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.