| Passed by the House February 13, 2012 Yeas 54 FRANK CHOPP ________________________________________ Speaker of the House of Representatives Passed by the Senate March 1, 2012 Yeas 42 BRAD OWEN ________________________________________ President of the Senate | I, Barbara Baker, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 2671 as passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth. BARBARA BAKER ________________________________________ Chief Clerk | |
| Approved March 29, 2012, 6:41 p.m. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE ________________________________________ Governor of the State of Washington | March 29, 2012 Secretary of State State of Washington |
| State of Washington | 62nd Legislature | 2012 Regular Session |
Read first time 01/24/12. Referred to Committee on Local Government.
AN ACT Relating to clarifying procedures for appealing department of ecology final action on a local shoreline master program by ensuring consistency with existing procedural provisions of the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW, the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW, and the state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW; and amending RCW 90.58.190.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1 RCW 90.58.190 and 2011 c 277 s 5 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The appeal of the department's decision to adopt a master
program or amendment pursuant to RCW 90.58.070(2) or 90.58.090(5) is
governed by RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598.
(2)(a) The department's final decision to approve or reject a
proposed master program or master program amendment by a local
government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the
growth management hearings board by filing a petition as provided in
RCW 36.70A.290.
(b) If the appeal to the growth management hearings board concerns
shorelines, the growth management hearings board shall review the
proposed master program or amendment solely for compliance with the
requirements of this chapter, the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the
applicable guidelines, the internal consistency provisions of RCW
36.70A.070, 36.70A.040(4), 35.63.125, and 35A.63.105, and chapter
43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and
amendments under chapter 90.58 RCW.
(c) If the appeal to the growth management hearings board concerns
a shoreline of statewide significance, the board shall uphold the
decision by the department unless the board, by clear and convincing
evidence, determines that the decision of the department is
((inconsistent)) noncompliant with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 ((and))
or the applicable guidelines, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to
the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.
(d) The appellant has the burden of proof in all appeals to the
growth management hearings board under this subsection.
(e) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the growth
management hearings board under this subsection may appeal the decision
to superior court as provided in RCW 36.70A.300.
(3)(a) The department's final decision to approve or reject a
proposed master program or master program amendment by a local
government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the
shorelines hearings board by filing a petition within thirty days of
the date that the department publishes notice of its final decision
under RCW 90.58.090(8).
(b) In an appeal relating to shorelines, the shorelines hearings
board shall review the proposed master program or master program
amendment and, after full consideration of the presentations of the
((local government and the department)) parties, shall determine the
validity of the local government's master program or amendment in light
of the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, and
chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and
amendments under this chapter.
(c) In an appeal relating to shorelines of statewide significance,
the shorelines hearings board shall uphold the decision by the
department unless the board determines, by clear and convincing
evidence that the decision of the department is ((inconsistent))
noncompliant with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 ((and)) or the applicable
guidelines, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of
master programs and amendments under this chapter.
(d) Review by the shorelines hearings board shall be considered an
adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW, the administrative
procedure act. The ((aggrieved local government)) appellant shall have
the burden of proof in all such reviews.
(e) Whenever possible, the review by the shorelines hearings board
shall be heard within the county where the land subject to the proposed
master program or master program amendment is primarily located. The
department and any ((local government)) party aggrieved by a final
decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior
court as provided in chapter 34.05 RCW.
(4) A master program amendment shall become effective after the
approval of the department or after the decision of the growth
management hearings board or shorelines hearings board to uphold the
master program or master program amendment, provided that either the
growth management hearings board or the shorelines hearings board may
remand the master program or master program ((adjustment)) amendment to
the local government or the department for modification prior to the
final adoption of the master program or master program amendment.