SENATE BILL REPORT

                   SB 6465

                    As of January 23, 1996

Title:  An act relating to growth management hearings boards.

Brief Description:  Revising standards and procedures for growth management hearings boards.

Sponsors:  Senators Sheldon, McCaslin, Snyder, Winsley, McAuliffe, Hale, Haugen and Strannigan.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:  Government Operations:  1/24/96.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Staff:  Rod McAulay (786-7754)

Background:  The Growth Management Act (GMA) established three regional growth management hearing boards with jurisdiction to review petitions alleging that a state agency, county or city planning under the GMA is not in compliance with the requirements of either the GMA, the Shorelines Management Act or the State Environmental Protection Act as it relates to the former two acts.  Petitions may be filed by the state, a county or city that plans under the GMA, or by a person who has appeared before the county or city regarding the matter for which review is requested, or by a person qualified pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.

There is concern that the GMA hearing boards have not given sufficient deference to locally developed and locally implemented strategies to manage population growth, and that the standards for review are not adequately stated.  Specifically there are concerns that:

! it is not clear that county and cities may determine how to prioritize and balance the various stated goals of the GMA;

! the boards are quasi-judicial bodies and must therefore maintain an appearance of fairness and avoid inappropriate contact with parties appearing before them;

! the standards regarding standing to seek review by the GMA boards is too lenient, permitting persons who do not have a direct interest in the issues or did not actively participate in the debate to petition for review;

! the hearing boards need specific direction regarding prioritizing of the types of matters which come before them and fixing time limits for review of certain matters;

! that the hearing boards should not have authority to suspend development regulations which were not adopted under the GMA;

! that procedural criteria not be considered a minimum standard for evaluating the adequacy of growth plans;

! that the basic presumption that a plan is in compliance needs to be emphasized;

! that hearing boards should take into consideration the planning history and resources available to a city or county when evaluating their plan;

! there needs to be more flexibility in fixing deadlines for planning; and

! local government should not have to bear the full cost of defending appeals when they have been found in compliance by a hearing board.                          

Summary of Bill:  The laws governing the operation of growth management hearings boards are amended.

Character of the Boards.  Growth management hearings boards are designated as quasi-judicial bodies. 

Standing to Petition the Boards.  A person may not petition for review by a hearings board unless he or she can demonstrate a clear connection between his or her personal interests and the impact of the action of the county or city.  Standing to petition for review by a hearings board based upon the Administrative Procedure Act is repealed.  A state agency may not petition for review with regard to state trust lands unless the Governor finds that the agency participated substantially in the local process and raised the issues included in the petition.

Prioritizing and Timing Reviews.  Growth management hearings boards must adopt an abbreviated process for procedural challenges, including compliance with deadlines.  Priority is given to petitions involving a challenge to county-wide planning policies and every effort is made to issues decision on county-wide planning policies in less than 180 days.

Standards for Review and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  The standards applied by hearings boards when evaluating compliance with the GMA are modified or clarified as follows:

! It is the responsibility of each county and city planning under the GMA to determine how to prioritize and balance the stated goals of the GMA;

! A hearings board must uphold decisions by a county or city made in reliance on the procedural criteria, but cannot use those criteria as a minimum which must be adopted;

! A hearings board shall find compliance by a county or city unless based on an interpretation that is clearly erroneous or is not supported by substantial evidence;

! A hearings board must defer to decisions by county and city officials on matters not specifically addressed in the GMA.  When determining whether a comprehensive plan is in compliance, a hearings board must find compliance if the plan as a whole satisfies the goals of the GMA;

! A hearings board must take into consideration the population of the county or city, the extent of urbanization, the planning history and capabilities and the relative amount of financial assistance provided;

! A hearings board may excuse a county or city from compliance with requirements of the GMA that are unnecessary to satisfy the goals of the GMA;

! A hearings board must not enter a finding of noncompliance with deadlines when the county and cities within the county adopted an agreement that establishes a different deadline in recognition of unique local circumstances.

A finding of noncompliance by a hearings board may only affect the validity of development regulations that are adopted under this chapter. 

Attorney General Support on Appeals.  On request, the Attorney General is required to defend, provide legal assistance or reimburse a county or city that is found in compliance with this chapter by a hearings board in any subsequent appeal to superior or appellate court.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.