2675

AN ACT Relating to growth management hearings; amending RCW 34.05.518, 34.12.020, 36.70A.110, 36.70A.130, 36.70A.140, 36.70A.172, 36.70A.210, 36.70A.280, 36.70A.290, 36.70A.300, 36.70A.310, 36.70A.320, 36.70A.330, 36.70A.340, 36.70A.345, 36.70C.030, 90.58.190, and 90.61.040; repealing RCW 36.70A.250, 36.70A.260, and 36.70A.270; and providing an expiration date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 34.05.518 and 1995 c 382 s 5 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The final decision of an administrative agency in an adjudicative proceeding under this chapter may be directly reviewed by the court of appeals either (a) upon certification by the superior court pursuant to this secti or (b) if the final decision is from an environmental board as defined in subsection (3) of this section, upon acceptance by the court of appeals after a certificate of appealability has been filed by the environmental board that rendered the final decision.

(2) For direct review upon certification by the superior court, an application for direct review must be filed with the superior court within thirty days of the filing of the petition for review in superior court. The superior court may certify a case for direct review only if the judicial review is limited to the record of the agency proceeding and the court finds that:

(a) Fundamental and urgent issues affecting the future administrative process or the public interest are involved which require a prompt determination;

(b) Delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of such issues would be detrimental to any party or the public interest;

(d) The appellate court's determination in the proceeding would have significant precedential value.

Procedures for certification shall be established by court rule.

(3)(a) For the purposes of direct review of final decisions of environmental boards, environmental boards include those boards identified in RCW 43.21B.005 ((~~and growth management hearings boards as identified in RCW 36.70A.250~~)).

(b) An environmental board may issue a certificate of appealability if it finds that delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of the issues would be detrimental to any party or the public interest and either:

(i) Fundamental and urgent state-wide or regional issues are raised; or

(ii) The proceeding is likely to have significant precedential value.

(4) The environmental board shall state in the certificate of appealability which criteria it applied, explain how that criteria was met, and file with the certificate a copy of the final decision.

(5) For an appellate court to accept direct review of a final decision of an environmental board, it shall consider the same criteria outlined in subsection (3) of this section.

(6) The procedures for direct review of final decisions of environmental boards include:

(a) Within thirty days after filing the petition for review with the superior court, a party may file an application for direct review with the superior court and serve the appropriate environmental board and all parties of record. The application shall request the environmental board to file a certificate of appealability.

(b) If an issue on review is the jurisdiction of the environmental board, the board may file an application for direct review on that issue.

(c) The environmental board shall have thirty days to grant or deny the request for a certificate of appealability and its decision shall be filed with the superior court and served on all parties of record.

(d) If a certificate of appealability is issued, the parties shall have fifteen days from the date of service to file a notice of discretionary review in the superior court, and the notice shall include a copy of the certificate of appealability and a copy of the final decision.

(e) If the appellate court accepts review, the certificate of appealability shall be transmitted to the court of appeals as part of the certified record.

(f) If a certificate of appealability is denied, review shall be by the superior court. The superior court's decision may be appealed to the court of appeals.

Sec. 2. RCW 34.12.020 and 1995 c 331 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) "Office" means the office of administrative hearings.

(2) "Administrative law judge" means any person appointed by the chief administrative law judge to conduct or preside over hearings as provided in this chapter.

(3) "Hearing" means an adjudicative proceeding within the meaning of RCW 34.05.010(1) conducted by a state agency under RCW 34.05.413 through 34.05.476.

(4) "State agency" means any state board, commission, department, or officer authorized by law to make rules or to conduct adjudicative proceedings, except those in the legislative or judicial branches, ((~~the growth management hearings boards,~~)) the utilities and transportation commission, the pollution control hearings board, the shorelines hearings board, the forest practices appeals board, the environmental hearings office, the board of industrial insurance appeals, the Washington personnel resources board, the public employment relations commission, the personnel appeals board, and the board of tax appeals.

Sec. 3. RCW 36.70A.110 and 1995 c 400 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an urban growth area. An urban growth area may include more than a single city. An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350.

(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office of financial management, the urban growth areas in the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period. Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances. Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth.

Within one year of July 1, 1990, each county that as of June 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall begin consulting with each city located within its boundaries and each city shall propose the location of an urban growth area. Within sixty days of the date the county legislative authority of a county adopts its resolution of intention or of certification by the office of financial management, all other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall begin this consultation with each city located within its boundaries. The county shall attempt to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area within which the city is located. If such an agreement is not reached with each city located within the urban growth area, the county shall justify in writing why it so designated the area an urban growth area. A city may object formally with the department over the designation of the urban growth area within which it is located. Where appropriate, the department shall attempt to resolve the conflicts, including the use of mediation services.

(3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36.70A.350.

(4) In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development.

(5) On or before October 1, 1993, each county that was initially required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040(1) shall adopt development regulations designating interim urban growth areas under this chapter. Within three years and three months of the date the county legislative authority of a county adopts its resolution of intention or of certification by the office of financial management, all other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt development regulations designating interim urban growth areas under this chapter. Adoption of the interim urban growth areas may only occur after public notice; public hearing; and compliance with the state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW, and RCW 36.70A.110. Such action may be appealed to ((~~the appropriate growth management hearings board under RCW 36.70A.280~~)) the superior court for the county in which the area is located. Final urban growth areas shall be adopted at the time of comprehensive plan adoption under this chapter.

(6) Each county shall include designations of urban growth areas in its comprehensive plan.

Sec. 4. RCW 36.70A.130 and 1995 c 347 s 106 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing evaluation and review by the county or city that adopted them.

Any amendment or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter, and any change to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan.

(2)(a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year except that amendments may be considered more frequently under the following circumstances:

(i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; and

(ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW.

(b) All proposals shall be considered by the governing body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with ((~~a growth management hearings board or with~~)) the court.

(3) Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review, at least every ten years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of each urban growth area. In conjunction with this review by the county, each city located within an urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth occurring within the county has located within each city and the unincorporated portions of the urban growth areas. The county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the comprehensive plans of the county and each city located within the urban growth areas, shall be revised to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year period.

Sec. 5. RCW 36.70A.140 and 1995 c 347 s 107 are each amended to read as follows:

Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. In enacting legislation in response to ((~~the board's decision pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300~~)) a court's decision declaring part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulation invalid, the county or city shall provide for public participation that is appropriate and effective under the circumstances presented by the ((~~board's~~)) court's order. Errors in exact compliance with the established program and procedures shall not render the comprehensive land use plan or development regulations invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed.

Sec. 6. RCW 36.70A.172 and 1995 c 347 s 105 are each amended to read as follows:

((~~(1)~~)) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.

(((2) If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision, a growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas.))

Sec. 7. RCW 36.70A.210 and 1994 c 249 s 28 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The legislature recognizes that counties are regional governments within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban governmental services within urban growth areas. For the purposes of this section, a "county-wide planning policy" is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter. This framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required in RCW 36.70A.100. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the land-use powers of cities.

(2) The legislative authority of a county that plans under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt a county-wide planning policy in cooperation with the cities located in whole or in part within the county as follows:

(a) No later than sixty calendar days from July 16, 1991, the legislative authority of each county that as of June 1, 1991, was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall convene a meeting with representatives of each city located within the county for the purpose of establishing a collaborative process that will provide a framework for the adoption of a county-wide planning policy. In other counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, this meeting shall be convened no later than sixty days after the date the county adopts its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management.

(b) The process and framework for adoption of a county-wide planning policy specified in (a) of this subsection shall determine the manner in which the county and the cities agree to all procedures and provisions including but not limited to desired planning policies, deadlines, ratification of final agreements and demonstration thereof, and financing, if any, of all activities associated therewith.

(c) If a county fails for any reason to convene a meeting with representatives of cities as required in (a) of this subsection, the governor may immediately impose any appropriate sanction or sanctions on the county from those specified under RCW 36.70A.340.

(d) If there is no agreement by October 1, 1991, in a county that was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 as of June 1, 1991, or if there is no agreement within one hundred twenty days of the date the county adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management in any other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, the governor shall first inquire of the jurisdictions as to the reason or reasons for failure to reach an agreement. If the governor deems it appropriate, the governor may immediately request the assistance of the department of community, trade, and economic development to mediate any disputes that preclude agreement. If mediation is unsuccessful in resolving all disputes that will lead to agreement, the governor may impose appropriate sanctions from those specified under RCW 36.70A.340 on the county, city, or cities for failure to reach an agreement as provided in this section. The governor shall specify the reason or reasons for the imposition of any sanction.

(e) No later than July 1, 1992, the legislative authority of each county that was required or chose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 as of June 1, 1991, or no later than fourteen months after the date the county adopted its resolution of intention or was certified by the office of financial management the county legislative authority of any other county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, shall adopt a county-wide planning policy according to the process provided under this section and that is consistent with the agreement pursuant to (b) of this subsection, and after holding a public hearing or hearings on the proposed county-wide planning policy.

(3) A county-wide planning policy shall at a minimum, address the following:

(a) Policies to implement RCW 36.70A.110;

(b) Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services to such development;

(d) Policies for county-wide transportation facilities and strategies;

(e) Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution;

(f) Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas;

(g) Policies for county-wide economic development and employment; and

(h) An analysis of the fiscal impact.

(4) Federal agencies and Indian tribes may participate in and cooperate with the county-wide planning policy adoption process. Adopted county-wide planning policies shall be adhered to by state agencies.

(5) Failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy that meets the requirements of this section may result in the imposition of a sanction or sanctions on a county or city within the county, as specified in RCW 36.70A.340. In imposing a sanction or sanctions, the governor shall specify the reasons for failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy in order that any imposed sanction or sanctions are fairly and equitably related to the failure to adopt a county-wide planning policy.

(6) Cities and the governor may appeal an adopted county-wide planning policy to the ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court for the county to which the policy applies within sixty days of the adoption of the county-wide planning policy.

(7) Multicounty planning policies shall be adopted by two or more counties, each with a population of four hundred fifty thousand or more, with contiguous urban areas and may be adopted by other counties, according to the process established under this section or other processes agreed to among the counties and cities within the affected counties throughout the multicounty region.

Sec. 8. RCW 36.70A.280 and 1995 c 347 s 108 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) A ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court shall hear and determine ((~~only~~)) those petitions alleging either:

(a) That a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW; or

(b) That the twenty-year growth management planning population projections adopted by the office of financial management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted.

(2) A petition may be filed only by the state, a county or city that plans under this chapter, a person who has either appeared before the county or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested or is certified by the governor within sixty days of filing the request with the ((~~board~~)) court, or a person qualified pursuant to RCW 34.05.530.

(3) For purposes of this section "person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or unit thereof, or public or private organization or entity of any character.

(4) When considering a possible adjustment to a growth management planning population projection prepared by the office of financial management, a ((~~board~~)) court shall consider the implications of any such adjustment to the population forecast for the entire state.

The rationale for any adjustment that is adopted by a ((~~board~~)) court must be documented and filed with the office of financial management within ten working days after adoption.

If adjusted by a ((~~board~~)) court, a county growth management planning population projection shall only be used for the planning purposes set forth in this chapter and shall be known as a "((~~board adjusted~~)) court-adjusted population projection". None of these changes shall affect the official state and county population forecasts prepared by the office of financial management, which shall continue to be used for state budget and planning purposes.

Sec. 9. RCW 36.70A.290 and 1995 c 347 s 109 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) ((~~All requests for review to a growth management hearings board shall be initiated by filing a petition that includes a detailed statement of issues presented for resolution by the board.~~

~~(2)~~)) All petitions to the superior court relating to whether or not an adopted comprehensive plan, development regulation, or permanent amendment thereto, is in compliance with the goals and requirements of this chapter or chapter 90.58 or 43.21C RCW must be filed within sixty days after publication by the legislative bodies of the county or city.

(a) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, the date of publication for a city shall be the date the city publishes the ordinance, or summary of the ordinance, adopting the comprehensive plan or development regulations, or amendment thereto, as is required to be published.

(b) Promptly after adoption, a county shall publish a notice that it has adopted the comprehensive plan or development regulations, or amendment thereto.

Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, for purposes of this section the date of publication for a county shall be the date the county publishes the notice that it has adopted the comprehensive plan or development regulations, or amendment thereto.

(c) For local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040, promptly after approval or disapproval of a local government’s shoreline master program or amendment thereto by the department of ecology as provided in RCW 90.58.090, the local government shall publish a notice that the shoreline master program or amendment thereto has been approved or disapproved by the department of ecology. For purposes of this section, the date of publication for the adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program is the date the local government publishes notice that the shoreline master program or amendment thereto has been approved or disapproved by the department of ecology.

((~~(3)~~)) (2) Unless the ((~~board~~)) court dismisses the petition as frivolous or finds that the person filing the petition lacks standing, the ((~~board~~)) court shall, within ten days of receipt of the petition, set a time for hearing the matter.

((~~(4)~~)) (3) The ((~~board~~)) court shall base its decision on the record developed by the city, county, or the state and supplemented with additional evidence if the ((~~board~~)) court determines that such additional evidence would be necessary or of substantial assistance to the ((~~board~~)) court in reaching its decision.

((~~(5)~~)) (4) The ((~~board,~~)) court shall consolidate, when appropriate, all petitions involving the review of the same comprehensive plan or the same development regulation or regulations.

Sec. 10. RCW 36.70A.300 and 1995 c 347 s 110 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The ((~~board~~)) superior court shall issue a final order within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the petition for review under RCW 36.70A.280 or 36.70A.290, or, when multiple petitions are filed, within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the last petition that is consolidated. Such a final order shall be based exclusively on whether or not a state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW. In the final order, the ((~~board~~)) court shall either: (a) Find that the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter or chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs; or (b) find that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter or chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, in which case the ((~~board~~)) court shall remand the matter to the affected state agency, county, or city and specify a reasonable time not in excess of one hundred eighty days within which the state agency, county, or city shall comply with the requirements of this chapter.

(2) A finding of noncompliance and an order of remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations during the period of remand, unless the ((~~board's~~)) court's final order also:

(a) Includes a determination, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the continued validity of the plan or regulation would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter; and

(b) Specifies the particular part or parts of the plan or regulation that are determined to be invalid, and the reasons for their invalidity.

(3) A determination of invalidity shall:

(a) Be prospective in effect and shall not extinguish rights that vested under state or local law before the date of the ((~~board's~~)) court's order; and

(b) Subject any development application that would otherwise vest after the date of the ((~~board's~~)) court's order to the local ordinance or resolution that both is enacted in response to the order of remand and determined by the ((~~board~~)) court pursuant to RCW 36.70A.330 to comply with the requirements of this chapter.

(4) If the ordinance that adopts a plan or development regulation under this chapter includes a savings clause intended to revive prior policies or regulations in the event the new plan or regulations are determined to be invalid, the ((~~board~~)) court shall determine under subsection (2) of this section whether the prior policies or regulations are valid during the period of remand.

(((5) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board.))

Sec. 11. RCW 36.70A.310 and 1994 c 249 s 32 are each amended to read as follows:

A request for review by the state to a ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court may be made only by the governor, or with the governor's consent the head of an agency, or by the commissioner of public lands as relating to state trust lands, for the review of whether: (1) A county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 has failed to adopt a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or county-wide planning policies within the time limits established by this chapter; or (2) a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under this chapter has adopted a comprehensive plan, development regulations, or county-wide planning policies, that are not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

Sec. 12. RCW 36.70A.320 and 1995 c 347 s 111 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, comprehensive plans and development regulations, and amendments thereto, adopted under this chapter are presumed valid upon adoption. In any petition under this chapter, the ((~~board~~)) superior court, after full consideration of the petition, shall determine whether there is compliance with the requirements of this chapter. In making its determination, the ((~~board~~)) court shall consider the criteria adopted by the department under RCW 36.70A.190(4). The ((~~board~~)) court shall find compliance unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the state agency, county, or city erroneously interpreted or applied this chapter.

(2) The shoreline element of a comprehensive plan and the applicable development regulations adopted by a county or city shall take effect as provided in chapter 90.58 RCW.

Sec. 13. RCW 36.70A.330 and 1995 c 347 s 112 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) After the time set for complying with the requirements of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.300(1)(b) has expired, or at an earlier time upon the motion of a county or city subject to a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.300, the ((~~board~~)) superior court shall set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

(2) The ((~~board~~)) court shall conduct a hearing and issue a finding of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter. A person with standing to challenge the legislation enacted in response to the ((~~board's~~)) court's final order may participate in the hearing along with the petitioner and the state agency, city, or county. A ((~~hearing under this subsection shall be given the highest priority of business to be conducted by the board, and a~~)) finding shall be issued within forty-five days of the filing of the motion under subsection (1) of this section with the ((~~board~~)) court.

(3) If the ((~~board~~)) court finds that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance, the ((~~board~~)) court shall transmit its finding to the governor. The ((~~board~~)) court may recommend to the governor that the sanctions authorized by this chapter be imposed.

(4) The ((~~board~~)) court shall also reconsider its final order and decide:

(a) If a determination of invalidity has been made, whether such a determination should be rescinded or modified under the standards in RCW 36.70A.300(2); or

(b) If no determination of invalidity has been made, whether one now should be made under the standards in RCW 36.70A.300(2).

The ((~~board~~)) court shall schedule additional hearings as appropriate pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section.

Sec. 14. RCW 36.70A.340 and 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 26 are each amended to read as follows:

Upon receipt from the ((~~board~~)) superior court of a finding that a state agency, county, or city is in noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.330, or as a result of failure to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.210, the governor may either:

(1) Notify and direct the director of the office of financial management to revise allotments in appropriation levels;

(2) Notify and direct the state treasurer to withhold the portion of revenues to which the county or city is entitled under one or more of the following: The motor vehicle fuel tax, as provided in chapter 82.36 RCW; the transportation improvement account, as provided in RCW 47.26.084; the urban arterial trust account, as provided in RCW 47.26.080; the rural arterial trust account, as provided in RCW 36.79.150; the sales and use tax, as provided in chapter 82.14 RCW; the liquor profit tax, as provided in RCW 66.08.190; and the liquor excise tax, as provided in RCW 82.08.170; or

(3) File a notice of noncompliance with the secretary of state and the county or city, which shall temporarily rescind the county or city's authority to collect the real estate excise tax under RCW 82.46.030 until the governor files a notice rescinding the notice of noncompliance.

Sec. 15. RCW 36.70A.345 and 1994 c 249 s 33 are each amended to read as follows:

The governor may impose a sanction or sanctions specified under RCW 36.70A.340 on: (1) A county or city that fails to designate critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, or mineral resource lands under RCW 36.70A.170 by the date such action was required to have been taken; (2) a county or city that fails to adopt development regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 protecting critical areas or conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, or mineral resource lands by the date such action was required to have been taken; (3) a county that fails to designate urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110 by the date such action was required to have been taken; and (4) a county or city that fails to adopt its comprehensive plan or development regulations when such actions are required to be taken.

Imposition of a sanction or sanctions under this section shall be preceded by written findings by the governor, that either the county or city is not proceeding in good faith to meet the requirements of the act; or that the county or city has unreasonably delayed taking the required action. The governor shall consult with and communicate his or her findings to the appropriate ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court prior to imposing the sanction or sanctions. For those counties or cities that are not required to plan or have not opted in, the governor in imposing sanctions shall consider the size of the jurisdiction relative to the requirements of this chapter and the degree of technical and financial assistance provided.

Sec. 16. RCW 36.70C.030 and 1995 c 347 s 704 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) This chapter replaces the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions and shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, except that this chapter does not apply to:

(a) Judicial review of:

(i) Land use decisions made by bodies that are not part of a local jurisdiction;

(ii) Land use decisions of a local jurisdiction that are subject to review by a quasi‑judicial body created by state law, such as the shorelines hearings board ((~~or the growth management hearings board~~));

(b) Judicial review of applications for a writ of mandamus or prohibition; or

(c) Claims provided by any law for monetary damages or compensation. If one or more claims for damages or compensation are set forth in the same complaint with a land use petition brought under this chapter, the claims are not subject to the procedures and standards, including deadlines, provided in this chapter for review of the petition. The judge who hears the land use petition may, if appropriate, preside at a trial for damages or compensation.

(2) The superior court civil rules govern procedural matters under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter.

Sec. 17. RCW 90.58.190 and 1995 c 347 s 311 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(4) is governed by RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598.

(2)(a) The department's decision to approve, reject, or modify a proposed master program or amendment adopted by a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court with jurisdiction over the local government. The appeal shall be initiated by filing a petition as provided in RCW ((~~36.70A.250~~)) 36.70A.280 through 36.70A.320.

(b) If the appeal to the ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court concerns shorelines, the ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) court shall review the proposed master program or amendment for compliance with the requirements of this chapter and chapter 36.70A RCW, 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 chapter 90.58 RCW.

(c) If the appeal to the ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court concerns a shoreline of state-wide significance, the ((~~board~~)) court shall uphold the decision by the department unless the ((~~board~~)) court, by clear and convincing evidence, determines that the decision of the department is inconsistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.

(d) The appellant has the burden of proof in all appeals to the ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court under this subsection.

((~~(e) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of a 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 decision to approve, reject, or modify 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 of the department’s written notice to the local government of the department’s decision to approve, reject, or modify a proposed master program or master program amendment as provided in RCW 90.58.090(2).

(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, 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.

(c) In an appeal relating to shorelines of state-wide 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 with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.

(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 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 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 shorelines hearings board to uphold the master program or master program amendment, provided that the board may remand the master program or master program adjustment to the local government or the department for modification prior to the final adoption of the master program or master program amendment.

Sec. 18. RCW 90.61.040 and 1995 c 347 s 804 are each amended to read as follows:

The commission shall:

(1) Consider the effectiveness of state and local government efforts to consolidate and integrate the growth management act, the state environmental policy act, the shoreline management act, and other land use, planning, environmental, and permitting laws.

(2) Identify the revisions and modifications needed in state land use, planning, and environmental law and practice to adequately plan for growth and achieve economically and environmentally sustainable development, to adequately assess environmental impacts of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and growth, and to reduce the time and cost of obtaining project permits.

(3) Draft a consolidated land use procedure, following these guidelines:

(a) Conduct land use planning through the comprehensive planning process under chapter 36.70A RCW rather than through review of individual projects;

(b) Involve diverse sectors of the public in the planning process. Early and informal environmental analysis should be incorporated into planning and decision making;

(c) Recognize that different questions need to be answered and different levels of detail applied at each planning phase, from the initial development of plan concepts or plan elements to implementation programs;

(d) Integrate and combine to the fullest extent possible the processes, analysis, and documents currently required under chapters 36.70A and 43.21C RCW, so that subsequent plan decisions and subsequent implementation will incorporate measures to promote the environmental, economic, and other goals and to mitigate undesirable or unintended adverse impacts on a community's quality of life;

(e) Focus environmental review and the level of detail needed for different stages of plan and project decisions on the environmental considerations most relevant to that stage of the process;

(f) Avoid duplicating review that has occurred for plan decisions when specific projects are proposed;

(g) Use environmental review on projects to: (i) Review and document consistency with comprehensive plans and development regulations; (ii) provide prompt and coordinated review by agencies, tribes, and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for site specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level; and (iii) ensure accountability by local government to applicants and the public for requiring and implementing mitigation measures;

(h) Maintain or improve the quality of environmental analysis both for plan and for project decisions, while integrating these analyses with improved state and local planning and permitting processes;

(i) Examine existing land use and environmental permits for necessity and utility. To the extent possible, existing permits should be combined into fewer permits, assuring that the values and principles intended to be protected by those permits remain protected; and

(j) Consolidate local government appeal processes to allow a single appeal of permits at local government levels, a single state level administrative appeal, and a final judicial appeal.

(4) Monitor instances state-wide of the vesting of project permit applications during the period that an appeal is pending before a ((~~growth management hearings board~~)) superior court, as authorized under RCW 36.70A.300. The commission shall also review the extent to which such vesting results in the approval of projects that are inconsistent with a comprehensive plan or development regulation provision ultimately found to be in compliance with a ((~~board's~~)) court's order or remand. The commission shall analyze the impact of such approvals on ensuring the attainment of the goals and policies of chapter 36.70A RCW, and make recommendations to the governor and the legislature on statutory changes to address any adverse impacts from the provisions of RCW 36.70A.300. The commission shall provide an initial report on its findings and recommendations by November 1, 1995, and submit its further findings and recommendations subsequently in the reports required under RCW 90.61.030.

(5) Monitor local government consolidated permit procedures and the effectiveness of the timelines established by RCW 36.70B.090. The commission shall include in its report submitted to the governor and the legislature on November 1, 1997, its recommendation about what timelines, if any, should be imposed on the local government consolidated permit process required by chapter 36.70B RCW.

(6) Evaluate funding mechanisms that will enable local governments to pay for and recover the costs of conducting integrated planning and environmental analysis. The commission shall include its conclusions in its first report to the legislature on November 1, 1995, and include any recommended statutory changes.

(7) Study, in cooperation with the state board for registration of professional engineers and the state building code council, ways in which state agencies and local governments could authorize professionals with appropriate qualifications to certify a project's compliance with certain state and local land use and environmental requirements. The commission shall report to the legislature on measures necessary to implement such a system of professional certification.

These guidelines are intended to guide the work of the commission, without limiting its charge to integrate and consolidate Washington's land use and environmental laws into a single, manageable statutory framework.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. Section 18 of this act shall expire June 30, 1998.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

(1) RCW 36.70A.250 and 1994 c 249 s 29 & 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 5;

(2) RCW 36.70A.260 and 1994 c 249 s 30 & 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 6; and

(3) RCW 36.70A.270 and 1994 c 257 s 1 & 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 7.