S-4755

AN ACT Relating to integration of land-use related laws; amending RCW 90.58.090, 90.58.100, 90.58.140, 90.58.143, 90.58.180, and 90.58.190; adding a new section to chapter 90.58 RCW; creating new sections; and repealing RCW 90.58.185 and 90.58.360.

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

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature recognizes by this act that the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW, is the fundamental building block of land-use related regulatory reform. The state and local governments have invested considerable resources in the growth management act which, together with chapters 36.70B and 36.70C RCW, should serve as the integrating framework for all other land-use related laws.

(2) The legislature recognizes by this act that some of the regulatory requirements and procedures of the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW, overlap with and are duplicated by, or are inconsistent with, critical area regulations now required by the growth management act. It is the intent of the legislature to eliminate this procedural and jurisdictional overlap, duplication, and inconsistency.

(3) The legislature further recognizes that integration of the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW, with the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW, does not alter or diminish the fundamental principles of shoreline management relating to water-dependent and water-related uses, harbor and port area planning, and the other policies and findings set forth in RCW 90.58.020. This includes the continued use of planning elements for economic development, public access, recreation, circulation, use, conservation, flood damage prevention, and the preservation of historic, cultural, scientific, and educational values.

Sec. 2. RCW 90.58.090 and 1997 c 429 s 50 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The procedures for the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs by local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be governed by the requirements for the adoption or amendment of comprehensive plans and development regulations pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW. For local governments not planning under RCW 36.70A.040, a master program, segment of a master program, or an amendment to a master program shall become effective when approved by the department. Within the time period provided in RCW 90.58.080, each local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall have submitted a master program, either totally or by segments, for all shorelines of the state within its jurisdiction to the department for review and approval.

(2) Upon receipt of a proposed master program or amendment from a local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040, the department shall:

(a) Provide notice to and opportunity for written comment by all interested parties of record as a part of the local government review process for the proposal and to all persons, groups, and agencies that have requested in writing notice of proposed master programs or amendments generally or for a specific area, subject matter, or issue. The comment period shall be at least thirty days, unless the department determines that the level of complexity or controversy involved supports a shorter period;

(b) In the department's discretion, conduct a public hearing during the thirty-day comment period in the jurisdiction proposing the master program or amendment;

(c) Within fifteen days after the close of public comment, request the local government to review the issues identified by the public, interested parties, groups, and agencies and provide a written response as to how the proposal addresses the identified issues;

(d) Within thirty days after receipt of the local government response pursuant to (c) of this subsection, make written findings and conclusions regarding the consistency of the proposal with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, provide a response to the issues identified in (c) of this subsection, and either approve the proposal as submitted, recommend specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable, or deny approval of the proposal in those instances where no alteration of the proposal appears likely to be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. The written findings and conclusions shall be provided to the local government, all interested persons, parties, groups, and agencies of record on the proposal;

(e) If the department recommends changes to the proposed master program or amendment, within thirty days after the department mails the written findings and conclusions to the local government, the local government may:

(i) Agree to the proposed changes. The receipt by the department of the written notice of agreement constitutes final action by the department approving the amendment; or

(ii) Submit an alternative proposal. If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by the department and with this chapter it shall approve the changes and provide written notice to all recipients of the written findings and conclusions. If the department determines the proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may resubmit the proposal for public and agency review pursuant to this section or reject the proposal.

(3) The department shall approve the segment of a master program submitted by a local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 relating to shorelines unless it determines that the submitted segments are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.

(4) The department shall approve those segments of the master program submitted by a local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 relating to shorelines of state-wide significance only after determining the program provides the optimum implementation of the policy of this chapter to satisfy the state-wide interest. If the department does not approve a segment of a local government master program relating to a shoreline of state-wide significance, the department may develop and by rule adopt an alternative to the local government’s proposal.

(5) In the event a local government has not complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.070 it may thereafter upon written notice to the department elect to adopt a master program for the shorelines within its jurisdiction, in which event it shall comply with the provisions established by this chapter for the adoption of a master program for such shorelines.

((~~Upon approval of such master program by the department it shall supersede such master program as may have been adopted by the department for such shorelines.~~))

(6) For local governments not planning under RCW 36.70A.040, a master program or amendment to a master program takes effect when and in such form as approved or adopted by the department.

(7) Shoreline master programs that were adopted by the department prior to July 22, 1995, in accordance with the provisions of this section then in effect, shall be deemed approved by the department in accordance with the provisions of this section that became effective on that date. The department shall maintain a record of each master program, the action taken on any proposal for adoption or amendment of the master program, and any appeal of the department's action. The department's approved document of record constitutes the official master program.

Sec. 3. RCW 90.58.100 and 1997 c 369 s 7 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved ((~~by the department~~)) as required by this chapter 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 adopted by local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be incorporated into the comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW and shall be consistent with the policies of this chapter and chapter 36.70A RCW. Local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may include their shoreline master programs as separate elements of their comprehensive plans, and include the appropriate elements required by subsection (3) of this section, or may integrate their shoreline plan policies into the elements of their comprehensive plans required by RCW 36.70A.070.

(3) The master programs adopted by local governments not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include, when appropriate, the following:

(a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, industrial projects of state-wide 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 state-wide 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)~~)) (4) 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)~~)) (5) 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)~~)) (6) Local governments shall include their procedures for the permit required by RCW 90.58.140(2) in their development regulations required by chapter 36.70B RCW. 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)~~)) (7) 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.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

Development regulations and standards, adopted in compliance with chapter 36.70A RCW, regulating critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), shall apply to critical areas within shorelines of the state. Local governments with critical areas regulations adopted in compliance with chapter 36.70A RCW shall not apply or impose different or additional regulations or standards under this chapter to the same development activity. Nothing in this section is intended to limit a local government's authority to adopt regulations under this chapter to regulate the type of land use permitted within critical areas or the level of development, including but not limited to density and height limits.

Sec. 5. RCW 90.58.140 and 1995 c 347 s 309 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) A development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of this chapter and, after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable ((~~guidelines, rules, or~~)) master program.

(2) A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this chapter.

A permit shall be granted((:

(a) From June 1, 1971, until such time as an applicable master program has become effective, only when the development proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of RCW 90.58.020; and (ii) after their adoption, the guidelines and rules of the department; and (iii) so far as can be ascertained, the master program being developed for the area;

~~(b) After adoption or approval, as appropriate, by the department of an applicable master program,~~)) only when the development proposed is consistent with the applicable master program and this chapter.

(3) The local government shall ((~~establish a program, consistent with rules adopted by the department, for the administration and enforcement of the permit system provided in this section~~)) include the permit required by subsection (2) of this section in the permit system established pursuant to the requirements of chapter 36.70B RCW. The administration of the system so established shall be performed exclusively by the local government.

(4) Except as otherwise specifically provided in subsection (10) of this section, local governments planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include in their permit systems required by subsection (3) of this section a requirement for a notice of application and an opportunity for public comment, as provided in RCW 36.70B.110, for all permits required by subsection (2) of this section.

(5) Except as otherwise specifically provided in subsection ((~~(11)~~)) (10) of this section, ((~~the~~)) local governments not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall require notification of the public of all applications for permits governed by any permit system established pursuant to subsection (3) of this section by ensuring that notice of the application is given by at least one of the following methods:

(a) Mailing of the notice to the latest recorded real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least three hundred feet of the boundary of the property upon which the substantial development is proposed;

(b) Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner on the property upon which the project is to be constructed; or

(c) Any other manner deemed appropriate by local authorities to accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to adjacent landowners and the public.

The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments concerning an application, or desiring to receive notification of the final decision concerning an application as expeditiously as possible after the issuance of the decision, may submit the comments or requests for decisions to the local government within thirty days of the last date the notice is to be published pursuant to this subsection. The local government shall forward, in a timely manner following the issuance of a decision, a copy of the decision to each person who submits a request for the decision.

If a hearing is to be held on an application, notices of such a hearing shall include a statement that any person may submit oral or written comments on an application at the hearing.

((~~(5)~~)) (6) The system shall include provisions to assure that construction within shorelines of the state pursuant to a permit required by subsection (2) of this section will not begin or be authorized until ((twenty-one days from the date the permit decision was filed as provided in subsection (6) of this section; or until all review proceedings are terminated if the proceedings were initiated within twenty-one days from the date of filing as defined in subsection (6) of this section except as follows:

(a) In the case of any permit issued to the state of Washington, department of transportation, for the construction and modification of SR 90 (I-90) on or adjacent to Lake Washington, the construction may begin after thirty days from the date of filing, and the permits are valid until December 31, 1995;

(b) Construction may be commenced no sooner than thirty days after the date of the appeal of the board's decision is filed if a permit is granted by the local government and (i) the granting of the permit is appealed to the shorelines hearings board within twenty-one days of the date of filing, (ii) the hearings board approves the granting of the permit by the local government or approves a portion of the substantial development for which the local government issued the permit, and (iii) an appeal for judicial review of the hearings board decision is filed pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW. The appellant may request, within ten days of the filing of the appeal with the court, a hearing before the court to determine whether construction pursuant to the permit approved by the hearings board or to a revised permit issued pursuant to the order of the hearings board should not commence. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the court finds that construction pursuant to such a permit would involve a significant, irreversible damaging of the environment, the court shall prohibit the permittee from commencing the construction pursuant to the approved or revised permit until all review proceedings are final. Construction pursuant to a permit revised at the direction of the hearings board may begin only on that portion of the substantial development for which the local government had originally issued the permit, and construction pursuant to such a revised permit on other portions of the substantial development may not begin until after all review proceedings are terminated. In such a hearing before the court, the burden of proving whether the construction may involve significant irreversible damage to the environment and demonstrating whether such construction would or would not be appropriate is on the appellant;

(c) If the permit is for a substantial development meeting the requirements of subsection (11) of this section, construction pursuant to that permit may not begin or be authorized until twenty-one days from the date the permit decision was filed as provided in subsection (6) of this section)) the time limit for filing an appeal pursuant to chapter 36.70C RCW has expired.

If a permittee begins construction pursuant to ((~~subsections (a), (b), or (c) of~~)) this subsection, the construction is begun at the permittee's own risk. If, as a result of judicial review, the courts order the removal of any portion of the construction or the restoration of any portion of the environment involved or require the alteration of any portion of a substantial development constructed pursuant to a permit, the permittee is barred from recovering damages or costs involved in adhering to such requirements from the local government that granted the permit, the hearings board, or any appellant or intervener.

(((6) Any decision on an application for a permit under the authority of this section, whether it is an approval or a denial, shall, concurrently with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed with the department and the attorney general. With regard to a permit other than a permit governed by subsection (10) of this section, "date of filing" as used herein means the date of actual receipt by the department. With regard to a permit for a variance or a conditional use, "date of filing" means the date a decision of the department rendered on the permit pursuant to subsection (10) of this section is transmitted by the department to the local government. The department shall notify in writing the local government and the applicant of the date of filing.))

(7) Applicants for permits under this section have the burden of proving that a proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria that must be met before a permit is granted. In any review of the granting or denial of an application for a permit as provided in RCW 90.58.180(1) ((~~and (2)~~)), the person requesting the review has the burden of proof.

(8) Any permit may, after a hearing with adequate notice to the permittee and the public, be rescinded by the issuing authority upon the finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of a permit. If the department is of the opinion that noncompliance exists, the department shall provide written notice to the local government and the permittee. If the department is of the opinion that the noncompliance continues to exist thirty days after the date of the notice, and the local government has taken no action to rescind the permit, the department may petition the hearings board for a rescission of the permit upon written notice of the petition to the local government and the permittee if the request by the department is made to the hearings board within fifteen days of the termination of the thirty-day notice to the local government.

(9) The holder of a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW shall not be required to obtain a permit under this section.

(10) ((~~Any permit for a variance or a conditional use by local government under approved master programs must be submitted to the department for its approval or disapproval.~~

~~(11)~~)) (a) An application for a substantial development permit for a limited utility extension or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be subject to the following procedures:

(i) The public comment period under subsection ((~~(4)~~)) (5) of this section shall be twenty days. The notice provided under subsection ((~~(4)~~)) (5) of this section shall state the manner in which the public may obtain a copy of the local government decision on the application no later than two days following its issuance;

(ii) The local government shall issue its decision to grant or deny the permit within twenty-one days of the last day of the comment period specified in (i) of this subsection; and

(iii) If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the local government legislative authority, the appeal shall be finally determined by the legislative authority within thirty days.

(b) For purposes of this section, a limited utility extension means the extension of a utility service that:

(i) Is categorically exempt under chapter 43.21C RCW for one or more of the following: Natural gas, electricity, telephone, water, or sewer;

(ii) Will serve an existing use in compliance with this chapter; and

(iii) Will not extend more than twenty-five hundred linear feet within the shorelines of the state.

Sec. 6. RCW 90.58.143 and 1997 c 429 s 51 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The time requirements of this section shall apply to all ((~~substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized under this chapter~~)) permits required by RCW 90.58.140(2). Upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of the master program and this chapter, local government may adopt different time limits from those set forth in subsections (2) and (3) of this section as a part of action on a substantial development permit required by RCW 90.58.140(2).

(2) Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a ((~~substantial development~~)) permit required by RCW 90.58.140(2). However, local government may authorize ((~~a single~~)) extensions ((~~for a period not to exceed one year~~)) based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the department.

(3) Authorization to conduct construction activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a ((~~substantial development~~)) permit required by RCW 90.58.140(2). However, local government may authorize ((~~a single~~)) extensions ((~~for a period not to exceed one year~~)) based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the department.

(4) The effective date of a ((~~substantial development~~)) permit required by RCW 90.58.140(2) shall be the date ((~~of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6)~~)) the permit decision is issued as provided in RCW 36.70C.040(4). The permit time periods in subsections (2) and (3) of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals.

Sec. 7. RCW 90.58.180 and 1997 c 199 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may seek judicial review ((~~from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).~~

Within seven days of the filing of any petition for review with the board as provided in this section pertaining to a final decision of a local government, the petitioner shall serve copies of the petition on the department, the office of the attorney general, and the local government. The department and the attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest and insure that the provisions of this chapter are complied with at any time within fifteen days from the date of the receipt by the department or the attorney general of a copy of the petition for review filed pursuant to this section. The shorelines hearings board shall schedule review proceedings on the petition for review without regard as to whether the period for the department or the attorney general to intervene has or has not expired.

(2) The department or the attorney general may obtain review of any final decision granting a permit, or granting or denying an application for a permit issued by a local government by filing a written petition with the shorelines hearings board and the appropriate local government within twenty-one days from the date the final decision was filed as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6).

(3) The review proceedings authorized in subsections (1) and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW pertaining to procedures in adjudicative proceedings. Judicial review of such proceedings of the shorelines hearings board is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW. The board shall issue its decision on the appeal authorized under subsections (1) and (2) of this section within one hundred eighty days after the date the petition is filed with the board or a petition to intervene is filed by the department or the attorney general, whichever is later. The time period may be extended by the board for a period of thirty days upon a showing of good cause or may be waived by the parties)) of the decision by the local government, pursuant to chapter 36.70C RCW.

((~~(4)~~)) (2) Any person may appeal any rules, regulations, or guidelines adopted or approved by the department by filing a petition for review with the shorelines hearings board within thirty days of the date of the adoption or approval. The board shall make a final decision within sixty days following the hearing held thereon.

((~~(5)~~)) (3) The board shall find the rule, regulation, or guideline to be valid and enter a final decision to that effect unless it determines that the rule, regulation, or guideline:

(a) Is clearly erroneous in light of the policy of this chapter; or

(b) Constitutes an implementation of this chapter in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or

(d) Was developed without fully considering and evaluating all material submitted to the department during public review and comment; or

(e) Was not adopted in accordance with required procedures.

((~~(6)~~)) (4) If the board makes a determination under subsection ((~~(5)~~)) (3)(a) through (e) of this section, it shall enter a final decision declaring the rule, regulation, or guideline invalid, remanding the rule, regulation, or guideline to the department with a statement of the reasons in support of the determination, and directing the department to adopt, after a thorough consultation with the affected local government and any other interested party, a new rule, regulation, or guideline consistent with the board's decision.

((~~(7)~~)) (5) A decision of the board on the validity of a rule, regulation, or guideline shall be subject to review in superior court, if authorized pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW. A petition for review of the decision of the shorelines hearings board on a rule, regulation, or guideline shall be filed within thirty days after the date of final decision by the shorelines hearings board.

Sec. 8. 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 court conducting judicial review pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may allow the department to seek hearing board review of a decision by a local government granting, denying, or rescinding a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 under the following circumstances:

(i) The substantial development for which the permit is issued will occur in an area designated a shoreline of state-wide significance;

(ii) The department demonstrates that the permit decision raises issues common to substantial development in multiple local jurisdictions; and

(iii) The department demonstrates a substantial state interest associated with the decision of local government to grant, deny, or rescind a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140.

(b) Hearing board review shall be completed based on the written record generated by local government prior to their decision to grant, deny, or rescind a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140. The hearing board shall not allow the written record generated by local government to be supplemented in any way. The hearing board shall conduct a hearing to determine solely if the local government decision to grant, deny, or rescind the permit is in compliance with the plan, or plan element, adopted by the local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.080. The hearing board shall conduct a hearing and render a written decision within thirty days of the date the court submits the issue to the hearing board for review.

(c) The superior court judge originally reviewing the decision by local government to grant, deny, or rescind a permit on shorelines of the state issued pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 shall retain jurisdiction over the matter. The judge shall consider the decision rendered by the hearing board to be advisory and shall issue a final decision pursuant to the timelines and standards established in chapter 36.70C RCW.

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

(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 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 concerns a shoreline of state-wide 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 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 under this subsection.

((~~(e)~~)) (d) 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)~~)) (4)(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)~~)) (5) A master program ((~~amendment~~)) adopted or amended by a local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall become effective after the approval of the department or, if not approved by the department, 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~~)) amendment to the local government ((~~or the department~~)) for modification prior to the final adoption of the master program or master program amendment.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

(1) RCW 90.58.185 and 1994 c 253 s 2; and

(2) RCW 90.58.360 and 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 36.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. The provisions of this act shall apply to shoreline master programs and amendments thereto adopted by local governments after the effective date of this act and to shoreline permit applications filed with local governments after July 1, 1999.