BILL REQ. #: H-4287.2
State of Washington | 61st Legislature | 2010 Regular Session |
Read first time 01/18/10. Referred to Committee on Local Government & Housing.
AN ACT Relating to timelines for the review of comprehensive plans and shoreline master programs; and amending RCW 36.70A.130 and 90.58.080.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1 RCW 36.70A.130 and 2009 c 479 s 23 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1)(a) Each comprehensive land use plan and development regulations
shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county or
city that adopted them. Except as otherwise provided, a county or city
shall take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its
comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure the
plan and regulations comply with the requirements of this chapter
according to the time periods specified in subsection (4) of this
section.
(b) Except as otherwise provided, a county or city not planning
under RCW 36.70A.040 shall take action to review and, if needed, revise
its policies and development regulations regarding critical areas and
natural resource lands adopted according to this chapter to ensure
these policies and regulations comply with the requirements of this
chapter according to the time periods specified in subsection (4) of
this section. Legislative action means the adoption of a resolution or
ordinance following notice and a public hearing indicating at a
minimum, a finding that a review and evaluation has occurred and
identifying the revisions made, or that a revision was not needed and
the reasons therefor.
(c) The review and evaluation required by this subsection may be
combined with the review required by subsection (3) of this section.
The review and evaluation required by this subsection shall include,
but is not limited to, consideration of critical area ordinances and,
if planning under RCW 36.70A.040, an analysis of the population
allocated to a city or county from the most recent ten-year population
forecast by the office of financial management.
(d) Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan
shall conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision 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 consistent with RCW
36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies procedures and schedules
whereby updates, 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. "Updates" means to review and revise,
if needed, according to subsection (1) of this section, and the time
periods specified in subsection (4) of this section or in accordance
with the provisions of subsection((s)) (5) ((and (8))) of this section.
Amendments may be considered more frequently than once per year under
the following circumstances:
(i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not modify the
comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea;
(ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under
the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW;
(iii) The amendment of the capital facilities element of a
comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or
amendment of a county or city budget; and
(iv) ((Until June 30, 2006, the designation of recreational lands
under RCW 36.70A.1701. A county amending its comprehensive plan
pursuant to this subsection (2)(a)(iv) may not do so more frequently
than every eighteen months; and)) The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments necessary to
enact a planned action under RCW 43.21C.031(2), provided that
amendments are considered in accordance with the public participation
program established by the county or city under this subsection (2)(a)
and all persons who have requested notice of a comprehensive plan
update are given notice of the amendments and an opportunity to
comment.
(v)
(b) Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, 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)(a) Each county that designates urban growth areas under RCW
36.70A.110 shall review, ((at least every ten years)) as part of the
review required by subsection (4) of this section, 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, as part of the review required by subsection (4) of
this section, 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.
(b) 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.
The review required by this subsection may be combined with the review
and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215.
(4) ((The department shall establish a schedule for)) Except as
provided in subsection (5) of this section, counties and cities ((to))
shall take action to review and, if needed, revise their comprehensive
plans and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations
comply with the requirements of this chapter((. Except as provided in
subsections (5) and (8) of this section, the schedule established by
the department shall provide for the reviews and evaluations to be
completed)) as follows:
(a) On or before December 1, ((2004)) 2014, and every ((seven)) ten
years thereafter, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce,
Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those
counties;
(b) On or before December 1, ((2005)) 2016, and every ((seven)) ten
years thereafter, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit,
and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties;
(c) On or before December 1, ((2006)) 2018, and every ((seven)) ten
years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas,
Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and
(d) On or before December 1, ((2007)) 2020, and every ((seven)) ten
years thereafter, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin,
Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend
Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the
cities within those counties.
(5)(a) Nothing in this section precludes a county or city from
conducting the review and evaluation required by this section before
the time limits established in subsection (4) of this section.
Counties and cities may begin this process early and may be eligible
for grants from the department, subject to available funding, if they
elect to do so.
(b) A county that is subject to a schedule established by ((the
department under)) subsection (4)(b) through (d) of this section and
meets the following criteria may comply with the requirements of this
section at any time within the thirty-six months following the date
established in the applicable schedule: The county has a population of
less than fifty thousand and has had its population increase by no more
than seventeen percent in the ten years preceding the date established
in the applicable schedule as of that date.
(c) A city that is subject to a schedule established by ((the
department under)) subsection (4)(b) through (d) of this section and
meets the following criteria may comply with the requirements of this
section at any time within the thirty-six months following the date
established in the applicable schedule: The city has a population of
no more than five thousand and has had its population increase by the
greater of either no more than one hundred persons or no more than
seventeen percent in the ten years preceding the date established in
the applicable schedule as of that date.
(d) State agencies are encouraged to provide technical assistance
to the counties and cities in the review of critical area ordinances,
comprehensive plans, and development regulations.
(6) ((A county or city subject to the time periods in subsection
(4)(a) of this section that, pursuant to an ordinance adopted by the
county or city establishing a schedule for periodic review of its
comprehensive plan and development regulations, has conducted a review
and evaluation of its comprehensive plan and development regulations
and, on or after January 1, 2001, has taken action in response to that
review and evaluation shall be deemed to have conducted the first
review required by subsection (4)(a) of this section. Subsequent
review and evaluation by the county or city of its comprehensive plan
and development regulations shall be conducted in accordance with the
time periods established under subsection (4)(a) of this section.)) (a) The requirements imposed on counties and cities under
this section shall be considered "requirements of this chapter" under
the terms of RCW 36.70A.040(1). Only those counties and cities that
meet the following criteria may receive grants, loans, pledges, or
financial guarantees under chapter 43.155 or 70.146 RCW:
(7)
(((a))) (i) Complying with the schedules in this section;
(((b))) (ii) Demonstrating substantial progress towards compliance
with the schedules in this section for development regulations that
protect critical areas; or
(((c))) (iii) Complying with the extension provisions of subsection
(5)(b) or (c) of this section ((may receive grants, loans, pledges, or
financial guarantees under chapter 43.155 or 70.146 RCW)).
(b) A county or city that is fewer than twelve months out of
compliance with the schedules in this section for development
regulations that protect critical areas is making substantial progress
towards compliance. Only those counties and cities in compliance with
the schedules in this section may receive preference for grants or
loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250.
(((8) Except as provided in subsection (5)(b) and (c) of this
section:)) (7) Notwithstanding ((
(a) Counties and cities required to satisfy the requirements of
this section according to the schedule established by subsection (4)(b)
through (d) of this section may comply with the requirements of this
section for development regulations that protect critical areas one
year after the dates established in subsection (4)(b) through (d) of
this section;
(b) Counties and cities complying with the requirements of this
section one year after the dates established in subsection (4)(b)
through (d) of this section for development regulations that protect
critical areas shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of
this section; and
(c) This subsection (8) applies only to the counties and cities
specified in subsection (4)(b) through (d) of this section, and only to
the requirements of this section for development regulations that
protect critical areas that must be satisfied by December 1, 2005,
December 1, 2006, and December 1, 2007.
(9)subsection (8) of this section and))
the substantial progress provisions of subsection((s (7) and (10))) (6)
of this section, only those counties and cities complying with the
schedule in subsection (4) of this section, or the extension provisions
of subsection (5)(b) or (c) of this section, may receive preferences
for grants, loans, pledges, or financial guarantees under chapter
43.155 or 70.146 RCW.
(((10) Until December 1, 2005, and notwithstanding subsection (7)
of this section, a county or city subject to the time periods in
subsection (4)(a) of this section demonstrating substantial progress
towards compliance with the schedules in this section for its
comprehensive land use plan and development regulations may receive
grants, loans, pledges, or financial guarantees under chapter 43.155 or
70.146 RCW. A county or city that is fewer than twelve months out of
compliance with the schedules in this section for its comprehensive
land use plan and development regulations is deemed to be making
substantial progress towards compliance.))
Sec. 2 RCW 90.58.080 and 2007 c 170 s 1 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for
regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the
required elements of the guidelines adopted by the department in
accordance with the schedule established by this section.
(2)(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this
section, each local government subject to this chapter shall develop or
amend its master program for the regulation of uses of shorelines
within its jurisdiction according to the following schedule:
(i) On or before December 1, 2005, for the city of Port Townsend,
the city of Bellingham, the city of Everett, Snohomish county, and
Whatcom county;
(ii) On or before December 1, 2009, for King county and the cities
within King county greater in population than ten thousand;
(iii) Except as provided by (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, on
or before December 1, 2011, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King,
Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the
cities within those counties;
(iv) On or before December 1, 2012, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis,
Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within
those counties;
(v) On or before December 1, 2013, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas,
Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within
those counties; and
(vi) On or before December 1, 2014, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia,
Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan,
Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman
counties and the cities within those counties.
(b) Nothing in this subsection (2) shall preclude a local
government from developing or amending its master program prior to the
dates established by this subsection (2).
(3)(((a) Following approval by the department of a new or amended
master program, local governments required to develop or amend master
programs on or before December 1, 2009, as provided by subsection
(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be deemed to have complied
with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of this section
and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until
seven years after the applicable dates established by subsection
(2)(a)(iii) of this section. Any jurisdiction listed in subsection
(2)(a)(i) of this section that has a new or amended master program
approved by the department on or after March 1, 2002, but before July
27, 2003, shall not be required to complete master program amendments
until seven years after the applicable date provided by subsection
(2)(a)(iii) of this section.)) Following the
initial adoption of updated shoreline master programs as provided in
subsection (2) of this section, counties and cities shall take action
to review and, if needed, revise their shoreline master programs as
follows:
(b) Following approval by the department of a new or amended master
program, local governments choosing to develop or amend master programs
on or before December 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have complied with
the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this
section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments
until seven years after the applicable dates established by subsection
(2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section.
(4) Local governments shall conduct a review of their master
programs at least once every seven years after the applicable dates
established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section.
Following the review required by this subsection (4), local governments
shall, if necessary, revise their master programs.
(a) On or before December 1, 2021, and every ten years thereafter,
for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish,
Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;
(b) On or before December 1, 2023, and every ten years thereafter,
for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania
counties and the cities within those counties;
(c) On or before December 1, 2025, and every ten years thereafter,
for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima
counties and the cities within those counties; and
(d) On or before December 1, 2027, and every ten years thereafter,
for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor,
Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens,
Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within
those counties.
(4) The purpose of the review required by subsection (3) of this
section is:
(a) To assure that the master program complies with applicable law
and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
(b) To assure consistency of the master program with the local
government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
(5) Local governments are encouraged to begin the process of
developing or amending their master programs early and are eligible for
grants from the department as provided by RCW 90.58.250, subject to
available funding. Except for those local governments listed in
subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the deadline for
completion of the new or amended master programs shall be two years
after the date the grant is approved by the department. Subsequent
master program review dates shall not be altered by the provisions of
this subsection.
(6)(a) Grants to local governments for developing and amending
master programs pursuant to the schedule established by this section
shall be provided at least two years before the adoption dates
specified in subsection (2) of this section. To the extent possible,
the department shall allocate grants within the amount appropriated for
such purposes to provide reasonable and adequate funding to local
governments that have indicated their intent to develop or amend master
programs during the biennium according to the schedule established by
subsection (2) of this section. Any local government that applies for
but does not receive funding to comply with the provisions of
subsection (2) of this section may delay the development or amendment
of its master program until the following biennium.
(b) Local governments with delayed compliance dates as provided in
(a) of this subsection shall be the first priority for funding in
subsequent biennia, and the development or amendment compliance
deadline for those local governments shall be two years after the date
of grant approval.
(c) Failure of the local government to apply in a timely manner for
a master program development or amendment grant in accordance with the
requirements of the department shall not be considered a delay
resulting from the provisions of (a) of this subsection.
(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, all local
governments subject to the requirements of this chapter that have not
developed or amended master programs on or after March 1, 2002, shall,
no later than December 1, 2014, develop or amend their master programs
to comply with guidelines adopted by the department after January 1,
2003.
(8) Local governments may be provided an additional year beyond the
deadlines in this section to complete their master program or
amendment. The department shall grant the request if it determines
that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master
program within the additional year.