S-2884

AN ACT Relating to shoreline master programs and growth management comprehensive plans and development regulations; amending RCW 36.70A.130, 90.58.060, 90.58.080, 90.58.090, 36.70A.035, 36.70A.140, 90.58.250, 36.70A.290, 36.70A.300, and 36.70A.215; adding new sections to chapter 90.58 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 36.70A RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35.63 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35A.63 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 36.70 RCW; creating new sections; making appropriations; providing an expiration date; and declaring an emergency.

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

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature recognizes that there are numerous regulations requiring local governments to protect the environment, and salmon in particular. The growth management act requires that county and city development regulations include best available science when designating and protecting critical areas, including fish and wildlife areas, wetlands, and frequently flooded areas. The growth management act also requires counties and cities to give special consideration to conservation and protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. In addition, most counties and cities must comply with the federal clean water act. Many counties and cities must develop storm water management plans and must require those developing property to use best management practices to prevent storm water runoff. Counties and cities must also comply with the state environmental policy act. Many counties and cities also have in place flood hazard reduction programs, are engaged in watershed planning, and are engaged in salmon recovery limiting factors analysis.

It is the intent of this act to coordinate the planning process of the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW, and the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW.

Sec. 2. RCW 36.70A.130 and 1997 c 429 s 10 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) It is the intent of this section to coordinate the planning process and timelines of the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW, and the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW. The legislature finds the planning under these chapters should be on the same schedule to fully integrate the statutory requirements of each. The legislature recognizes the significant time, effort, and expense for local governments and the department associated with the review and evaluation required by this section and recognizes a need to balance the importance of this review and evaluation with the associated time, efforts, and expense. Therefore, the legislature intends to establish a phased schedule for review and evaluation of comprehensive plans and development regulations under this chapter.

(2)(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. ((~~Not later than September 1, 2002, and at least every five years thereafter,~~)) A county or city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall take action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive land use plan and development regulations to ensure ((~~that~~)) the plan and regulations ((~~are complying~~)) comply with the requirements of this chapter according to the time periods specified in subsection (5) of this section. 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 (5) of this section. The review and evaluation required by this subsection may be combined with the review required by subsection ((~~(3)~~)) (4) of this section.

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

((~~(2)~~)) (3)(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 than once per year under the following circumstances:

(i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan;

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

(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.

(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)~~)) (4) 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. The review required by this subsection may be combined with the review and evaluation required by RCW 36.70A.215.

(5) The department shall establish a schedule for counties and cities to conduct the review and evaluation required by subsection (2) 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 the following dates, and at least every five years thereafter, for Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston counties and the cities within those counties:

(i) December 1, 2003, for policies and regulations regarding critical areas. However, any amendments to these policies and regulations adopted as a result of this review and evaluation shall not be effective before July 1, 2004; and

(ii) July 1, 2004, for policies, comprehensive plans, and development regulations other than policies and regulations regarding critical areas that are adopted according to this chapter;

(b) On or before December 1, 2004, and at least every ten years thereafter, for Clallam, Jefferson, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;

(c) On or before December 1, 2005, and at least every ten years thereafter, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties;

(d) On or before December 1, 2006, and at least every ten years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and

(e) On or before December 1, 2007, and at least 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.

(6) 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 (5) 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.

(7) A county or city subject to the time periods in subsection (5)(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 (5)(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 (5)(a) of this section.

Sec. 3. RCW 90.58.060 and 1995 c 347 s 304 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The department shall periodically review and adopt guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020, containing the elements specified in RCW 90.58.100 for:

(a) Development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines; and

(b) Development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines of statewide significance.

(2) Before adopting or amending guidelines under this section, the department shall provide an opportunity for public review and comment as follows:

(a) The department shall mail copies of the proposal to all cities, counties, and federally recognized Indian tribes, and to any other person who has requested a copy, and shall publish the proposed guidelines in the Washington state register. Comments shall be submitted in writing to the department within sixty days from the date the proposal has been published in the register.

(b) The department shall hold at least four public hearings on the proposal in different locations throughout the state to provide a reasonable opportunity for residents in all parts of the state to present statements and views on the proposed guidelines. Notice of the hearings shall be published at least once in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county of the state. If an amendment to the guidelines addresses an issue limited to one geographic area, the number and location of hearings may be adjusted consistent with the intent of this subsection to assure all parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. The department shall accept written comments on the proposal during the sixty-day public comment period and for seven days after the final public hearing.

(c) At the conclusion of the public comment period, the department shall review the comments received and modify the proposal consistent with the provisions of this chapter. The proposal shall then be published for adoption pursuant to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW.

(3) The department may propose amendments to the guidelines not more than once each year. At least once every ((~~five~~)) ten years the department shall conduct a review of the guidelines pursuant to the procedures outlined in subsection (2) of this section.

Sec. 4. RCW 90.58.080 and 1995 c 347 s 305 are each amended to read as follows:

(1)(a) It is the intent of this section to coordinate the planning process and timelines of the growth management act, chapter 36.70A RCW, and the shoreline management act, chapter 90.58 RCW. The legislature finds the planning under these chapters should be on the same schedule to fully integrate the statutory requirements of each. The legislature recognizes a need to balance the importance of master program development or amendment with the associated time, effort, and expense of preparing, adopting, and implementing master programs. Therefore, the legislature intends to establish a phased schedule of master program development or amendment based on guidelines adopted according to RCW 90.58.060.

(b) It is also the intent of this section to provide a time period for review and consideration of the financial, environmental, economic, and other impacts of preparing, adopting, and implementing shoreline master programs according to guidelines adopted under this chapter. The legislature recognizes the significant time, effort, and expense for local governments and the department associated with master program development and the potential for substantial environmental and economic impacts associated with master program development or amendment. Therefore, the legislature intends, through its phased schedule, to provide for development or amendment of master programs by the larger counties and cities first so that:

(i) The experiences of these jurisdictions with implementing the requirements of this section shall be reviewed by the committee created in section 5 of this act before the deadlines established for other jurisdictions;

(ii) The committee established in section 5 of this act shall consider and recommend to the legislature any changes to the requirements of this section or the schedule established in this section before the deadlines established for other jurisdictions; and

(iii) The legislature may consider, based on the experiences of the larger jurisdictions and the recommendations of the committee, whether any statutory or regulatory changes are needed before the deadlines established for other jurisdictions.

(2) Local governments shall develop or amend((~~, within twenty-four months after the adoption of guidelines as provided in RCW 90.58.060,~~)) 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 according to the time periods specified in this subsection. The department shall establish a schedule for local governments to develop or amend their master programs as follows:

(a) On or before December 1, 2003, and at least every five years thereafter, for Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston counties and the cities within those counties;

(b) On or before December 1, 2004, and at least every ten years thereafter, for Clallam, Jefferson, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties;

(c) On or before December 1, 2005, and at least every ten years thereafter, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties;

(d) On or before December 1, 2006, and at least every ten years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and

(3) Nothing in this section precludes a local government from developing or amending its master program before the time limits established in this section. Local governments may begin this process early and may be eligible for available grants from the department, subject to available funding, if they elect to do so.

(4) Local governments shall report the actual costs of satisfying the requirements of this section, including but not limited to all costs related to effects identified in section 5(2)(b) of this act, to the committee created in section 5 of this act.

(5) In revising the provisions of this section, the legislature does not intend to imply legislative approval or disapproval of any administrative actions taken or guidelines adopted by the department under this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

(1) A shorelines oversight committee is hereby established. The committee shall consist of the following twelve members or their designees:

(a) Six members of the house of representatives, with three from each major political party, appointed by the co-speakers, or by the speaker and the minority leader, of the house of representatives; and

(b) Six members of the senate, with three from each major political party, appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the senate.

(2) The committee shall conduct a shoreline master program guidelines implementation assessment as provided in subsection (3) of this section, periodically review the information and findings from this assessment, consider whether any statutory or regulatory changes are needed or desirable based on the results of this assessment, and provide periodic reports on the assessment, including any legislative recommendations, as specified in subsection (4) of this section. At a minimum, the shoreline master program guidelines implementation assessment shall include review and study of and findings regarding:

(a) Progress of the larger jurisdictions in developing or amending master programs consistent with the guidelines;

(b) Actual immediate and ongoing effects to the larger jurisdictions in developing or amending master programs consistent with the guidelines, including but not limited to effects associated with planning, public review and comment, amendments, adoption, department review and approval, appeals, any required revisions, and implementation;

(c) Actual immediate and ongoing effects to businesses and property owners from implementation of master programs developed or amended consistent with the guidelines;

(d) Comparison of the effects of alternative approaches to guidelines implementation authorized by the guidelines;

(e) Use or impact, if any, of master programs developed or amended consistent with the guidelines in seeking or obtaining approval of a habitat conservation plan under 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1539, a no jeopardy opinion or an exemption under 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536, or an exemption under 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(d) by any local government that includes area subject to a listing of a species as either threatened or endangered under the federal endangered species act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1538;

(f) The impact, if any, of implementing master programs developed or amended consistent with the guidelines on natural resource extraction and natural resource-based industries;

(g) The need or desirability, if any, of adapting the guidelines for master programs to be implemented in rural areas;

(h) Actual immediate and ongoing effects for water quality, habitat protection, public access to the shorelines, and other shoreline values and qualities to businesses and property owners, local governments, and the general public from implementation of master programs developed or amended consistent with the guidelines;

(i) The amount of lineal acreage, public and private, restricted in no-use buffers, and the effects on local tax assessments;

(j) Any potential statutory or regulatory changes needed or desirable for facilitating development or amendment of master programs by other jurisdictions or for addressing concerns raised by the implementation of master programs developed or amended consistent with the guidelines in the larger jurisdictions; and

(k) Any other topic or issue the committee deems relevant to the review required by this section.

(3)(a) The committee shall contract for the assessment required by subsection (2) of this section. The committee shall select the contractor or contractors to perform the assessment. The contractor or contractors shall work with and provide periodic reports to the committee on the status of the assessment. At a minimum, the contractor or contractors shall present annual reports to the committee on or before November 1st of each year from 2001 through 2005.

(b) In developing the assessment, the contractor or contractors shall establish and work with an advisory committee or committees, including but not limited to representatives of the following: State agencies, local governments, businesses, environmental organizations, agricultural organizations, residential construction and development organizations, the appropriate unions, commercial and recreational fishing organizations, tribes, recreation and public access organizations, and any other members as determined by the contractor or contractors.

(4) The committee shall commence July 1, 2001, and shall provide annual reports to the legislature on or before November 30th of each year between 2001 and 2005. The annual reports and the final report of the committee shall include any agreed upon recommendations for legislation made by the committee or other options discussed by the committee during the relevant time period. The committee shall expire June 30, 2006.

(5) The committee shall be cochaired by one state senator and one state representative chosen by the committee. Members of the committee shall be reimbursed for travel expenses as provided in RCW 44.04.120. The staff of senate committee services and the office of program research of the house of representatives shall staff the committee. The open public meetings act shall apply to all meetings and hearings of the committee. Rules of procedure shall be established at the first meeting of the committee.

(6) Based upon its experiences with the larger jurisdictions' implementation of master programs developed or amended consistent with the guidelines and in consideration of the committee's recommendations, the department shall submit to the legislature any proposed amendments to this chapter or to the guidelines before December 31, 2005. Any proposed amendments to the guidelines submitted to the legislature according to this subsection shall not take effect before the end of the regular legislative session. Based on the committee's final report, the department shall propose final guideline amendments developed through a negotiated rule making process and submit them to the legislature on or before December 31, 2005. During the regular legislative session following receipt of the committee's final report and the department's final proposed guideline amendments, the legislature shall consider modifying this chapter to sunset or amend the guidelines.

Sec. 6. RCW 90.58.090 and 1997 c 429 s 50 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) 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 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, 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 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 relating to shorelines of statewide significance only after determining the program provides the optimum implementation of the policy of this chapter to satisfy the statewide interest. If the department does not approve a segment of a local government master program relating to a shoreline of statewide significance, the department may develop and by rule adopt an alternative to the local government's proposal.

(5) The department shall recognize that local governments must plan for reasonable and appropriate uses along with the public interest and environmental objectives in implementing the policy of this chapter. This planning may allow alterations of the natural conditions of the shoreline in those limited instances provided for in RCW 90.58.020.

(6) 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)~~)) (7) A master program or amendment to a master program takes effect when and in such form as approved or adopted by the department. 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.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

(1) The guidelines adopted by the department and master programs developed or amended by local governments according to RCW 90.58.080 shall not require modification of or limit agricultural activities occurring on agricultural lands. In jurisdictions where agricultural activities occur, master programs developed or amended after the effective date of this act shall include provisions addressing new agricultural activities on land not meeting the definition of agricultural land, conversion of agricultural lands to other uses, and development not meeting the definition of agricultural activities. Nothing in this section limits or changes the terms of the current exception to the definition of substantial development in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(iv).

(2) For the purposes of this section:

(a) "Agricultural activities" means agricultural uses and practices including, but not limited to: Producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and changing agricultural crops; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and tilled but left unseeded; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant as a result of adverse agricultural market conditions; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant because the land is enrolled in a local, state, or federal conservation program, or the land is subject to a conservation easement; conducting agricultural operations; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural equipment; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural facilities, provided that the replacement facility is no closer to the shoreline than the original facility; and maintaining agricultural lands under production or cultivation;

(b) "Agricultural products" includes but is not limited to horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, vegetable, fruit, berry, grain, hops, hay, straw, turf, sod, seed, and apiary products; feed or forage for livestock; Christmas trees; hybrid cottonwood and similar hardwood trees grown as crops and harvested within twenty years of planting; and livestock including both the animals themselves and animal products including but not limited to meat, upland finfish, poultry and poultry products, and dairy products;

(c) "Agricultural equipment" and "agricultural facilities" includes, but is not limited to: (i) The following used in agricultural operations: Equipment; machinery; constructed shelters, buildings, and ponds; fences; upland finfish rearing facilities; water diversion, withdrawal, conveyance, and use equipment and facilities including but not limited to pumps, pipes, tapes, canals, ditches, and drains; (ii) corridors and facilities for transporting personnel, livestock, and equipment to, from, and within agricultural lands; (iii) farm residences and associated equipment, lands, and facilities; and (iv) roadside stands and on-farm markets for marketing fruit or vegetables; and

(d) "Agricultural land" means those specific land areas on which agriculture activities are conducted.

(3) The department and local governments shall assure that local shoreline master programs use definitions consistent with the definitions in this section.

Sec. 8. RCW 36.70A.035 and 1999 c 315 s 708 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, school districts, and organizations of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulations. Examples of reasonable notice provisions include:

(a) Posting the property for site-specific proposals;

(b) Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal;

(c) Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered;

(d) Placing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic, or trade journals; and

(e) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas.

(2) The public participation process established by counties and cities to satisfy the requirements of this chapter shall include measures to satisfy the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 for the shoreline master program developed or amended according to chapter 90.58 RCW.

(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, if the legislative body for a county or city chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan or development regulation, and the change is proposed after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the county's or city's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the local legislative body votes on the proposed change.

(b) An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required under (a) of this subsection if:

(i) An environmental impact statement has been prepared under chapter 43.21C RCW for the pending resolution or ordinance and the proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the environmental impact statement;

(ii) The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment;

(iii) The proposed change only corrects typographical errors, corrects cross-references, makes address or name changes, or clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect;

(iv) The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance making a capital budget decision as provided in RCW 36.70A.120; or

(v) The proposed change is to a resolution or ordinance enacting a moratorium or interim control adopted under RCW 36.70A.390.

((~~(3)~~)) (4) This section is prospective in effect and does not apply to a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or amendment adopted before July 27, 1997.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

(1) At least two years before the deadline specified for the county or city in RCW 36.70A.130, each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated planning process for the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations under this chapter and shoreline master programs under chapter 90.58 RCW. Counties and cities not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may adopt an integrated and consolidated planning process consistent with this section for review, revision, development, amendment, or adoption of development regulations regarding critical areas and natural resource lands according to this chapter and master programs according to chapter 90.58 RCW.

(2) The process shall include the following elements:

(a) Coordination of the planning process to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and chapter 90.58 RCW;

(b) Development of a public participation program to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and chapter 90.58 RCW;

(d) Opportunity for review and consideration of comment from agencies and other interested parties as required by this chapter and chapter 90.58 RCW;

(e) Consolidation of public hearing and comment processes to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and chapter 90.58 RCW;

(f) Timing of submittal of master program elements to the department of ecology to allow sufficient time for review and approval of master programs by the department of ecology and to coordinate with the schedule for review, revision, and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations specified in RCW 36.70A.130;

(g) Consolidation of amendment and adoption procedures and processes to satisfy the requirements of this chapter and chapter 90.58 RCW; and

(h) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 43.21C RCW, or chapter 90.58 RCW.

(3) The integration and coordination of planning processes under this chapter and chapter 90.58 RCW does not alter the department's authority to review comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under this chapter and does not create any authority for the department of ecology to review or approve comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted according to this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

The department shall provide technical assistance and conduct training to assist counties and cities in implementing the requirements of sections 9 and 12 of this act.

Sec. 11. RCW 36.70A.140 and 1995 c 347 s 107 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Each county and city ((~~that is required or chooses to plan~~)) planning 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 review, revision, development ((~~and~~)), amendment, or adoption of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans under this chapter and master programs under chapter 90.58 RCW.

(2) 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.

(3) In enacting legislation in response to the board's decision pursuant to RCW 36.70A.300 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 order.

(4) Errors in exact compliance with the established program and procedures established according to this section shall not render the comprehensive land use plan or development regulations invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed.

(5) In addition to meeting the other requirements of this section, the public participation program of counties and cities planning under RCW 36.70A.040 that is established as required by this section shall satisfy the local government public participation requirements of RCW 90.58.100 and 90.58.130.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

(1) At least two years before the deadline specified for the local government in RCW 36.70A.130, each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish by ordinance or resolution an integrated and consolidated planning process for the review, revision, development, amendment, or adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations under chapter 36.70A RCW and shoreline master programs under this chapter. Local governments not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may adopt an integrated and consolidated planning process consistent with this section for review, revision, development, amendment, or adoption of development regulations regarding critical areas and natural resource lands according to chapter 36.70A RCW and master programs according to this chapter.

(2) The planning process shall include the following elements:

(a) Coordination of the planning process to satisfy the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter;

(b) Development of a public participation program to satisfy the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter;

(d) Opportunity for review and consideration of comment from agencies and other interested parties as required by chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter;

(e) Consolidation of public hearing and comment processes to satisfy the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter;

(f) Timing of submittal of master program elements to the department to allow sufficient time for review and approval by the department and to coordinate master program review and approval with the schedule for review, revision, and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations specified in RCW 36.70A.130;

(g) Consolidation of amendment and adoption procedures and processes to satisfy the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter; and

(h) Any other provisions not inconsistent with the requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW, chapter 43.21C RCW, or this chapter.

(3) The integration and coordination of planning processes under this chapter and chapter 36.70A RCW does not alter the department's authority to review and approve master programs developed or amended under this chapter and does not create any authority for the department to review or approve comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted according to chapter 36.70A RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

If a county's or city's critical areas regulations are the subject of an appeal to the board, the department of ecology's determination regarding the county's or city's shoreline master program compliance with chapter 90.58 RCW does not modify the presumption of validity established by RCW 36.70A.320(1) or the burden of persuasion established by RCW 36.70A.320(2) with respect to the question of whether the critical areas regulations under appeal comply with the requirements of this chapter for those areas not subject to the shoreline management act.

Sec. 14. RCW 90.58.250 and 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 25 are each amended to read as follows:

The department is directed to cooperate fully with local governments in discharging their responsibilities under this chapter. Funds shall be available for distribution to local governments on the basis of applications for preparation of master programs. Such applications shall be submitted in accordance with regulations developed by the department. The department is authorized to make and administer grants within appropriations authorized by the legislature to any local government within the state for the purpose of developing a master ((~~shorelines~~)) program.

((~~No grant shall be made in an amount in excess of the recipient's contribution to the estimated cost of such program.~~))

Sec. 15. RCW 36.70A.290 and 1997 c 429 s 12 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. The board shall render written decisions articulating the basis for its holdings. The board shall not issue advisory opinions on issues not presented to the board in the statement of issues, as modified by any prehearing order.

(2) All petitions 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)(a) Unless the board dismisses the petition as frivolous or finds that the person filing the petition lacks standing, or the parties have filed an agreement to have the case heard in superior court as provided in RCW 36.70A.295, the board shall, within ten days of receipt of the petition, set a time for hearing the matter.

(b) If a county or city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 develops or amends a shoreline master program according to chapter 90.58 RCW concurrent with the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or development regulations according to this chapter, the county or city shall notify the board of the concurrent adoption no later than ten days after receipt of notice of the hearing date being set by the board.

(c) If the board receives a notice of concurrent adoption from a county or city planning under RCW 36.70A.040, and unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, the board shall stay proceedings regarding the petition until the end of the appeal period for the shoreline master program or master program amendment under chapter 90.58 RCW. The board shall set a time for hearing of the matter within ten days of the end of the stay period. The board shall not stay the proceedings if all parties agree in writing within twenty days after the county's or city's notice of concurrent adoption to a hearing on the petition separately from any appeal of the shoreline master program or master program amendment.

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

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

Sec. 16. RCW 36.70A.300 and 1997 c 429 s 14 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The board shall issue a final order that 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 adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, the final order shall be issued within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the petition for review, or, if multiple petitions are filed, within one hundred eighty days of receipt of the last petition that is consolidated.

(b) The board may extend the period of time for issuing a decision to enable the parties to settle the dispute if additional time is necessary to achieve a settlement, and (i) an extension is requested by all parties, or (ii) an extension is requested by the petitioner and respondent and the board determines that a negotiated settlement between the remaining parties could resolve significant issues in dispute. The request must be filed with the board not later than seven days before the date scheduled for the hearing on the merits of the petition. The board may authorize one or more extensions for up to ninety days each, subject to the requirements of this section.

(c) If a board stays proceedings regarding a petition pursuant to RCW 36.70A.290(3)(c), the board shall issue a final order within one hundred eighty days of the end of the stay period. The board shall consolidate all petitions for review of the concurrently adopted shoreline master program or amendment with the plan or development regulations appealed under this chapter.

(3) In the final order, the board shall either:

(a) Find that the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW; or

(b) Find that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption or amendment of shoreline master programs, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to adoption of plans, development regulations, and amendments thereto, under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW, in which case the board shall remand the matter to the affected state agency, county, or city. The board shall specify a reasonable time not in excess of one hundred eighty days, or such longer period as determined by the board in cases of unusual scope or complexity, within which the state agency, county, or city shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. The board may require periodic reports to the board on the progress the jurisdiction is making towards compliance.

(4) Unless the board makes a determination of invalidity as provided in RCW 36.70A.302, 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.

(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.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. A new section is added to chapter 35.63 RCW to read as follows:

To encourage efficient and effective planning and implementation, cities not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may adopt shoreline master programs or master program amendments under chapter 90.58 RCW concurrently with policies and regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW or plans and regulations adopted under this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. A new section is added to chapter 35A.63 RCW to read as follows:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. A new section is added to chapter 36.70 RCW to read as follows:

To encourage efficient and effective planning and implementation, counties not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may adopt shoreline master programs or master program amendments under chapter 90.58 RCW concurrently with policies and regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW or plans and regulations adopted under this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

To encourage efficient and effective planning and implementation, counties and cities may adopt shoreline master programs or master program amendments under chapter 90.58 RCW concurrently with comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

To encourage efficient and effective planning and implementation, local governments may adopt shoreline master programs or master program amendments under this chapter concurrently with comprehensive plans, policies, and regulations adopted under chapter 35.63, 35A.63, 36.70, or 36.70A RCW.

Sec. 22. RCW 36.70A.215 and 1997 c 429 s 25 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Subject to the limitations in subsection (7) of this section, a county shall adopt, in consultation with its cities, countywide planning policies to establish a review and evaluation program. This program shall be in addition to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110, 36.70A.130, and 36.70A.210. In developing and implementing the review and evaluation program required by this section, the county and its cities shall consider information from other appropriate jurisdictions and sources. The purpose of the review and evaluation program shall be to:

(a) Determine whether a county and its cities are achieving urban densities within urban growth areas by comparing growth and development assumptions, targets, and objectives contained in the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans with actual growth and development that has occurred in the county and its cities; ((~~and~~))

(b) Determine whether sufficient land suitable for development is included within designated urban growth areas at densities sufficient to accommodate the growth management population projections established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(2); and

(c) Identify reasonable measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, that will be taken to comply with the requirements of this chapter.

(2) The review and evaluation program shall:

(a) Encompass land uses and activities both within and outside of urban growth areas and provide for annual collection of data on urban and rural land uses, development, critical areas, and capital facilities to the extent necessary to determine the quantity and type of land suitable for development, both for residential and employment-based activities;

(b) Provide for evaluation of the data collected under (a) of this subsection every five years as provided in subsection (3) of this section. The first evaluation shall be completed not later than September 1, 2002. The county and its cities may establish in the countywide planning policies indicators, benchmarks, and other similar criteria to use in conducting the evaluation;

(c) Provide for methods to resolve disputes among jurisdictions relating to the countywide planning policies required by this section and procedures to resolve inconsistencies in collection and analysis of data; and

(d) Provide for the amendment of the countywide policies and county and city comprehensive plans as needed to remedy an inconsistency identified through the evaluation required by this section, or to bring these policies into compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

(3) At a minimum, the evaluation component of the program required by subsection (1) of this section shall:

(a) Determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the countywide population projection established for the county pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 and the subsequent population allocations within the county and between the county and its cities and the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110;

(b) Determine the actual density of housing that has been constructed and the actual amount of land developed for commercial and industrial uses within the urban growth area since the adoption of a comprehensive plan under this chapter or since the last periodic evaluation as required by subsection (1) of this section; ((~~and~~))

(c) Based on the actual density of development as determined under (b) of this subsection, review commercial, industrial, and housing needs by type and density range to determine the amount of land needed for commercial, industrial, and housing for the remaining portion of the twenty-year planning period used in the most recently adopted comprehensive plan;

(d) Determine the acreage and qualitative change in the quantity or density of land suitable for development within the designated urban growth area that has occurred as a result of designating land within the urban growth area as critical areas after January 1, 2001, or based on any other amendment to a comprehensive plan or development regulation adopted after January 1, 2001, that after taking into account new land made available for development or increases in authorized densities, effectively changes any land development potential within the designated urban growth area;

(e) Based on the change determined under (d) of this subsection:

(i) Include in the land capacity docket any amount determined as a deficiency or an excess in land suitable for development within the urban growth area; and

(ii) Within the time periods specified in RCW 36.70A.130, review the docketed amount and consider changes to the countywide planning policies, comprehensive plan or development regulations, including density determinations, urban growth area designations, or other changes, to address the quantity of sufficient land suitable for development within designated urban growth areas at densities sufficient to accommodate the growth management population projections established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(2); and

(f) Based upon the needed development capacity, as determined pursuant to this subsection (3), the jurisdiction shall make every effort to:

(i) First, if feasible, include a transfer of development densities or uses to remaining portions of a lot or parcel;

(ii) Second, if feasible, include a transfer of development densities or uses to appropriate adjoining properties; and

(iii) Finally, include a transfer of development densities or uses to other appropriate lands within the jurisdiction.

(4) If the evaluation required by subsection (3) of this section demonstrates an inconsistency between what has occurred since the adoption of the countywide planning policies and the county and city comprehensive plans and development regulations and what was envisioned in those policies and plans and the planning goals and the requirements of this chapter, as the inconsistency relates to the evaluation factors specified in subsection (3) of this section, the county and its cities shall adopt and implement measures that are reasonably likely to increase consistency during the subsequent five-year period. If necessary, a county, in consultation with its cities as required by RCW 36.70A.210, shall adopt amendments to countywide planning policies to increase consistency. The county and its cities shall annually monitor the measures adopted under this subsection to determine their effect and may revise or rescind them as appropriate.

(5)(a) Not later than July 1, 1998, the department shall prepare a list of methods used by counties and cities in carrying out the types of activities required by this section. The department shall provide this information and appropriate technical assistance to counties and cities required to or choosing to comply with the provisions of this section.

(b) By December 31, 2007, the department shall submit to the appropriate committees of the legislature a report analyzing the effectiveness of the activities described in this section in achieving the goals envisioned by the countywide planning policies and the comprehensive plans and development regulations of the counties and cities.

(6) From funds appropriated by the legislature for this purpose, the department shall provide grants to counties, cities, and regional planning organizations required under subsection (7) of this section to conduct the review and perform the evaluation required by this section.

(7) The provisions of this section shall apply to counties, and the cities within those counties, that were greater than one hundred fifty thousand in population in 1995 as determined by office of financial management population estimates and that are located west of the crest of the Cascade mountain range. Any other county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may carry out the review, evaluation, and amendment programs and procedures as provided in this section.

(8) For the purposes of this section, "land capacity docket" means to compile and maintain a detailed list of land and land use changes resulting from the actions specified in subsection (3)(d) of this section in a manner that will ensure that such changes will be presented for the required periodic action specified in subsection (3)(e)(ii) of this section and will be available for review by the public.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. In revising provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and including new provisions in chapter 90.58 RCW, the legislature does not intend to imply legislative approval or disapproval of any administrative actions taken or guidelines adopted by the department of ecology under chapter 90.58 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 24. Section 5 of this act expires August 1, 2006.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 25. 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. 26. (1)(a) The sum of three million five hundred thousand dollars for fiscal year 2002 is appropriated from the general fund to the department of ecology to implement this act. Of the amount in this subsection, three million two hundred thousand dollars is provided solely for grants to local governments to update shoreline master programs according to section 4 of this act, and three hundred thousand dollars is provided solely for technical assistance and the shoreline oversight committee contractor in section 5 of this act.

(b) The sum of three million five hundred thousand dollars for fiscal year 2003 is appropriated from the general fund to the department of ecology to implement this act. Of the amount in this subsection, three million two hundred thousand dollars is provided solely for grants to local governments to update shoreline master programs according to section 4 of this act, and three hundred thousand dollars is provided solely for technical assistance and the shoreline oversight committee contractor in section 5 of this act.

(2)(a) The sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars for fiscal year 2002 is appropriated from the general fund to the department of community, trade, and economic development to implement this act. The entire appropriation in this subsection is provided solely for grants to local governments to implement section 2 of this act.

(b) The sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars for fiscal year 2003 is appropriated from the general fund to the department of community, trade, and economic development to implement this act. The entire appropriation in this subsection is provided solely for grants to local governments to implement section 2 of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 27. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.