Draft Final Report (3rd Draft)

The Governor and the Legislature must evaluate what direction Washington’s land use and environmental laws should take. There are three basic choices: the status quo, staged consolidation, or consolidation in a single step. Each is discussed below.

1. Status Quo

This option would not make any systematic changes to the land use and environmental laws. Changes necessary to address specific problems or issues would be handled individually rather than as part of a consolidated land use code.

Another option is to take a first step towards implementation of a consolidated land use code – existing land use and environmental laws could be recodified within a new title of the Revised Code of Washington. Future efforts would focus on more fully integrating these different statutes with one another and addressing the substantive changes discussed elsewhere in this report.

Under this option, the entire consolidated land use code would be developed and adopted as a whole.

A new consolidated land use code gives the state an opportunity to address a number of issues that complicate today’s land use regulatory system. The next chapters address the following topics:

These chapters explore these issues, provide background information, discuss problems, and identify options.

Washington has a strong tradition of local control. Some issues have impacts that are of concern to a region or statewide. Effective implementation of many land use and environmental laws requires cooperation among different levels of government. There are some mechanisms available to coordinate or share decision making authority between the different levels of government, but there are a number of areas where these mechanisms are not available or have not yet been tried.

Washington has a complex governmental structure that involves a variety of state and local governments with different authority and responsibility. Governance issues arise around the relationship between different levels of government, such as between the state and counties and cities; between the same types of governments, such as between cities and counties; and between different types of governments, such as between cities and counties and special purpose districts.

At the local government level, the different local governments often have overlapping authority. This can lead to conflicts over territorial jurisdiction, particularly when the local government with jurisdiction receives financial benefits through additional tax revenue. Conflicts between the state and local governments often involve issues of authority and control. The state, through the Legislature and the Executive, seek to exercise authority over issues that it believes to be of state-wide concern. Local governments often this as intervention in matters of mostly local concern.

Washington’s local government structure has been the subject of several studies over the years, including the Washington State Local Governance Study Commission, which issued its report in January 1988. The first paragraph of the Governance Study Commission’s Recommendations states:

Washington local governments are fighting a losing battle to fulfill their responsibilities in today’s changing world. Their powers fall short of their problems: their structures are often outdated, and hard to change; most of all, their revenues are inadequate for the services they are expected or required to perform. Frequently there are too many local governments, particularly in densely populated areas outside of cities, and too little coordination among them in coping with problems that often cross jurisdiction lines. Citizens feel uninvolved and unrepresented in the cumbersome processes through which local governments are obliged to operate.

The Quiet Crisis of Local Governance in Washington, Final Report of the Washington State Local Governance Commission, Vol. 2, p. 1 (1988). This is not a dissimilar list of concerns and problems expressed about local governments today, although much as changed since the report was written. Most significantly, the GMA addresses some issues concerning coordination among local governments. The GMA also addresses the issue of public involvement.

2. State and Local Relationships

The traditional relationship between state and local government has tended towards a hierarchical structure. Local governments generally can only exercise the authority given them by the state either by statute or by the constitution. The constitution allows local governments to make and enforce laws not in conflict with the state’s general laws. In some subject matters areas, the state has exercised its authority to such an extent that local governments are prohibited from taking any independent action or may be limited in the actions that they are authorized to take. In other subject matter areas, the state may have either explicitly given authority to local governments or may not have taken any action to restrict the inherent authority local governments. This arrangement has resulted in a complicated array of authority between local and state government that varies depending on the particular subject matter.

One example of the relationship between state and local governments can be found in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The SMA establishes broad state policy goals and purposes. It gives a state agency (Ecology) the authority to adopt rules implementing the statute. Local governments are required to take action consistent with the statute and Ecology rules. Ecology must approve some local government actions and has the authority to review and appeal others. A state board is established by the SMA to hear appeals of Ecology and local government decisions under the SMA.

An example of a different type of relationship can be found in the GMA. The GMA also establishes broad state policies and goals. A state agency (Community, Trade, and Economic Development) has authority to adopt rules as guidance, but not as mandatory requirements. State agencies have a right to review and comment on local government decisions under the GMA, but they do not have approval authority. A state agency may appeal a local government’s actions under the GMA to a state board. Local government actions under the GMA are presumed valid upon adoption. The board is required to uphold the local government decision unless there it determines the action was clearly erroneous.

3. Regional Issues

The state/local relationship turns in part on the regional scope of the interest that is in question. Some issues are of only local concern and do not require involvement or affect the interests of a broader community. Other interests have impacts on a region or implicate interests that are of regional or statewide importance.

Governance structures must be adaptable to these differences. Current governance is generally based on a hierarchy of governments. The state government is at the top of the state governmental structure, with general purpose local governments and special purpose districts exercising what authority is granted to them by the state.

The Legislature has provided some mechanisms to address regional issues. For example, Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs) were authorized by the legislature in 1990 as part of the Growth Management Act. They are voluntarily created by local governments to coordinate transportation planning among jurisdictions and to develop a regional transportation plan. The regional plan must be consistent with local comprehensive plans. The RTPO also has authority to certify that local transportation elements of comprehensive plans are consistent with the regional transportation plan.

The 1998 Legislature added to the importance of regional transportation planning in SHB 1487. That legislation requires the state to work with local governments and the RTPOs to designate a transportation system of statewide significance. The Washington Transportation Plan, adopted by the Transportation Commission, is the basis for the collaboration between the state and local governments and the RTPOs.

Another approach towards regional decision-making is the watershed basin planning process authorized by the 1998 Legislature. With the involvement of state agencies, counties and cities in cooperation with water utilities and the tribes can exercise some of the authority previously exercised exclusively by the state. This may be a good model for future relationships. However, it is new and not yet fully tested.

The Commission has found it useful to examine the interests of the different levels of government by separating those interests into three broad categories: (1) issues of only local concern; (2) issues of greater than local concern, i.e. regional or statewide; and (3) issues of solely statewide concern. Some issues may clearly fall into the solely local or solely state-wide categories. The majority of issues fall in the middle because both they are of importance to both the local community and to the regional or state-wide interest.

2. Coordinated Decision Making

One alternative governance model that has received some recent attention might be called coordinated decision making.

In coordinated decision making, the governments with decision making authority collaborate to reach a decision that each then ratifies. They decide how to involve citizens, for example by allotting time at each meeting for public comment; appointing advisory committees or work groups; meeting with constituents between the joint sessions, or by providing additional seats "at the table."

The basic steps in coordinated decision making are:

Convening, which includes initiation and organization of the process;

Substantive discussions, during which the participants attempt to develop a proposed decision that addresses their interests;

Ratification, when the representatives of each participating jurisdiction present the proposed decision to their governing bodies for approval;

Default decision making: One option would be to establish a default decision making mechanism in the event the governments could not reach agreement. Any such mechanism would be for clearly defined types of issues.

Implementation, when the jurisdictions coordinate their actions to carry out the decision.

The following are principles that should govern the development of a coordinated decision making process:

Coordinated decision making can be used for specific projects either on an ad hoc basis or through procedures prescribed in a framework.

a. Ad hoc process

Most coordinated or collaborative decision making processes are currently established on an ad hoc basis. One party will suggest the idea and other parties decide whether to participate. If they do, they work to address the issues. Oregon and other states encourage such efforts by providing technical assistance for the convening process and by providing funds for facilitation services. Under this approach, the default decision making process, if parties do not reach agreement, are the processes the parties have available, such as litigation or political action to change policy or leadership.

b. Pre-established framework

This model provides a structured framework for establishing a coordinated decision making process. As an example, the state or county, or the governments of a region, would establish a framework that promotes negotiated decisions for a specific project or for a type or types of projects, such as essential public facilities. The framework would specify how the coordinated decision making process would be convened, who has standing to participate, what issues are negotiable or nonnegotiable, and how decisions will be made if the participants cannot agree.

An example of this approach is a Wisconsin statute governing the siting of solid and hazardous waste facilities. Under that process, a local negotiation process is established when the applicant and the local government are unable to agree on siting. The statute controls the issues that may be considered and the procedure for negotiating disagreements. It also includes a procedure to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved through the negotiation process.

c. Coordinated Decision Making for Rule or Policy Development

Coordinated decision making can be used to develop rules or policies that apply either on a regional or statewide basis. The Administrative Procedures Act contemplates a form of coordinated decision making through its recognition of negotiated rule-making. Negotiated rule making is a process by which representatives of any agency and of the interests affected by a subject of rule-making seek to reach consensus on the terms of a proposed rule and on the process by which it is negotiated.7

Coordinated decision making for rule or policy development will generally require authorizing legislation. The legislation should enable a consortium of state agencies and local governments to develop and adopt a rule for regional purposes. It should specify the procedures for convening the process and a default decision process if an agreement is not reached.

The emphasis for policy development should be on those issues that are of both greater than local concern. These are those issues where there is value in establishing multi-jurisdictional agreements and regulatory authority to conserve and protect important state interests including: substantial health and safety issues; ensure essential public facilities and unwanted land-uses are sited; protect critical environmental and natural resources; conserve valuable energy resources; and mediate cross-jurisdictional impacts on ecosystem resources.

Watershed planning legislation enacted by the 1998 Legislature has many of the elements of this model. It allows a county to establish a watershed planning process that involves both local and state government and the tribes. The planning process is given authority to address a limited set of water resource issues. If agreement is reached on those issues, the agreement takes the place of rules that would otherwise be adopted by Ecology.

The watershed planning legislation was controversial, with a number of interest groups concerned with or opposed to the proposal. The tribes in particular believe the watershed planning process is an untested model that does not have the real support of either tribal or local governments. The see the statute as essentially a delegation of state authority to local governments and are concerned with that result. Implementation of the watershed planning process will be watched closely by those interested in water quality and water quantity issues. It will take few years before there is sufficient information to judge the success of the program.

An Intergovernmental Coordinating Council could be established as a forum for developing a partnership between the different levels of government. It would bring together the interests of local, state, and tribal governments in a constructive discussion on how to advance the interests of Washington’s citizens as a whole. It would have representation from these different governments. The intergovernmental council could be given authority to establish broad policy over a specific set of land use and environmental issues. There would be a need to clearly define the authority of the council and the extent to which it would have the power, if any, to overturn decisions made by local governments or state agencies.

A framework for establishing coordinated decision making processes could be established as part of a consolidated land use code. The framework should be based on the principles identified under Part VII.C.2 above. The framework should allow the regional process to address either specific projects or specified policy or rule development. The framework should allow the use of an existing mechanism, such as an RTPO or an augmented county-wide planning process, or a new entity specifically designed to address the issue under review.

A key component of coordinated decision making is the provision of technical assistance to both state agencies and local governments to help establish procedures and work through the process. A number of states have adopted more or less formal mechanisms to provide that assistance. Oregon, for example, has established an Office of Dispute Resolution that provides both assistance in evaluating issues for their potential for resolution, identification of facilitators and mediators, and matching grants to help pay for the costs of the process. Further consideration should be given to how such an office can be established in Washington. Details should be further developed on its budget, duties, powers, and public role.

The GMA requires counties and cities to develop a comprehensive plan that is based on a community vision and looks forward for twenty years. There is no similar function at the state level. Individual state agencies may adopt strategic plans, but there is no integrating framework other than the appropriation process and the capital budget.

The GMA was preceded by laws governing how local governments should adopt comprehensive plans and zoning regulations and how they should plan for the shorelines. There has been some attempt to coordinate these different statutes together, but there remain some differences.

Under the GMA, counties and cities are required to adopt comprehensive plans that provide a roadmap for the kind of communities they want to be. The plans are required to address a set of specific issues, and must include a plan for financing capital facilities. At the state level, there are comparable planning activities, but they are generally focussed on specific issue areas. For example, the Transportation Commission is responsible for developing the State Transportation Plan, which includes many similarities to a comprehensive plan. Other state agencies develop similar strategic plans, either as an effort to manage resources or set priorities, or to comply with statutory requirements.

What does not exist at the state level is an integrating document that brings the state’s goals and objectives together in a single place and sets forth strategies for achieving those objectives over time. The closest documents are the operating and capital budgets passed every two years. The budgets are an expression of the Governor’s and the Legislature’s priorities. Unlike a comprehensive plan, however, the budget process has a time horizon of only two years.

One drawback of not having a comprehensive state plan is the difficulty in assuring that individual state agency actions are consistent with one another and do not work at cross purposes. This can lead to duplication of effort or to conflicts between agencies.

In the last few years, there have been some attempts to institute procedures designed to address this issue. Governor Lowry, by Executive Order, directed that interagency disagreements be brought to the director of the Office of Financial Management who was given the authority to resolve the dispute or to refer it to the Governor. Governor Lowry also encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve disputes between state agencies and between the state and other parties.

Governor Locke, through his creation of the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet has put in place another effort to develop consistent state policy and resolve differences among agencies. The State Salmon Strategy being developed by the Joint Cabinet is one example of the type of planning that can occur from such a coordinated process.

One difficulty facing the Governor in establishing this type of process is the existence of several separately elected state officials and agency heads appointed by independent boards or commissions. The Commissioner of Public Lands and the Superintendent of Public Instruction are elected agency heads. The Secretary of Transportation and the Director of Fish and Wildlife are appointed by commissions appointed by, but independent of, the Governor. The Governor cannot require these agencies to participate in a joint cabinet or to coordinate their activities with the other executive branch agencies headed by the Governor.

2. Planning Enabling Statutes

There are three separate planning enabling statutes. Each applies to a particular type of city or to counties.8 In large part, the three statutes are the same, but they do have variations. The planning enabling statutes provide the basic procedure and authority for counties and cities to engage in land use planning and adopt zoning and other development regulations. The planning enabling statutes date from the 1920s. Although they have undergone some changes, they are largely a result of thinking about planning from the early part of this century.

The GMA covers some of the ground covered by the planning enabling statutes, but it imposes some specific requirements on the nature of the planning and the goals to be considered. GMA jurisdictions must still rely on the planning enabling statutes for much of the process used to adopt their GMA comprehensive plans and development regulations.

3. Relationship Between the SMA and the GMA

The SMA was adopted by a vote of the people in the early 1970s. It establishes policies and goals for the shorelines of the state. The SMA includes statements of public policy concerning the importance of the shorelines to the state.

All cities and counties with covered shorelines are required to adopt a shoreline master program, which includes a plan and implementing development regulations, to regulate activity and development on the state’s shorelines. Ecology has authority to adopt guidelines for preparation of the shoreline master programs and must approve all programs and amendments. A shoreline substantial development permit is required for certain kinds of development within the shorelines. Several elements of the shoreline program parallel requirements of the GMA. Both statutes provide for a land use element and for a transportation element.

One significant difference between the two statutes is that the SMA establishes a set of state goals and provides for priority uses for the shorelines. A second significant difference is that the SMA gives Ecology authority to approve local government shoreline programs and allows an appeal of a shoreline permit to the Shoreline Hearings Board. This is a higher level of state involvement in shoreline decisions than is present in the GMA.

The GMA includes specific direction to all cities and counties to designate and protect critical areas. These include wetlands, flood prone areas, and fish and wildlife habitat. Many of these critical areas are also included within the jurisdiction of the SMA.

The 1995 Legislature initiated the first step towards bringing the GMA and the SMA together. It provided that the goals and policies of the SMA were also goals and policies of the GMA. It also directed that the Shoreline Master Program should be considered an element of GMA comprehensive plans. No direction was provided on how to accomplish this integration of the two statutes.

The American Planning Association Growing Smart project has prepared a paper and suggested legislative guidance on state planning options. See, "Chapter 4 – State Planning", Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, American Planning Association. The paper describes the following two paradigms for state planning:

Two general approaches in state planning have emerged and pose useful paradigms for drafting legislation …. One has been called the "civic model" and is derived from the heritage and assumptions of city planning. The second has been termed the "management model" and draws its orientation and techniques from the science of organization management. Under the civic model, the state would engage in a goal-setting process, develop an inventory of resources and an appraisal of existing conditions that affect the ability to achieve those goals, identify a set of alternative actions, and compile a list of implementing measures. The civic model would produce plans affecting land use and critical areas management or addressing functional topics like transportation, water, and economic development. The plans would have regulatory impact and/or affect the programming of infrastructure to support particular growth strategies.

While the purpose of the civic model is to identify public goals and large-scale policy choices that will shape the state’s future, the purpose of the management model is to ensure that state agencies operate in an efficient and coordinated manner consistent with the priorities of the chief executive. Under the management model, the governor, who is the state’s chief executive, implements policies and measures enacted by the state legislature and uses the planning system to exert administrative control over state agencies by establishing operational guidelines and directions for them.

Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, pp. 4-9-11.

There are a number of approaches for coordinating state agency responsibilities. The following is a list adapted from the Growing Smart project of some options that provide mechanisms for coordinating agency duties:

State agency cabinet – A cabinet of state agencies is formalized and has authority to adopt rules. Many states, including Washington, have a Governor’s cabinet. In Washington, the cabinet does not have independent rule-making authority. A formalized cabinet brings together key departments whose activities have an impact on planning and land use, enabling a governor to speak with a single voice on critical growth and development issues in the state. A secondary purpose of the cabinet is to resolve disputes among state departments on the siting of state and regional public facilities.

State planning office – A state planning office is established in the office of the governor. Its primary activity would be to advise the governor on policy initiatives and coordinate activities of various state agencies. This is a function that is currently served in part by the Office of Financial Management.

State planning commission – Where a state does not have a strong tradition of statewide planning and requires an independent body to initiate and gain support for a new program, a state planning commission is a helpful mechanism. Moreover, because the commission will continue through different administrations, it can establish a presence and continuity for planning in the state.

Any of these state options will no doubt be met with diverse views. Some view more state planning as a necessary component of a consolidated land use code. Others view local governments as the best entity to conduct planning and see state planning as a way to wrest control away from local governments.

2. Planning Enabling Statutes

Over the last several years, the statutory recognition for different classes of cities and counties has been changed and many of the previous distinctions have been eliminated. In some areas, differences in authority between cities and counties no longer provides any particular value. The planning enabling statutes, which provide similar but different authority, to counties, code cities, and charter cities is such an area.

In addition, these statutes, which preceded the GMA, provide procedures for adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The relationship between the two statutes has not been addressed by the legislature, causing confusion at times over which statute applies and for what purposes.

3. GMA and SMA Planning

In addition to the substantive policies of the GMA and the SMA, and the different approach towards state and local relationships in the two statutes, there are also procedural differences that make it difficult for GMA jurisdictions to fully integrate their GMA and SMA plans and development regulations.

SMA requires a local government to adopt changes to its shoreline master program within two years after Ecology updates the shoreline guidelines authorized under the SMA. The GMA limits changes to GMA comprehensive plans to once each year. It also requires counties and cities to evaluate their plans consistency with the GMA goals at least once every five years. There is a potential that these different review cycles will not fit together, forcing local governments to continually modify their plans to remain consistent with state law.

The SMA also provides for an extensive public involvement process that a local government must follow to adopt a shoreline master program. The GMA also make public involvement a critical component of the GMA planning process, but does not prescribe the details of the public process. Although there is no direct inconsistency, some local governments may have developed public involvement mechanisms under the GMA that work within their community but do not meet the strict requirements of the GMA.

An important element of the SMA is that Ecology must approve the shoreline plan and any amendments before they take effect. Under the SMA process, the local government submits the plan that has been adopted to Ecology for approval. There are no time limits on Ecology’s review. Under the GMA, state agencies do not have approval authority, but do have the right to review and comment. The major difference is that the comment is on the local government’s draft plan, not on the adopted plan. When combined with the GMA’s prohibition on amending comprehensive plans no more than once each year, this presents logistical problems for local governments.

Changes to some of these processes, to allow use of GMA public participation processes and synchronizing the comment period on the GMA comprehensive plan with Ecology’s review of the shoreline master program could smooth the integration of the two statues without lessening the level of state oversight currently found in the SMA.

Make no changes to existing cabinet structures.

A cabinet coordinating committee could be established. It could be composed of agencies with an impact on land use and environmental issues, including the natural resource agencies and agencies concerned with education, health, social services, transportation, and economic development. The cabinet coordinating committee would oversee the development of a state comprehensive plan. The cabinet coordinating committee would also work to coordinate state agency actions and resolve differences between agencies. It could also serve to establish state policy on issues arising through local or regional decision making processes and provide state input into those processes.

The three separate planning enabling statutes should be combined into a single statute that applies to all cities and counties. The objective would be to retain for local governments the maximum flexibility to design local processes consistent with overall state-wide objectives to assure a fair and open public process.

Leave the current procedures in place.

The SMA should be amended to allow a GMA jurisdiction to make changes to its shoreline master program (SMP) following the procedures specified in the GMA. A local government could integrate its SMP into its GMA plan, so long as the local government identifies the components of the GMA plan that meet SMA requirements. Ecology review and approval would still be required for the SMP, but this would be timed to fit within the comment cycle provided for in the GMA.

More fully incorporate the SMA into the GMA. Adoption of the shoreline element under a GMA comprehensive plan would be subject to the same procedures as to other elements of the comprehensive plan. Ecology would have review authority, but would not have approval authority. Ecology could appeal a local government decision that it does not agree with.

Since the adoption of SEPA in 1972, Washington has required environmental review as a part of the project review process. The adoption of the GMA presents an opportunity to better address the cumulative impacts of land use decisions than is available through the project review process. This will require a change in the timing of environmental review and a change to the way land use and environmental issues are addressed by local governments, the state, and the public.

Over the last few years, increasing attention has been paid to the issue of integrating different local and state governments permits into a single permit through a single process. 1995 Legislation created the Permit Assistance Center and a coordinated permitting process. This legislation is due to expire in 1999.

The siting of essential public facilities has posed significant difficulties for local governments, the state, and the public. The GMA provides minimal direction and does not address issues related to regional concerns and impacts. More recently, issues surrounding the siting of group homes, correctional institutions, and related facilities has become of increasing importance.

SEPA was adopted in the early 1970s, in part to ensure that government officials were aware of the impacts of their decisions. In the twenty-five years since its adoption, SEPA has become a fundamental part of this state’s system for reviewing the environmental impacts of nearly every type of governmental action, from the adoption of city and county ordinances, to the decision to build a sewage treatment plant, to the approval of an application to construct a building.

In the intervening twenty-five years, a number of laws addressing specific environmental issues have also been adopted, including issues such as the protection of the shorelines, air quality, hazardous waste control, solid waste control, and water quality. Some of these laws have resulted from federal requirements, others have been locally driven. In the early 1980s, the Legislature initiated a comprehensive review of SEPA that led to legislative changes adopted in 1983.

In 1990, the first stage of the Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted, followed by additional provisions in 1991. As cities and counties have begun to implement the GMA, there have been efforts to evaluate the extent to which these different statutes have resulted in duplication of effort. In 1993 Governor Lowry appointed the Governor’s Task Force on Regulatory Reform, in part to address the project review process. The Task Force proposed legislation that was ultimately adopted by the 1995 Legislature as ESHB 1724. That measure included provisions designed to integrate SEPA and GMA to some degree.

SEPA requires a governmental entity, whether state or local, to analyze the environmental impacts of its major actions. The same basic rules apply whether the proposed action is general in nature – e.g. adopting an ordinance – or project specific. The Department of Ecology has adopted rules to implement SEPA. SEPA applies to more than project actions.

The lead agency must make a threshold determination of whether the proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. If the lead agency determines that it does, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared.

An agency’s decisions under SEPA are subject to review both administratively, if allowed by the agency, and judicially.

ESHB 1724 included provisions directing that certain land use decisions made in GMA comprehensive plans and development regulations not be reconsidered during project review. These include decisions concerning the type of land use, density of residential develop in an urban growth area, and the availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan.9 In addition, a city or county planning under the GMA may determine that SEPA’s requirements for the analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of a project action have been adequately addressed in the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan and development regulations.

2. Local Government Permit Process

ESHB 1724 established a set of standards for local government permit processes. Although prior law had contained some restrictions on the number and type of local hearings that could be held on a project, ESHB 1724 established strict requirements. In addition, it imposed on a three year trial basis, since extended for two more years, a requirement that permit decisions be made within 120 days after an application has been submitted. The 120 day period excludes a number of events, including the time required to prepare an EIS.

ESHB 1724 did not impose any specific requirements on the procedure for conducting local hearings. As with prior law, local governments have discretion on how to structure those hearings, within the basic requirements of due process.

3. State and local permit coordination and integration

ESHB 1724 included provisions creating the Permit Assistance Center in Ecology, as well as creating the Permit Coordination Procedures Act. The Permit Assistance Center has been reviewed under the Sunset Review Act. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee has recommended that the Center be reauthorized. In addition, the Joint Legislative Rural Economic Development Task Force has been considering the role of the Permit Assistance Center in addressing economic development issues in the rural areas.

In the early 1970s, the Environmental Coordination Procedures Act was enacted by legislature. After some initial interest, that law fell into disuse and was repealed by ESHB 1724. The replacement statute, the Permit Coordination Procedures Act, provides a combination of information sharing and permit coordination. The later takes place only at the request of an applicant. The process includes the appointment of a project facilitator to work toward ensuring that timelines agreed to by the parties are met. The act sunsets in 1999. The process provides for the coordination of state permits. A local government may be invited to participate in the process, but may not be required to do so.

Although SEPA and its implementing rules distinguish between environmental review for projects from that required of legislative (non-project) actions, some of the requirements imposed on non-project environmental review are not necessarily useful. For example, the alternatives analysis required for an EIS may not be useful in cases where an agency is required to adopt a comprehensive plan. Discussing the alternative of not adopting a comprehensive plan is not an option that the local government can realistically consider.

A significant percentage of the GMA plans and development regulations that have been adopted by cities and counties have not undergone thorough environmental review. In some cases, cities and counties have determined that the plans or regulations do not have significant impacts, and thus did not prepare the more detailed analysis provided for in an EIS. This may be an appropriate decision for some types of plans or regulations. In others, the failure to conduct thorough environmental review prevents the plan or regulation from providing guidance for environmental review of project decisions.

A jurisdiction that has not conducted detailed review will not be readily able to take advantage of the provisions of ESHB 1724, that allow, and in some instances require, the jurisdiction to rely on its prior policy choices.

The existing SEPA process for environmental review of non-project actions -- actions such as the enactment and amendment of comprehensive plans and development regulations -- is not always conducive to good environmental review; at times, the existing process can discourage or thwart good environmental review. This is because the only environmental document prepared for most legislative enactments is a SEPA checklist, and this checklist usually is prepared after the proposed legislation has been written. The county or city prepares and reviews the checklist to determine whether the adverse environmental impacts disclosed in it are "significant" within the meaning of SEPA, but there is no useful standard of "significance" that leads to predictable and consistent decision-making from one jurisdiction to the next, and counties and cities have an incentive not to find impacts "significant" because when they do they must prepare an expensive and time-consuming EIS. When impacts are determined not to be "significant" in the SEPA sense, no further environmental review beyond the checklist is performed, but even "non-significant" plans or regulations often have environmental consequences and entail environmental tradeoffs that ought to be acknowledged and understood by the policy-makers considering their adoption and the citizens whose conduct will be regulated.

Many cities and counties issued Determinations of Nonsignificance before enacting their GMA-required plans and regulations. These negative threshold determinations may well have been appropriate under existing law, especially in jurisdictions that were simply amending their existing plans and regulations. The quality of the plans and regulations would have been improved, however, if some environmental review had accompanied the development, drafting, and enactment of these plans or regulations. SEPA should encourage environmental review that is tailored in scope to the potential impacts of the plan or regulation being enacted, and such environmental review should occur while the plan or regulation is being developed, not performed as an after-the-fact justification for decisions that already have been made.

b. Threshold determinations and Environmental Impact Statements

The SEPA threshold determination process divides project actions into the few that require Environmental Impact Statements and the many that do not. The great majority of projects receive DNSs or MDNSs. The amount and quality of the environmental review that these projects receive varies from project to project and jurisdiction to jurisdiction because SEPA does not provide a meaningful standard for determining significance or a clear and consistent process for evaluating impacts that are not deemed significant. In addition, SEPA does not provide clear direction on the use a city or county should make of existing environmental documents that have been prepared for other projects or for non-project actions such as the adoption of a sub-area plan. The SEPA process ought to focus on whether the impacts of a project have been identified and studied to the extent appropriate given the nature and extent of those impacts. The present threshold determination process can distract from that determination and lead to confusion, duplication of effort, procedural gamesmanship, and unnecessary delay.

c. Reliance on GMA Policy Decisions

Although ESHB 1724 provides a process by which a GMA jurisdiction, during project review, may rely on its plans and regulations to have adequately addressed environmental impacts, the process is sufficiently uncertain that it has not been used often.

One reason suggested for this failure is that the cities and counties have been provided little guidance to assist them in conducting the environmental analysis on a comprehensive plan. The SEPA rules do not provide a useful procedure for reliance on previous studies. Because of the uncertainties involved, in addition to the expense, few cities or counties have undertaken the effort.

d. Multiple Regulatory Requirements

In addition to requirements under GMA to designate and protect critical areas, the state and cities and counties implement a number of other state and federal requirements designed to protect the environment. These include provisions to manage and protect the shorelines, regulate stormwater, and protect streams and wetlands. In some instances, although not always, the requirements have been adopted after thorough environmental review.

During project review, a project proponent may be required to study the impacts of the project covered by existing regulations, even though the regulations may have been designed to address those impacts and provide for mitigation.

2. Local government permit process

The requirement that counties and cities make a decision on a project application within 120 days is viewed as a mixed success by participants in the land use permitting process. Applicants generally view the statute as too flexible. They do not believe that the time periods are certain enough. Members of the public view the provisions as creating a process that moves too quickly and does not allow enough time for the public to review proposals and participate in the decision making process in a meaningful manner. Local government officials express concern about the paperwork involved.10

The 120-day time limit was enacted as a three-year pilot project in 1995 and was due to expire on June 30, 1998. The Commission, directed to study the 120 day time limit and its impact, reported to the Governor and the Legislature in 1997. The report concluded that not enough time had elapsed to truly evaluate the effect of the requirement. It recommended that the sunset date should be extended to June 30, 2000 to allow time for additional study of the impacts of the program. The Legislature enacted the Commission’s recommendation during the 1998 session. The Commission also noted that an additional study would need to be funded and assigned to a state agency or other organization. That has not occurred.

3. State and local permit coordination and integration

The Coordinated Permit Process is underutilized despite its significant potential. First, applicants are often not familiar with the process, and are unaware of its value in managing multiple permits, time schedules, hearings, and appeals. Second, although many of the permits for projects are the responsibility of local agencies, local agencies are not required to participate in the process.

The major value of the Coordinated Permit Process is the "internal coordinator" feature. The coordinator serves as the main point of contact for the permit applicant and manages procedural aspects of the process. The coordinator assures that the applicant has sufficient information to apply for multiple permits, coordinates the review of those permits by the participating permit agencies, ensures that timely decisions are made, and assists in resolving any conflict or inconsistency among project permit requirements and conditions.

One downside of the Coordinated Permit Process may be its formality. The formal commitment to timelines can cause reluctance on the part of both the applicant and the agencies to sign the agreement until they are sure they can meet the agreed to commitments. While this may not prevent the permitting processes from moving forward, the negotiation can occupy hundreds of hours of governmental and private sector staff time.

The Coordinated Permit Process is approximately three years old. The process has led to cooperative review of four projects, and one has completed permitting. With more experience, the process may be suitable for mandatory application to certain classes of high impact, multi-jurisdictional projects.

The Commission established an advisory committee to consider revisions to SEPA and GMA as a way to better integrate the two statutes. They proposed to replace the SEPA threshold determination with a different procedure to evaluate environmental impacts. The procedure would rely on a revised environmental checklist identifying probable impacts. The lead agency would make a preliminary determination listing the probable impacts and identifying existing documents, regulations, and processes that apply to the proposal. The lead agency would issue the preliminary determination at same time as the notice of application. Public comment would be solicited. The final determination would identify those impacts that are not significant, those that have already been analyzed and addressed by other documents or regulations, and those that require further study under SEPA. An environmental report would be prepared on those impacts needing further study under SEPA. When the report is completed, the lead agency would issue its decision on the merits and decide what conditions and mitigation should be imposed. The application may be denied if the adverse impacts cannot be mitigated. The applicant would be able to appeal a determination that requires additional studies. Other parties could appeal SEPA issues at the same time as the appeal on the underlying governmental action.

Amend SEPA to distinguish between the type of environmental review conducted on non-project from that conducted on project actions. Environmental review of non-project actions could specifically include the need to look at cumulative impacts of proposals. Specific guidance for conducting environmental review of comprehensive plans and development regulations could be provided to increase the quality of environmental review and make it more likely that projects consistent with the comprehensive plan and development regulations would have had most of not all of their impacts adequately analyzed and addressed.

The Permit Assistance Center and its powers and duties, including the Coordinated Permit Process, will be terminated June 30, 1999, as provided in RCW 43.131.388. The Permit Assistance Center and the Coordinated Permit Process should be extended and expanded to encourage local agency participation. In addition there should be specific, ongoing evaluation of whether to create a mandatory coordinated process for classes of high impact projects. This ongoing evaluation would determine an impact threshold for mandatory inclusion in the process, as well as appropriate exemptions.

A number of additional improvements can be made to the permit assistance center and the coordinated permit process. These include:

Essential public facility siting in Washington involves a complex array of interests and social policy. The GMA, which directs cities and counties to establish a process for siting essential public facilities, also prohibits them from prohibiting the siting of those facilities. The definition of essential public facilities is broad and ambiguous and includes facilities owned and operated by governmental agencies as well as facilities owned and operated by private entities. The current procedures also do not provide guidance for addressing the impacts of essential public facilities on the host communities.

The traditional power of local government to control land uses within their jurisdiction is in the Washington Constitution, Article XI, Section 11. A county, city, town, or township may "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws." Under pre-GMA zoning laws, little specific legislative guidance was given regarding the siting of most essential public facilities. Disputes were decided on a case by case basis.

2. Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

State law does provide for the siting of certain types of large facilities. The Energy Facilities Siting Evaluation Council (EFSEC), originally established in 1970, has authority to site large energy facilities, such as nuclear power plants, oil pipelines, and some electrical transmission facilities11. EFSEC preempts all state and local permit processes for those facilities over which it has authority. The siting of hazardous waste management facilities is also regulated by state law.12 The state has preempted the field for siting some types of hazardous waste management facilities, but does provide a mechanism for a community and a facility proponent to reach an agreement that becomes a part of the state’s regulations.

3. GMA

The GMA attempted to address essential public facilities siting issues. It defines essential public facilities to include

those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, and state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes.

RCW 36.70A.020.

These facilities, while needed by society, often have real or perceived negative impacts on surrounding communities that may make them undesirable neighbors, and increase the complexity and difficulty of siting new facilities, or expanding existing facilities. The GMA requires all local comprehensive plans to include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities, and prohibits local comprehensive plans or development regulations from precluding the siting of essential public facilities. It requires the state Office of Financial Management to maintain a list of essential state public facilities. State agencies must comply with local comprehensive plans and development regulations (RCW 36.70A.103).

In addition to these siting provisions, the GMA requires county-wide planning policies to include policies for siting public capital facilities of a county-wide or state-wide nature. RCW 36.70A.210.

The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) adopted procedural criteria to guide local governments in the implementation of GMA, including the siting of essential public facilities, but these procedural criteria are not mandatory nor do they address all of the issues.

While the Growth Management Act has established a process for the siting of essential public facilities under the local comprehensive planning process, this bottom-up process does not always work for statewide or regional facilities, especially those sited by state agencies. Specific issues include:

A specialized process for siting essential pubic facilities should be considered. There are many options that could be considered. The one given the most attention by the Commission’s advisory committee is described below.

The process would provide for different processes depending on whether it is a state-wide essential public facility or a local or regional essential public facility. A state-wide facility might include a state owned and operated prison or detention facility, a new college or university, or hospital. Other unique types of facilities, such as energy facilities currently sited through EFSEC and hazardous waste disposal facilities, might also be considered state-wide facilities. All other essential public facilities would be considered as local or regional facilities. The state-wide process would be managed by a board or council comprised of representatives from state agencies and local governments. The board could either be specifically established to address essential public facilities or could be an adjunct to another body.

Local or regional facilities would initially be addressed at the local government level as provided currently under the GMA. DCTED would be given authority to adopt minimum standards for the process, including timeframes for making a decision and procedures to coordinate with adjoining local governments and state agencies. If the local government process does not reach a decision within the timeframes established or if the applicant or other participants in the process believe that conditions imposed on the proposal are intended to preclude siting rather than address legitimate project impacts, a negotiated siting process may be requested.

The negotiation process would include representatives from each local government in which facility is located or which would be directly impacted by operation of the facility, the applicant, and other parties whose participation is necessary to resolve the issues involved with the proposal. The facility siting committee would negotiate a resolution of issues with assistance from office of dispute resolution.

If an agreement is reached, each local legislative body represented on the committee would have to ratify the agreement. The local legislative body may only accept or reject the agreement. It may not modify the agreement. If approved, the agreement is binding on all parties.

If an agreement cannot be reached, the state oversight body would be presented with the proposals from each party. The oversight body would select the proposal it determines is most consistent with state policy

An essential component of a new process should be timelines to limit permit delays.

As a part of the essential public facility siting process, whether of a state-wide or local or regional facility, issues of impact compensation could be included in the negotiation process. Impact compensation could include:

The purposes served by allowing an appeal of a local land use or environmental decision are viewed differently by different interests. This has led to different views of the appropriate procedure and the standards that should apply to the review. The basic issue in an appeal is whether the decision maker has followed the law. For some, this is largely a procedural question that does not involve an examination of the substance of the decision. For others, the question of whether the law was followed also requires an examination of whether the decision is consistent with state policy, as established by the Legislature and agency rules.

Washington’s land use and environmental system provides a variety of appeal procedures and review bodies. The procedure that applies to the appeal of land use and environmental decisions depends on the subject matter of the decision as well as the decision maker. In some instances, a decision can result in parallel appeals being heard by two different appellate bodies.

Decisions implementing state land use and environmental laws are subject to a variety of review mechanisms. Local government and state agency land use and environmental decisions are subject to judicial review. Local government land use decisions are appealable under the Land Use Petition Act. This legislation was adopted in 1995 and combined the different appeal procedures applicable to permits into a single statute and eliminated common law procedures as the chief review mechanism.13 State agency actions are generally subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act, RCW Chapter 34.05.

Under some circumstances, prior to judicial review, a quasi-judicial state board may have review authority over the actions of a state agency or a local government. There are five separate quasi-judicial boards with authority to review land use and environmental statutes.14 Decisions of the quasi-judicial appeals boards may be appealed to superior court, or in some cases, directly to the Court of Appeals.

Particularly with respect to the appeal of a local government decision on a project permit application, there is the potential that two different appeal bodies will have jurisdiction over different aspects of the project. The appeal of a project constructed within the shorelines that requires a shoreline substantial development could potentially be handled both by the Shoreline Hearings Board and by the Superior Court. A SHB decision may be appealed to superior court. A project in the area covered by the SMA also may require other non-shoreline permits that are appealed to court. Depending on scheduling, the parties may be required to present similar testimony and evidence in both forums.

There are also differences in the appeal procedures depending on the forum. Superior court review is usually based on the record created by the local government or state agency. The superior court does not generally engage in fact-finding or conduct evidentiary hearings. Under the SMA, the appeal of a shoreline substantial permit is heard de novo by the SHB. This means the SHB conducts fact-finding hearings and bases its decision on the record it creates rather than the record before the local government.

The standard of review applied by the reviewing body also varies depending on the nature of the issue. The APA provides that a state agency decision will be upheld unless the agency acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Most local government land use decisions are appealed pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) which provides for a substantial evidence standard. Under the GMA, a local government’s decisions relating to its comprehensive plan and development regulations is presumed valid upon adoption and must be upheld unless the GMHB determines the local government decision was clearly erroneous.

Another difference among the different boards is the types of actions they have jurisdiction over. The Growth Management Hearings Boards have jurisdiction exclusively over legislative decisions of local governments and state agencies. They do not have jurisdiction over individual project permit decisions. The Shoreline Hearings Board has authority over both legislative and permit decisions, since in addition to shoreline permits, it hears appeals of shoreline master programs for non-GMA jurisdictions and of Ecology’s rules implementing the SMA.

The Pollution Control Hearings Board’s jurisdiction is largely limited to review of Ecology actions, although it also has authority to hear appeals of penalties imposed by the regional air pollution control authorities.

Each of the boards is required to have members that are representative of the different political parties and have expertise in the subject matter. Board members are not required to be attorneys, although each board is required to have at least one attorney member.

The boards generally do not have authority to review constitutional issues.

In 1997, the Legislature changed some of the procedural standards that apply to Growth Management Hearing Board review of city and county GMA decisions. The changes were intended in part to give local government decisions greater weight on an appeal before the boards.

The role of quasi-judicial boards in Washington’s land use and environmental system has received considerable attention in the last few years. There are a variety of reasons for providing for a quasi-judicial board. To some degree, their proceedings can be less formal and easier to participate in by those not represented by attorneys. The Boards also allow for a level of environmental expertise to develop that some believe is not as likely in the judicial system. A quasi-judicial system also can provide some degree of consistency of decisions state-wide, since there will usually be a single board, or perhaps one two or three. The judicial system cannot provide this consistency until the appellate courts. An another advantage that proponents of quasi-judicial review see is that it brings the perspective of people who are not lawyers into the review process. The judicial system does not provide this opportunity.

A common objection to the quasi-judicial boards is that they place appointed state officials in the position of reviewing, and in some cases overturning, decisions of locally elected officials. Under the GMA process, this is thought to undermine one of the principle elements of the GMA, which is the "local control" it gives to counties and cities. There are also objections raised that the quasi-judicial boards, rather than limiting their review to legal issues, substitute their judgement of what the decision should have been for the judgement of the local legislative body. An appeal to court is felt to be preferable because the judges are directly accountable to the public through the election process. Courts are more experienced in applying the law and are familiar with separation of powers issues. There is also a concern that the quasi-judicial process is nothing more than an extra step in the review process that just adds time and cost to the review.

In the review of shoreline substantial development permits issued under the SMA, there is an additional issue. Shoreline permits are heard de novo by the SHB. Local governments and developers frequently believe that this procedure causes unnecessary delay and allows opponents to withhold information and objections until the SHB hearing, rather than presenting all of the information at the local government hearing. They also point out that the process can result in two different review proceedings on the same project, one before the SHB and the other in superior court, with many of the same issues and evidence before both bodies. The SHB decision is then also appealable to superior court. Reform advocates also questioned the SHB’s cost effectiveness given the small number of permit decisions overturned by the board.

Proponents of the current SHB process believe that the shorelines are a fragile and unique resource that require special attention and protection. They point out that many local government’s have hearing procedures that do not meet the test of basic due process and fairness. The de novo review is seen as a means to assure that decisions affecting the shorelines are made based on scientific evidence and that the state-wide interest is not dismissed in favor of the more limited local interest. State agencies and the tribes also note that they have limited resources that make it difficult to keep abreast of and participate in every local permit process involving the shorelines. The tribes also note that with limited resources, they need to present their case in a forum where they are more likely to receive a favorable procedural process. The de novo review procedure provides a mechanism to assure that in those cases where it is necessary, additional evidence can be provided. The supporters of the current process argue that there is no evidence of any significant problems with the current appeal procedures. They point to the low percentage of appeals of shoreline permits and to the fact that the vast majority of local government GMA decisions have either not been appealed or have been upheld on appeal.

Retain the current process with appeals going to one of the existing hearings boards or superior court, depending on the nature of the issue.

Establish minimum standards for the conduct of local government hearings on project permits. The procedures would need to include provisions for notice to the public and state agencies and tribes with an interest in the subject matter of the permit. Procedures governing the conduct of the proceedings, including rules of evidence, preparation of the record would be established, and use of and experience of hearing examiners. If a local government has adopted these procedures, local government shoreline decisions made pursuant to those procedures would be heard by the SHB on the record made by the local government. The SHB could take additional evidence upon a showing that the evidence was unavailable or other reasons supporting opening of the record.

Combine the existing hearings boards into a single hearings board. An appeal of the hearings board decision would be filed in the Court of Appeals, bypassing the superior court. One variation would provide for regional hearings boards, similar to the three Growth Management Hearings Boards. Another variation would be to have one board, but with members appointed from around the state and sitting as regional panels.

Appeals of land use decisions would be filed with a new state land use court. There are three ways in which the court could be established. The first option would be to establish the land use court as an "inferior court", analogous to a district court. This could be done by statute. There would be some issues concerning the relationship of the court to the superior courts and how appeals would be handled.

A second option would be to create a special division of the superior court, called the land use court. If this were done on a county by county basis, no constitutional change would be required. For example, the juvenile courts are established by statute. However this would not provide for any state-wide consistency. If the land use court were to operate statewide at the superior court level, a constitutional amendment would probably be necessary.

A third option, would be to either create a new division of the court of appeals or have the court of appeals establish a special panel to hear land use cases. The first alternative could be accomplished by statute, since the constitution gives the Legislature considerable flexibility in establishing the jurisdiction and structure of the Court of Appeals. The second alternative could be accomplished by statute, or could also be done by the Court of Appeals by rule.

Eliminate the hearings boards and provide that all appeals are filed with the superior court. The authority of the superior court to appoint special masters could be expanded to address the need of some courts to obtain the expertise necessary to resolve technical issues that may arise.

Provide for appeals of land use decisions to be filed directly with the Court of Appeals.

Eliminate GMHB jurisdiction to hear appeals of amendments to comprehensive plans or development regulations. Appeals of amendments would be heard by superior court. The boards would have jurisdiction over adoption of a new comprehensive plan or development regulations and over pending cases. In 2000, the three boards would be consolidated into a single six-person board, which would function in two, three-member panels. In 2002, the number of members would be reduced to three. In 2004, the board would sunset and all future appeals of plans and development regulations would be heard by superior court.

Effective enforcement of local and state land use and environmental regulations and of permit conditions is critical to maintaining the state’s quality of life. Most local governments and state agencies admit to having inadequate resources for enforcement. This can lead to inconsistent application of the law and to frustration by members of both the public and the business community.

State statutes and local ordinances provide a wide range of penalties for enforcement of environmental and land use laws.

There are two basic means that are generally used to impose a fine or penalty: by the violation; and per day of violation. Many penalty statutes may also include provisions for orders to correct damages. Criminal penalties and seizure and forfeiture of personal property may also be available under some circumstances. Penalties are generally assessed in writing. Fines must be paid within a specified period and are appealable.

The Shoreline Management Act provides for criminal penalties15, recovery of damages to the environment,16 and civil penalties.17 The Department of Fish and Wildlife has authority to assess civil penalties for violation of the hydraulics code.18 Washington’s Oil Spill Legislation imposes significant civil and criminal penalties for violations.19

Enforcement of land use laws generally is the responsibility of local government. As with state laws, local governments also have a variety of penalty provisions. Jefferson County imposes civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day per violation of its floodplain management statutes. Yakima county provides a civil penalty of up to $50 per day of violation of its land use code20 and also provides for criminal penalties.21

The Tulalip Environmental Infractions code assesses a range of fines — depending on the classification of the infraction — from $500 to $5,000, and assesses these fines each day of a continuing violation. There is also a seizure & forfeiture of personal property provision that is applied primarily with respect to cultural resources violations or unauthorized hunting & unauthorized removal/destruction of tribal resources.22

Criminal penalties are more difficult to enforce, in part because the process for imposing them is more complicated. In the 1970s, King County made significant changes to its penalty provisions, replacing many criminal penalties with civil penalties. At least part of the reason for the change resulted from the reluctance of prosecutors to use the criminal sanctions.

Enforcement of state environmental laws is a shared responsibility of state and local government.

2. Third Party Enforcement

Although not common, some federal, state, and local laws do allow for third party enforcement, or citizen suits.

The Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, for example, allows any person to bring an action against a person, including a governmental entity, who is alleged to be in violation of a permit, condition, standard, rule, or order implementing the solid waste disposal act. 42 U.S.C. 6972. Prior to commencing the action, the plaintiff must give 60 days notice to the federal government, the state, and the alleged violator. The federal district court may award costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party. The Federal Clean Water Act has a similar provision. 33 U.S.C. 1365. Since the Federal Clean Water act imposes strict liability for water pollution, the cost provision is viewed by the environmental community as essentially benefiting plaintiffs.

Washington law also has provisions allowing private citizen suits. Under the Shoreline Management Act, a person may bring an action for damages on his or her behalf alleging a violation of the SMA or of a permit issued pursuant to the SMA. RCW 90.58.230. Damages can include the cost restoring the area affected by the violation. Money damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of the litigation may be awarded to the prevailing party, which can be either the plaintiff or defendant.23

Since the 1980’s, Island County’s Zoning Code has permitted citizens to bring an enforcement action before the County’s Hearing Examiner.24 Any aggrieved person may file a written complaint with the planning director alleging a violation of the Island County Building Code. A complaint may not be filed for an action for which an administrative or judicial appeal is available. The planning director is required to schedule a public hearing before the hearing examiner to take place within 60 days after the complaint is filed. The examiner must make a decision within ten days. The examiner may award costs to the prevailing party.

State law includes provisions intended to limit the potential for frivolous legal filings. The court may award reasonable costs if it determines that a legal filing was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause. RCW 4.84.185.

3. Natural Resource Damage Assessments

Washington’s oil spill prevention legislation provides a means for assessing the damage to the environment caused by an oil spill. A person who spills oil into Washington waters is strictly liable for the damages caused. Damages are in addition to any penalty or fine imposed. The damages can be imposed either pursuant to a compensation schedule adopted by Ecology rule or through a damage assessment process. Damages are based on the harm caused to the states natural resources.25 Any damages recovered are placed in the coastal protection fund for use of restoring natural resources.26

4. Dedicated Accounts

Generally, any fines, penalties, or assessments arising out of a violation of a state or local law will be deposited in the general fund of the enforcing authority.27 However, there are state programs that provide for depositing fines, penalties, and assessments into a fund dedicated to a specific purpose related to the regulated activity. Under the Washington’s Water Pollution Control Act, fines, penalties, damages recovered for violations of the act are deposited in the Coastal Protection Fund to be used to restore the state’s natural resources.28

Water well construction is regulated by Ecology and requires a licensed well driller.29 Fees and penalties collected under the regulatory program are paid into the state reclamation account.30 The account is used to support the well drilling construction program as well as for the "reclamation and development of such lands in the state of Washington as shall be determined to be suitable and economically available for reclamation and development as agricultural lands…."31

The enforcement of permit conditions is an important component of the land use and environmental system. Fair and consistent enforcement provides at least two benefits. First, enforcement can ensure that permit conditions designed to protect the environment or protect the public health or safety are followed. Second, effective enforcement ensures that all permit holders are subject to the same rules and costs and that there is no competitive advantage to failure to comply. There should not be a disincentive for doing what is required.

A recent study conducted by King County of wetland and stream mitigation evaluated the success of mitigation imposed through project permits.32 The study examined forty mitigation sites in King County both in terms of compliance with performance standards and with success at replacing wetland functions. Six sites (21%) met the performance standards. Only one site (3%) was successful in its objective of replacing wetland functions. The report identifies design flaws, installation problems, and maintenance as the prime causes for failure. The report recommends changes to King County’s guidelines for mitigation plans and inspection procedures.

Although it was not presented with studies supporting these claims, the Commission heard from a number of different sources that enforcement is not a priority for funding by either state or local governments and that state and local enforcement agencies have limited resources available for enforcement.

In public comment on the Commission’s draft report, the need for enhanced enforcement received considerable support from both the environmental community and state agencies. The business community believes that before any additional enforcement mechanisms are created, existing laws should be enforced. It also suggested that a study examining the enforcement issue should be conducted before the Commission proceeded to making any recommendations.

A standardized set of civil penalties should be considered, and in particular should supplement criminal penalties where they are the only option for enforcement.

An assessment for the damage a violation causes the environment should be provided.

Require local governments and state agencies to place fines, penalties, and assessments from violations of land use and environmental statutes into a dedicated account used to fund natural resource restoration and to support the enforcement programs.

Citizen suits could be authorized. Notice to the governmental entity responsible for enforcing the law, rule, or permit at issue would be required before an action could be filed. Issues that will need to be addressed include: what types of actions are subject to the citizen suit provisions; whether a decision by the governmental entity not to take action precludes the filing of the citizen suit; what remedies are available; and whether attorney’s fees may be awarded and to whom.

The problems faced by local governments in financing planning, permitting, enforcement, and construction have been long understood. The GMA has placed additional issues to bear on the financing issue through its impacts on incorporation, annexation, and appropriate development outside of urban growth areas. Infrastructure to address the impacts of growth is necessary in order to fulfill the objectives of the GMA and other land use and environmental laws.

Financing of local government needs has been a perennial problem in Washington.33 Local governments use the funds to provide for basic governmental services as well as to pay for infrastructure and other community capital needs.

Local governments have a variety of revenue sources to fund their services, including sales and property taxes, business and occupation taxes, permit fees, user fees, service charges, and impact fees. In addition, the state provides some funds through grants and loans for a variety of infrastructure needs.34 Some funds are also available from the federal government, although the amount of federal funds available has been decreasing.

Local governments may also generate funds through the sale of bonds. They may also create local improvement districts that have the authority to assess property for specific kinds of improvements.

Annexation can have an impact of county and city revenues. Upon annexation, there is a shift of some of the sales tax and property tax revenue from the county to the city. Counties and cities have a variety of ways of addressing this issue. The Interlocal Cooperation Act (Ch. 39.34 RCW) allows counties and cities to enter into a wide variety of agreements. For example, Thurston County and the City of Lacey entered into an agreement in 1990 to address issues related to the annexation of certain territory by the city. Under the agreement, the sales tax revenue that would have otherwise immediately accrued to the city upon annexation was subject to a gradual phase in over a five year period, with the county receiving less each year. Although the agreement was not renewed when it expired, Thurston County and the Cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater have entered into a memorandum of understanding to address other annexation issues, including the development standards the county will apply in the unincorporated urban growth areas.

The 1994 Legislature authorized the development of service agreements between counties, cities, and special purpose districts to deal with the provision of governmental services.35 The service agreements may include provisions for transfer of revenue between local governments based on their obligations for providing governmental services.36 In addition, it directed counties of over 150,000 population to convene a meeting with the cities and special purpose districts in the county. A service agreement was to be adopted not later than January 1, 1997, or a progress report was to be submitted to the Legislature. No service agreements were adopted under this provision by the January 1, 1997 date, and only a few counties submitted progress reports.

In 1995 the Legislature created the Planning and Environmental Review Fund to help pay for comprehensive plans that are integrated with environmental review. The fund was proposed as a way to facilitate the integration of GMA and SEPA. The expectation was that by financing a variety of projects, an improved planning process could be used to streamline the permitting process without any decline in environmental protection. The Legislature appropriated $3 million to the fund in the 1995-97 biennium, but provided no funds in the 1997-99 biennium.

In 1998, the Legislature appropriated funds to the Public Works Board to study the amount of need for financing for capital facilities. The study will be submitted to the Legislature in 1999.

Prior to the GMA, counties and cities were prohibited by statute from imposing impact fees as a condition for issuing development permits. However, under SEPA a county or city often imposed mitigation requirements on projects, which frequently included requirements for infrastructure or funds to address the impacts of the project. The GMA authorized GMA counties and cities to impose impact fees for a specific list of capital facility needs.37 Impact fees may be collected for: publicly owned streets and roads, parks, open space, and recreation facilities; school facilities; and fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district. The local government must place the fees in a dedicated account and may only be used for the purposes for which they are collected. If they are not used within six years, they must be refunded.

The Commission has consistently heard concerns from city and county governments about the lack of financial resources to meet their needs under the GMA. Many of the disputes between cities and counties over GMA issues, such as annexation and development outside of urban growth areas, are due at least in part to revenue generation issues.

Although the Legislature has given counties and cities several tools to address issues concerning the sharing of resources, the use of these devices has been relatively limited.

Other states have experimented with alternative approaches to addressing some of the same funding issues. For example, the Minneapolis-St. Paul region has implemented a tax base sharing scheme that is designed to address some of the problems that have faced local governments in this state.38

Local government officials, particularly city officials, have stated the view that these approaches will not be successful because they are premised in part on the idea that there are funds to share. It is their view that the main difficulty faced by both county and city governments is a lack of adequate financial resources for which the Legislature bears a significant responsibility.

In the past, federal and state resources were often available to help fulfill local government financial needs. Over time, however, these resources have disappeared. The limitations on expenditures included in I-601 places all requests for state expenditures in competition with one another even more so than before. The Governor and the Legislature will need to establish clear priorities for expenditures in order to meet the I-601 targets. This makes it even more difficult for local governments to obtain the financial resources they believe they need.

As the Commission discovered when it looked at funding issues as part of its 1996 Annual Report, finding a mechanism to fund ongoing planning activities is also hard to come by, even when there is a prospect for streamlined permitting.

Impact fees have been controversial since they were authorized as part of the GMA. Nearly every legislative session has seen proposals to restrict further their availability or to prohibit them outright. A common objection on the part of builders and realtors is that impact fees make affordable housing difficult or impossible to achieve. Many environmental groups and neighborhood organizations believe that impact fees are set too low and not used enough. They believe that the true cost of growth through its impact on the environment and on public services is not being recovered.

This is modeled on the Minneapolis-St. Paul regional approach and would authorize counties and cities to negotiate ways to share increases in tax revenue that result from planned activities. Increases that might be shared could include increased property tax revenue due to increase property values or increased sales taxes resulting from particular developments. As described above, local governments may be skeptical of this approach since it relies in significant part only on shifting existing or reasonably anticipated revenue sources form one local government to another.

One of the major sources of new revenue for many local governments is through encouraging economic development. The establishment of joint economic development districts can serve as a way to minimize the conflicts that occur between adjoining jurisdictions trying to attract development because of the financial benefit it will bring.

The Commission proposed as part of its 1996 Annual Report that counties and cities planning under the GMA be authorized to impose a one percent sales tax on new construction. Revenue generated by the tax could be used only to pay for capital facilities identified in the jurisdiction’s capital facilities plan. The tax would be a credit against the state sales tax. The result to the taxpayer would be not change in the total amount of tax paid. There would be a reduction in tax collected and paid into the state general fund.

The Commission, as part of its 1996 Annual Report, recommended a continuation of appropriations to that the Planning and Environmental Review Fund (PERF) at the same level as when it was established - $3 million for the biennium. The Commission concluded that additional time was necessary to test out the benefits of the approach and establish a long term funding mechanism.

Consider whether impact fees should be allowed for additional types of capital facilities.

The 1995 legislation granting the Growth Management Hearings Boards the authority to invalidate GMA comprehensive plans and development regulations also directed the Commission to study the impact on the goals of the GMA of allowing non-compliant plans to remain in effect during appeals. This raised several issues about Washington’s vesting laws. The study the Commission was directed to undertake only addressed a small subset of the larger issues involving vesting.

Vesting in Washington "refers generally to the notion that a land use application, under the proper conditions, will be considered only under the land use statutes and ordinances in effect at the time of the application's submission." Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 275 (1997). The vested rights doctrine has been the subject of numerous decisions by the Washington Supreme Court.

The Washington Supreme Court has stated that:

The Washington doctrine protects developers who file a building permit application that (1) is sufficiently complete, (2) complies with existing zoning ordinances and building codes, and (3) is filed during the effective period of the zoning ordinances under which the developer seeks to develop. See, e.g., Allenbach v. Tukwila, 101 Wn.2d 193, 676 P.2d 473 (1984). Once a developer complies with these requirements a city cannot frustrate the development by enacting new zoning regulations.

The purpose of the vesting doctrine is to allow developers to determine, or "fix," the rules that will govern their land development. See Comment, Washington's Zoning Vested Rights Doctrine, 57 Wash. L. Rev. 139, 147-50 (1981). The doctrine is supported by notions of fundamental fairness. As James Madison stressed, citizens should be protected from the "fluctuating policy" of the legislature. The Federalist No. 44, at 301 (J. Madison) (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Persons should be able to plan their conduct with reasonable certainty of the legal consequences. Hochman, The Supreme Court and the Constitutionality of Retroactive Legislation, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 692 (1960). Society suffers if property owners cannot plan developments with reasonable certainty, and cannot carry out the developments they begin.

West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47,50-51, 720 P.2d 782 (1986). The court has recognized that the Washington rule, which allows for vesting at the time a complete application is submitted, is not the rule applied in most other states.

The State of Washington presently has one of the most liberal vested rights doctrines in the nation. The requirements of the Washington doctrine are that (1) the applicant file a building permit application (2) which complies with the existing zoning ordinance and building codes and (3) is filed during the effective period of the zoning ordinances under which the applicant seeks to develop, and (4) is sufficiently complete. West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 50-51, 720 P.2d 782 (1986). The doctrine in Washington thus provides that an applicant for a building permit has a vested right to have the application processed under the zoning regulations in effect at the time the building permit application is filed.

In contrast to the Washington rule, the majority of jurisdictions hold that even the issuance of a building permit is insufficient to establish a vested right entitling the applicant to a nonconforming use. The applicant, in addition to obtaining a building permit, also must establish a substantial expenditure or change in position in reliance on the issued building permit to effectuate a vested right. See 1 R. Anderson, Zoning §§ 6.24, 6.25 (2d ed. 1976); Comment, Washington's Zoning Vested Rights Doctrine, 57 Wash. L. Rev. 139 (1981).

Valley View v. Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621,655 (1987) (Dore, dissenting). See, also, Hull v. Hunt, 53 Wn.2d 125 (1958).

2. Commission’s Mandate

It’s enabling statute directs the Commission to:

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

RCW 90.61.040(4). The direction to conduct the study was in response to a provision in ESHB 1724 providing that county and city comprehensive plans on appeal to a Growth Management Hearings Board would remain valid, and that projects could vest under those plans and development regulations, unless a Growth Management Hearings Board entered an order to invalidate the plan or development regulation. The study was intended to determine to what extent vesting to those plans and development regulations that did not comply with the GMA created problems in achieving the GMA’s goals and policies.

3. Vesting Study

In order to conduct the study required RCW 90.61.040(4), the Commission contracted with David Evans and Associates to collect the information needed to make the analysis. The Commission concluded that to understand the significance of vesting during a period of non-compliance or invalidity, it is also important to know the amount of permit activity at other significant times during the comprehensive planning process, including the period prior to plan adoption. The contractor was asked to collect the following information:

For each local government that has been subject to an appeal to a GMHB: the number of completed permit applications submitted (on a monthly basis), beginning from date the local government commenced planning under the GMA; the dates of significant events taken by the local government to comply with the GMA (e.g. interim urban growth areas, critical area ordinances, draft comprehensive plan, final comprehensive plan); and the dates of GMHB proceedings (e.g., date of appeal, GMHB hearing, and GMHB decision)

For each appeal to a GMHB that has resulted in a finding that a local government comprehensive plan or development regulation was not in compliance with the GMA the number of permit applications that vested under that plan or development regulation that was found not in compliance and that would not be permitted under the plan or development regulation that has been adopted and found in compliance with the GMA.

For each appeal that has resulted in a determination of invalidity for part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulation the number of permit applications that vested under that plan or development regulation that was determined to be invalid and that would not be permitted under the plan or development regulation that has been adopted and found in compliance with the GMA.

The study limited its review to ten counties that had comprehensive plans or development regulations held invalid or not in compliance with the GMA. Ten counties were selected because vesting was more likely to raise issues concerning GMA goals and policies in rural areas than in urban areas.39 The study also was limited to a limited number of permit types, including formal subdivisions, short subdivisions, planned unit developments, master planned communities, master planned resorts, and major industrial developments.

The following is the summary and conclusions from the report submitted to the Commission by David Evans.

Based on the limited information available from the study, no changes to Washington’s vesting statutes are recommended at this time to address the specific issue the Commission was asked to consider: whether vesting during a period of time a comprehensive plan is on appeal results in the approval of projects that are inconsistent with a comprehensive plan that is found in compliance with the GMA.

Some Commission members and environmental community representatives expressed disappointment with the data collected. They suggest a further study of vesting issues should be considered. There is anecdotal evidence that Washington’s vesting law, which grants vesting at the time a complete application is submitted, creates problems for implementation of the GMA. However, there is little solid data to indicate whether this truly presents a problem or only the perception of one.

Since many comprehensive plans have now been adopted, vesting during adoption and appeal may be less of an issue in the future. Also local governments do have authority to adopt moratoria to limit vesting if a problem arises. Some advocate however that the option of a moratorium is not sufficient, and that more direct legislative changes to the vesting laws are appropriate.

There are equally strong views that property rights and vested rights must be strengthened in any future consolidated land use code. Advocates of property rights view the GMA and other environmental laws as infringements of their constitutional rights. Any legislative change to the current rules on vesting would be a very controversial issue and would need further legal analysis, given the doctrine’s judicial roots.

Due to the difficulty of collecting data, no further study is recommended at this time. However, if a consolidated land use code is developed in the future, these disparate views on vesting will need to be addressed.

The Land Use Study Commission has conducted an extensive public process over the past three years to evaluate how a Consolidated Land Use Code could be implemented in Washington State. During this period, many diverse viewpoints have been expressed about Washington’s current land use and environmental laws. The current system relies on a number of independently adopted laws, including the Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act. A number of efforts have been undertaken over the last few years to integrate these statutes, both at the state level and local level. Some progress towards this goal has been made. The system is not entirely broken, nor is it perfect.

There is a consensus that there is room for improvement in Washington’s land use and environmental regulatory system. A consolidated land use code has the potential for many positive benefits; however, at this time, the consensus necessary for its adoption is not present.

This does not mean that the journey must end. This final report is an important milestone toward reaching the goal of a consolidated code. The report provides detailed guidance on the issues that need to be addressed, and a thorough discussion of options and policy issues that need to be resolved. These policy issues are the domain of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. If the state decides to proceed further with such a code, there are significant prerequisites to achieve the necessary consensus.

First, there must be a consensus from the Legislative and Executive branch that a consolidated land use code is worth the considerable effort it will take to implement such sweeping changes. Specific direction on some of the key policy issues that are identified in this report would aid the development of the code.

Second, a successor entity would be required to actually develop the statutory version of a Consolidated Land Use Code. Consideration should be given to the type of successor entity. It would need the funding, technical expertise, legislative drafting skills, and dedicated personnel to undertake such a task. A volunteer commission is limited in its ability to undertake actual statutory drafting of such sweeping changes. The possibilities for a successor entity include the Executive branch, a committee of the Legislature, or an existing agency. Whatever successor entity may be chosen, it is clear that the drafting of a Consolidated Land Use Code will be an enormous task requiring further public outreach and consensus building.

The State of Washington is facing many challenges, including threatened salmon runs, continued population growth, rising housing costs, buildable lands supply issues, transportation concurrency, and infrastructure financing. These issues will continue to put strains on our existing land use system. We can continue to meet these challenges under our current system; however, the ideas presented in this report present the opportunity to meet these challenges in a new, integrated way. To achieve these goals, a strong political consensus must emerge to lead the way.

The Land Use Study Commission was established by Ch. 347, Laws of 1995 (ESHB 1724). The 14-member Commission was established with the overall mission to "integrat[e] and consolidat[e]" ... the state’s land use and environmental laws into a single manageable statute." RCW 90.61.010. In addition, the Commission was given a number of additional tasks, including:

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

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

Monitor instances state-wide of the vesting of project permit applications during the period that an appeal is pending before a growth management hearings board.

Monitor local government consolidated permit procedures and the effectiveness of the timelines established by RCW 36.70B.090.

Evaluate funding mechanisms that will enable local governments to pay for and recover the costs of conducting integrated planning and environmental analysis.40

Study, in cooperation with the state board for registration of professional engineers and the state building code council, ways in which state agencies and local governments could authorize professionals with appropriate qualifications to certify a project’s compliance with certain state and local land use and environmental requirements.41

The legislation creating the Commission was effective June 1 1995. The Governor announced the appointment of the Commission members on September 28, 1995.

The Legislature has asked the Commission to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature stating its findings, conclusions and recommendations not later than November 1 of each year.

The Commission’s statute provides for up to 14 members, ten of whom are appointed by the Governor. The membership represents a cross-section of those interested in land use and environmental issues, including business, agriculture, labor, environmental and neighborhood activists, local and state governments, the tribes, and the general public. Three additional members are the directors of the Departments of Ecology, Transportation, and Community, Trade, and Economic Development (DCTED).

T. Ryan Durkan, of the Seattle law firm Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson, has been appointed by Tim Douglas, Director of DCTED, as his designee and as chair of the Commission.

Other members of the panel appointed by the Governor, include: Kitsap County Commissioner Phil Best, of Bremerton; Spokane neighborhood activist Sheila Collins; Tom Campbell, President of Snonet; Keith Dearborn, a landuse attorney in private practice in Seattle; Kathy Dietrich, a Vancouver architect; Loren Dunn, an environmental attorney with the Seattle law firm of Graham & James/Riddell Williams; Everett Mayor Ed Hansen; David Moseley, Ellensburg City Manager; Kimberly Ordon, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Department of Tulalip Tribes in Marysville; David Roseberry, a wheat farmer and former President of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers42.

Tom Fitzsimmons, Director of the Department of Ecology, and James Toohey, Department of Transportation, represent their respective agencies.

[RESERVED]

The Commission’s 1997 Annual Report made four legislative recommendations. Three recommendations were passed by the Legislature and signed into law. One recommendation, extension of the Commission, did not pass the Legislature.

The three recommendations that were enacted concerned: (1) procedures for designating mineral resource lands, in response to the Governor’s veto of SHB 1472 from the 1997 Legislative session; (2) correcting drafting errors in annexation legislation recommended by the Commission and enacted by the Legislature in 1997; and (3) extending for two years the 120-day permit timeline adopted by the 1995 Legislature.

The recommendation for extension of the Commission was made in response to a request by the Senators McCaslin, Haugen, and Patterson on behalf of the Senate Committee on Government Operations.

In developing the consolidated code, the Commission has been directed to take a number of factors into account. These factors include:

Land use planning should be conducted through the GMA comprehensive planning process rather than through review of individual projects;

Diverse sectors of the public should be involved in the planning process.

Early and informal environmental analysis should be incorporated into planning and decision making;

Recognize that different questions need to be answered and different levels of detail applied at each planning phase;

Integrate and combine to the fullest extent possible the processes, analysis, and documents currently required under the GMA and SEPA, so that subsequent plan decisions and subsequent implementation will incorporate measures to promote the environmental, economic, and other goals and to mitigate undesirable or unintended adverse impacts on a community’s quality of life;

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

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

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

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

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

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

RCW 90.61.040(4) (repealed effective June 30, 1998).

The reorganized structure has the following categories: