Issue Statement
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 for them to use, 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 have been attempts to coordinate these different statutes, but differences remain.
Background
State Agency Coordination
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 Washington State comes to a state plan are the operating and capital budgets passed every two years. Budgets are an expression of the Governor's and the Legislature's priorities. Unlike a comprehensive plan, however, the budgets have 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 some aspects 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.
Planning Enabling Statutes
There are three separate planning enabling statutes. Each applies to a particular type of city or to counties.7 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. In large part, the three statutes are the same, but they do have variations.
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.
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.
Cities and counties with shorelines subject to the SMA are required to adopt a shoreline master program, which includes a plan and implementing development regulations, to regulate activity and development on the shorelines. Ecology has authority to adopt guidelines for preparation of 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. For example, 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. GMA, on the other hand, gives local governments the responsibility for balancing the goals of the GMA. A second significant difference is that the SMA gives to Ecology the authority to approve local government shoreline programs and allows appeals of shoreline permits to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Under the GMA, state agencies may comment on, but do not have approval authority over, local government decisions. Permit decisions are appealed to superior court, not to a state board.
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 integrating the GMA and the SMA. 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 as to how the integration should be accomplished.
Discussion
State Agency Planning
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 (1995). 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 to 4-11.
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.
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 issue areas, distinctions between cities and counties no longer have value. The planning enabling statutes fall into this category.
The planning enabling statutes preceded the GMA and provided procedures for adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The GMA did not fully address the overlap and left the relationship between the two statutes unclear, causing occasional confusion over which statute applies and for what purposes. The different procedural requirements make it more difficult for members of the public to participate in related county and city planning processes. In addition, there has been at least one superior court decision requiring a county to readopt a portion of its comprehensive plan because it did not comply with the procedural requirements of both the GMA and the planning enabling act.
GMA and SMA Planning
The GMA and the SMA have procedural requirements 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 makes 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 specific requirements of the GMA.
A significant component of the SMA is Ecology's authority to approve shoreline master programs and any amendments before they take effect. Under the SMA, the local government submits its adopted master program 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. State agencies review and comment on the local government's draft plan, not on its adopted plan. Combined with the GMA's prohibition on amending comprehensive plans no more than once each year, this presents logistical problems for local governments trying to comply with both statutes.
If local governments could use the GMA public participation processes and synchronize the comment period on the GMA comprehensive plan with Ecology's review of the shoreline master program, then integration of the two statues could be facilitated without lessening the level of state oversight currently found in the SMA.
Options
State Planning
Status Quo
Make no changes to existing cabinet structures.
Pros:
- Proponents of the status quo note that the Governor has authority to organize his cabinet in whatever manner he or she deems best. Although the goal of state planning is a good one that should be encouraged, they believe that it is the Governor's responsibility and not that of the Legislature.
Cons:
- Those who favor some changes recognize that the Governor has the ability to organize the cabinet in a variety of ways. They see a benefit in institutionalizing a state planning function so that it will be in place over time and allow for long range planning.
Cabinet Coordinating Committee
A cabinet coordinating committee could be established. It would consist 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 could also oversee and coordinate existing state planning functions. 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.
Pros:
- Proponents note that the budget process is the only existing formal mechanism for developing state policy in a comprehensive manner. They believe the budget process has too short of a time horizon for effective planning and that it is not designed to address inter-agency issues.
- Proponents note that several important state agencies are headed either by separately elected officials or by a board or commission only indirectly accountable to the Governor. Legislation could address this situation.
- Proponents note that establishing a cabinet coordinating committee through legislation will also assure continuity from one administration to another. They also suggest that the process of setting state policy could be opened to greater public involvement and input.
Cons:
- Some believe that legislation mandating a specific cabinet structure would be an intrusion of the Legislature into a matter that should be left to the Governor and other elected officials to resolve.
- Some in the environmental community are concerned that environmental protection will lose out to other state-wide interests and result in a lessening of environmental protection.
Integrate the Planning Enabling Statutes and Coordinate with the GMA
The three separate planning enabling statutes would be combined into a single statute that applies to all cities and counties. This would eliminate procedural inconsistencies between the different statutes and further the goal of consolidating the different land use statutes. 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. There would be no expansion of GMA requirements to non-GMA planning jurisdictions.
Pros:
- Proponents note that the differences between the planning enabling statutes cause confusion and do not have significant benefits. They suggest this option would provide an opportunity to modernize the planning statutes and would also allow the procedures for developing and adopting comprehensive plans and development regulations under the planning enabling statutes to be synchronized with the GMA.
Cons:
- Some city officials have expressed concerns. They do not believe there are any significant problems with the existing statutes. They suggest needed changes should be made to the individual statues.
- Cities are also concerned that the proposal could require county and city governments to make substantial changes to their zoning codes, creating opportunities for appeals and challenges to those codes.
SMA and GMA Integration
Status Quo
Leave the current procedures in place.
Pros:
- Some argue that local governments already are able to integrate their shoreline master programs and GMA comprehensive plans if they wish.
- Some in the environmental community point out that the current procedures assure that careful attention is given to protecting the shorelines, which are a unique and limited resource. They do not want to see this protection diminished.
Cons:
- Some local governments believe that the 1995 changes incorporating the SMA into the GMA left many unresolved issues about how the two statutes interact. They would like to see these issues addressed.
- Some cities and counties have noted that the processes for adopting plans under the two statutes create difficulties because of their different timelines and procedures. They would like to have a uniform procedure in place.
Changes to the Procedures for Adopting Shoreline Master Programs
The SMA would 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 would be timed to fit within the GMA comment cycle.
Pros:
- Proponents argue that this change will allow local governments to better integrate their shoreline plans with their GMA comprehensive plans. They note that it maintains the state interest in the shorelines by retaining Ecology authority to review and approve the shoreline plans.
- Proponents argue that this is a step towards further consolidation and allows time for implementation and assessment of these procedural changes, before substantive changes are considered.
Cons:
- Some in the business community believe that this approach amounts only to minor changes to the planning system when what is required is a more substantial integration of shoreline planning with the GMA.
- Some in the environmental community are concerned that the integration of the SMA plans into GMA plans will make it more difficult for the public to verify that a county or city is complying with the SMA and its more stringent requirements.
- Some local control advocates view this as an expansion of Ecology authority into the GMA that they believe is inappropriate.
Fully integrate SMA into the GMA
The shoreline element would be adopted pursuant to same procedures as other elements of a GMA comprehensive plan. Ecology would review the shoreline element in the same manner as other GMA comprehensive plan elements are reviewed. It would not have approval authority as it now does. Ecology would appeal a shoreline element it believes does not comply with the SMA.
Pros:
- Some in the business community believe this option would be consistent with legislative direction that the GMA should be considered the main planning statute. They believe that incorporating the relevant provisions from the SMA into the GMA will assure that the shorelines are protected while also creating a more efficient system.
- Others believe that local governments are in the best position to understand and manage the resources in their jurisdiction and that they should be given the authority to manage those resources.
Cons:
- Environmental and tribal interests argue that the shorelines are a unique resource that belong to the people of the state as a whole, not to any single jurisdiction. They see state oversight as being essential to ensure that the public's interest in the state's shorelines does not become overwhelmed by the more narrow local interest of a city or county.
- Some also believe the SMA should be retained as is and should not be integrated into the GMA.
- Environmental community and tribal representatives point out that the SMA applies to more than land development and that the GMA does not have the framework necessary to replace those functions.
Recommendations
