Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A_SMP Amendment Laws and Rules_2021_0514DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report A. SMP Amendment Laws and Rules RCW 90.58.080 Timetable for local governments to develop or amend master programs—Review of master programs—Grants. (Effective until July 1, 2025.) (1) Local governments shall develop or amend a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the required elements of the guidelines adopted by the department in accordance with the schedule established by this section. (2)(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (5) and (6) of this section, each local government subject to this chapter shall develop or amend its master program for the regulation of uses of shorelines within its jurisdiction according to the following schedule: (i) On or before December 1, 2005, for the city of Port Townsend, the city of Bellingham, the city of Everett, Snohomish county, and Whatcom county; (ii) On or before December 1, 2009, for King county and the cities within King county greater in population than ten thousand; (iii) Except as provided by (a)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, on or before December 1, 2011, for Clallam, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties; (iv) On or before December 1, 2012, for Cowlitz, Island, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, and Skamania counties and the cities within those counties; (v) On or before December 1, 2013, for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and (vi) On or before December 1, 2014, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties. (b) Nothing in this subsection (2) shall preclude a local government from developing or amending its master program prior to the dates established by this subsection (2). (3)(a) Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments required to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, as provided by subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section. Any jurisdiction listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) of this section that has a new or amended master program approved by the department on or after March 1, 2002, but before July 27, 2003, shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable date provided by subsection (4)(b) of this section. (b) Following approval by the department of a new or amended master program, local governments choosing to develop or amend master programs on or before December 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have complied with the schedule established by subsection (2)(a)(iii) through (vi) of this section and shall not be required to complete master program amendments until the applicable dates established by subsection (4)(b) of this section. DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report (4)(a) Following the updates required by subsection (2) of this section, local governments shall conduct a review of their master programs at least once every eight years as required by (b) of this subsection. Following the review required by this subsection (4), local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. The purpose of the review is: (i) To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and (ii) To assure consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements. (b) Counties and cities shall take action to review and, if necessary, revise their master programs as required by (a) of this subsection as follows: (i) On or before June 30, 2019, and every eight years thereafter, for King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within those counties; (ii) On or before June 30, 2020, and every eight years thereafter, for Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties and the cities within those counties; (iii) On or before June 30, 2021, and every eight years thereafter, for Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania, Spokane, and Yakima counties and the cities within those counties; and (iv) On or before June 30, 2022, and every eight years thereafter, for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and the cities within those counties. (5) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, local governments are encouraged to begin the process of developing or amending their master programs early and are eligible for grants from the department as provided by RCW 90.58.250, subject to available funding. Except for those local governments listed in subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the deadline for completion of the new or amended master programs shall be two years after the date the grant is approved by the department. Subsequent master program review dates shall not be altered by the provisions of this subsection. (6) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, the following shall apply: (a) Grants to local governments for developing and amending master programs pursuant to the schedule established by this section shall be provided at least two years before the adoption dates specified in subsection (2) of this section. To the extent possible, the department shall allocate grants within the amount appropriated for such purposes to provide reasonable and adequate funding to local governments that have indicated their intent to develop or amend master programs during the biennium according to the schedule established by subsection (2) of this section. Any local government that applies for but does not receive funding to comply with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section may delay the development or amendment of its master program until the following biennium. (b) Local governments with delayed compliance dates as provided in (a) of this subsection shall be the first priority for funding in subsequent biennia, and the development or amendment compliance deadline for those local governments shall be two years after the date of grant approval. DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report (c) Failure of the local government to apply in a timely manner for a master program development or amendment grant in accordance with the requirements of the department shall not be considered a delay resulting from the provisions of (a) of this subsection. (7) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, all local governments subject to the requirements of this chapter that have not developed or amended master programs on or after March 1, 2002, shall, no later than December 1, 2014, develop or amend their master programs to comply with guidelines adopted by the department after January 1, 2003. (8) In meeting the update requirements of subsection (2) of this section, local governments may be provided an additional year beyond the deadlines in this section to complete their master program or amendment. The department shall grant the request if it determines that the local government is likely to adopt or amend its master program within the additional year. WAC 173-26-090 Locally initiated review—Periodic review—Public involvement and approval procedures. (1) Locally initiated master program review. Each local government should review its shoreline master program and make amendments deemed necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new information or improved data. Local governments are encouraged to consult department guidance for applicable new information on emerging topics such as sea level rise. (2) Periodic review requirements. (a) Following the comprehensive updates required by RCW 90.58.080(2), each local government shall conduct a review of their master program at least once every eight years on a schedule established in the act. Following the review, local governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. This review and revision is referred to in this section as the periodic review. (b) Deadlines for periodic review. Local governments must take action to review, and if necessary, revise their master programs according to the schedule established in RCW 90.58.080 (4)(b). Deadlines for completion of periodic review are as follows: Table WAC 173-26-090.1 Deadlines for Completion of Periodic Review Reviews must be completed on or before June 30th of: Affected counties and the cities and towns within: 2019/2027* King, Pierce, Snohomish. 2020/2028* Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, Whatcom. 2021/2029* Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania, Spokane, Yakima. 2022/2030* Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whitman. DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report * And every eight years thereafter. (c) Taking legislative action. (i) The periodic review must be accomplished through legislative action. Legislative action means the adoption of a resolution, motion, or ordinance following notice and a public hearing including, at a minimum, findings that a review and evaluation has occurred and identifying the revisions made, or that a revision was not needed and the reasons therefore. Legislative findings that no revisions are needed are referred to in this section as "findings of adequacy." (ii) Legislative action includes two components. It includes a review of the shoreline master program and it includes the adoption of either findings of adequacy or any amendments necessary to bring the program into compliance with the requirements of the act. (iii) Legislative actions concluding the periodic review must be followed by department approval. (d) The required minimum scope of review. (i) The purpose and scope of the periodic review as established by the act is: (A) To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and (B) To assure consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements. (ii) The review process provides the method for bringing shoreline master programs into compliance with the requirements of the act that have been added or changed since the last review and for responding to changes in guidelines adopted by the department, together with a review for consistency with amended comprehensive plans and regulations. Local governments should also incorporate amendments to reflect changed circumstances, new information, or improved data. The review ensures that shoreline master programs do not fall out of compliance over time through inaction. (iii) The periodic review is distinct from the comprehensive updates required by RCW 90.58.080(2). The presumption in the comprehensive update process was that all master programs needed to be revised to comply with the full suite of ecology guidelines. By contrast, the periodic review addresses changes in requirements of the act and guidelines requirements since the comprehensive update or the last periodic review, and changes for consistency with revised comprehensive plans and regulations, together with any changes deemed necessary to reflect changed circumstances, new information or improved data. There is no minimum requirement to comprehensively revise shoreline inventory and characterization reports or restoration plans. (3) Procedures for conducting periodic reviews. (a) Public participation program. (i) In conducting the periodic review, the department and local governments, pursuant to RCW 90.58.130, shall make all reasonable efforts to inform, fully involve and encourage participation of all interested persons and private entities, tribes, and agencies of the federal, state or local government having interests and responsibilities relating to shorelines of the state and the local master program. Local governments may follow the public participation procedures under either the standard local process outlined in WAC 173-26-100, or the optional joint review process outlined in WAC 173-26-104. (ii) Counties and cities shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures whereby review of the shoreline master program will be considered by the local governing body consistent with RCW 36.70A.140. Such procedures shall provide for early and continuous public participation through broad dissemination of informative materials, proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, and consideration of and response to public comments. The public participation program should include a schedule for the periodic review and identify when legislative action on the review and update component are proposed to occur. The public participation program should also inform the public of when to comment on the scope of the review and proposed changes to the master program. Counties and cities may adjust the public participation program to best meet the intent of the participation requirement. DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report (b) Review and analysis to determine need for revisions. (i) Review amendments to the act and shoreline master program guidelines. Local governments must review amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the master program was last amended, and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance. The department will maintain a checklist of legislative and rule amendments to assist local governments with this review. The department will provide technical assistance to ensure local governments address applicable changes to the act and master program guidelines. (ii) Review relevant comprehensive plans and regulations. Local governments must review changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to determine if the shoreline master program policies and regulations remain consistent with them. WAC 173-26-191 (1)(e) and 173-26-211(3) provide guidance on determining internal consistency. It is the responsibility of the local government to assure consistency between the master program and other elements of the comprehensive plan and development regulations. Local governments should document the consistency analysis to support proposed changes. (iii) Additional review and analysis. Local governments should consider during their periodic review whether to incorporate any amendments needed to reflect changed circumstances, new information or improved data as described under subsection (1) of this section. Local governments should consider whether the significance of the changed circumstances, new information or improved data warrants amendments. (c) Take legislative action. (i) At the end of the review process, counties and cities must take legislative action declaring the review process complete. (ii) The notice of hearing for legislative actions that are intended to address the periodic review process must state that the actions to be considered are part of the periodic review process under RCW 90.58.080(4). (iii) The findings for any legislative action on the periodic review process must state that the action is intended to satisfy the requirements of RCW 90.58.080(4). (iv) A local government that determines after review that amendments are not needed shall adopt a resolution, motion, or ordinance declaring findings of adequacy. Findings of adequacy are a local written determination that no revisions to a shoreline master program are needed to comply with the requirements of RCW 90.58.080(4). (d) Submittal to the department. (i) A local government that determines amendments are needed shall submit the amendments to the department consistent with WAC 173-26-110. (ii) A local government that determines amendments are not needed shall submit the following in lieu of the requirements of WAC 173-26-110: (A) A resolution or ordinance declaring findings of adequacy. (B) Evidence of compliance with applicable public notice and consultation requirements. (C) Copies of all public, agency and tribal comments received during any applicable public comment periods, or where no comments have been received, a statement to that effect. (D) A completed checklist demonstrating review elements have been considered, and are either inapplicable or have already been addressed through previous locally initiated amendments prior to the scheduled periodic review. (e) State process for approving periodic reviews. (i) The department must issue a formal approval of any amendment or findings of adequacy. Department approval is necessary to affirmatively conclude the periodic review process, to confirm that state review of local action has occurred, and to establish a definitive appeal window consistent with RCW 90.58.190. (ii) Where the local government final action includes master program amendments, local governments and the department shall follow applicable adoption procedures described in WAC 173- 26-120. DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report (iii) Where the local government final action is to adopt findings of adequacy, the department shall follow applicable adoption procedures described in WAC 173-26-120. The department shall review the findings of adequacy solely for consistency with RCW 90.58.080(4) and this section. 18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process. (1) Exceptions – Emergencies. In addition to the amendment process set forth in this chapter, the board of county commissioners may amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in any of the following circumstances: (a) Resolution of an emergency condition or situation that involves public health, safety or welfare and when adherence to the amendment process set forth in this chapter would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; (b) Initial adoption of a subarea plan identified in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (c) The adoption of or amendments to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program; (d) Technical, nonsubstantive corrections to manifest land use mapping errors which do not involve interpretations of the criteria for the various land use designations contained in the Comprehensive Plan; (e) Resolution of a decision by an administrative agency or court of competent jurisdiction; and (f) Special use permits for essential public facilities under JCC 18.15.110. 18.45.080 Final docket (1) Planning Commission Review. All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed and assessed by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners after holding at least one open record public hearing. (b) Required Findings – Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following: (i) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and (iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects current widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County. DRAFT May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review Staff Report 18.25.840 Master program amendments. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and 36.70A.280, a decision by the Jefferson County board of county commissioners to amend this master program shall not constitute a final appealable decision until the Department of Ecology has made a decision to approve, reject, or modify the proposed amendment. Following the decision of the Department of Ecology regarding the proposed amendment, the decision may be appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.