Loading (50 kb)...'
(continued)
APPROVAL:
(7) Within thirty days after receipt of the local government written response pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, the department shall make written findings and conclusions regarding the consistency of the proposal with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, provide a response to the issues identified in subsection (6) of this section and either approve the proposal as submitted, recommend specific changes necessary to make the proposal consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW policy and its applicable guidelines, or deny the proposal in those instances where no alteration of the proposal appears likely to be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. The written findings and conclusions shall be provided to the local government, all interested parties, tribes, and agencies of record on the proposal.
In reaching its determination of consistency with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, the department shall approve those parts of a master program relating to shorelines unless it determines that the submitted parts are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. The department shall approve those parts of a master program relating to shorelines of statewide significance only after determining the program provides for optimum implementation of the statewide interest as set forth in the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.
(a) In cases where the proposal is approved as submitted, the effective date of the approved master program or amendment shall be the date of the department's letter to local government approving the submitted master program or amendments.
(b) If the department recommends changes to the proposal, within thirty days after the department mails the written findings and conclusions to the local government pursuant to this subsection (7), the local government may:
(i) Agree to the proposed changes. Receipt by the department of the written notice of agreement from the local government shall constitute final action by the department approving the revised submittal. Written notice of the local government acceptance shall be provided by the department to all parties of record. In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendment is the date the department receives from local government the written notice of agreement; or
(ii) Submit an alternative proposal. If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record. In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendments is the date of the department's letter to local government approving the alternative proposal.
If the department determines the alternative proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal or at the request of local government start anew with the review and approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120.
(8) A master program or amendment thereto takes effect when and in such form as it is approved or adopted by rule by the department except when appealed to the shorelines board as provided for in RCW 90.58.190(4) for local governments not planning under chapter 36.70A RCW. The department's approved document of record, filed at the department, constitutes the official master program.
(9) For local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, after final action by the department on a local government's shoreline master program or amendment the local government shall (pursuant to RCW 90.58.090) promptly publish a notice that the department has taken final action on the master program or amendment. For purposes of this section, the date of publication for the master program adoption or amendment shall be the date on which the local government publishes the notice that the department has taken final action on the master program or amendment.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-120, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-130
Appeal procedures for master programs.
(1) For local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, the growth management hearings board with jurisdiction shall hear and make determinations regarding the department's decision to approve, adopt by rule, or deny a proposed master program or amendment. All petitions for review shall be filed within sixty days after publication of notice by the local government of the department's final action pursuant to WAC 173-26-120(9).
(2) For local governments not planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, all petitions for review shall be filed with the state shorelines hearings board within thirty days of the written decision by the department approving or denying the master program or amendment.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-130, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-140
Shoreline master program administrative interpretation.
As required by RCW 36.70B.110(11), each local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW shall adopt procedures for administrative interpretation of its development regulations, which include shoreline master programs. When developing and adopting procedures for administrative interpretation of its shoreline master program, local government shall include provisions requiring consultation with the department to insure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and the applicable guidelines.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-140, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-150
Local government annexation — Shoreline environment predesignation in planning jurisdictions.
Cities and towns planning under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW, may within adopted urban growth areas predesignate environments on shorelines located outside of existing city boundaries. Shoreline environment predesignations shall be consistent with the policy of chapters 36.70A and 90.58 RCW and their applicable guidelines and rules.
Such predesignation shall be conducted under a city's or town's authority to plan for growth within adopted urban growth areas.
Environment predesignations shall be approved by the department according to the procedures set forth in this chapter for amendment of a shoreline master program. No additional procedures are required by the department at the time of annexation. The shoreline environment designation for a predesignated shoreline area shall take effect concurrent with annexation.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-150, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-160
Local government annexation.
Except as provided in WAC 173-26-150, in the event of annexation of a shoreline of the state, the local government assuming jurisdiction shall notify the department of such annexation and develop or amend a master program to include the annexed area. Such master program development or amendment shall be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines and shall be submitted to the department for approval no later than one year from the effective date of annexation.
Until a new or amended master program is adopted by the department, any decision on an application for a shoreline permit in the annexed shoreline area shall be based upon compliance with the master program in effect for the area prior to annexation.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200. 96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-160, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-171
Authority, purpose and effects of guidelines.
(1) Authority. RCW 90.58.090 authorizes and directs the department to adopt "guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020, containing the elements specified in RCW 90.58.100" for development of local master programs for regulation of the uses of "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance." RCW 90.58.200 authorizes the department and local governments "to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of" the Shoreline Management Act.
(2) Purpose. The general purpose of the guidelines is to implement the "cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state." Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by the Shoreline Management Act and "administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions" of the act. "The department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and insuring compliance with the policy and provisions" of the act. RCW 90.58.050.
In keeping with the relationship between state and local governments prescribed by the act, the guidelines have three specific purposes: To assist local governments in developing master programs; to serve as standards for the regulation of shoreline development in the absence of a master program along with the policy and provisions of the act and, to be used along with the policy of RCW 90.58.020, as criteria for state review of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090.
(3) Effect.
(a) The guidelines are guiding parameters, standards, and review criteria for local master programs. The guidelines allow local governments substantial discretion to adopt master programs reflecting local circumstances and other local regulatory and nonregulatory programs related to the policy goals of shoreline management as provided in the policy statements of RCW 90.58.020, WAC 173-26-176 and 173-26-181. The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and these guidelines constitute standards and criteria to be used by the department in reviewing the adoption and amendment of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090 and by the growth management hearings board and shorelines hearings board adjudicating appeals of department decisions to approve, reject, or modify proposed master programs and amendments under RCW 90.58.190.
(b) Under RCW 90.58.340, the guidelines, along with the policy of the act and the master programs, also shall be standards of review and criteria to be used by state agencies, counties, and public and municipal corporations in determining whether the use of lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state are subject to planning policies consistent with the policies and regulations applicable to shorelines of the state.
(c) The guidelines do not regulate development on shorelines of the state in counties and cities where approved master programs are in effect. In local jurisdictions without approved master programs, development on the shorelines of the state must be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines under RCW 90.58.140.
(d) As provided in RCW 90.58.060, the department is charged with periodic review and update of these guidelines to address technical and procedural issues that arise as from the review of shoreline master programs (SMPs) as well as compliance of the guidelines with statutory provisions. As a part of this process, ecology will compile information concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of these guidelines and the master programs adopted pursuant thereto with regard to accomplishment of the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and the corresponding principles and specific requirements set forth in these guidelines.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-171, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-176
General policy goals of the act and guidelines for shorelines of the state.
(1) The guidelines are designed to assist local governments in developing, adopting, and amending master programs that are consistent with the policy and provisions of the act. Thus, the policy goals of the act are the policy goals of the guidelines. The policy goals of the act are derived from the policy statement of RCW 90.58.020 and the description of the elements to be included in master programs under RCW 90.58.100.
(2) The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The act recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, storms, droughts, floods) and human conduct (industrial, commercial, residential, recreation, navigational). Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition of all use of shorelines also could eliminate their human utility and value. Thus, the policy goals of the act relate both to utilization and protection of the extremely valuable and vulnerable shoreline resources of the state. The act calls for the accommodation of "all reasonable and appropriate uses" consistent with "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and consistent with "public rights of navigation." The act's policy of achieving both shoreline utilization and protection is reflected in the provision that "permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and the public's use of the water." RCW 90.58.020.
(3) The act's policy of protecting ecological functions, fostering reasonable utilization and maintaining the public right of navigation and corollary uses encompasses the following general policy goals for shorelines of the state. The statement of each policy goal is followed by the statutory language from which the policy goal is derived.
(a) The utilization of shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on shoreline location or use.
RCW 90.58.020:
"The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration and preservation."
"It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses."
"Uses shall be preferred which are. . .unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline."
"Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state."
RCW 90.58.100:
"(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state;. . .
(d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shorelines use element.
(e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;. . ."
(b) The utilization of shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation.
RCW 90.58.020:
"The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally."
"Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for. . .development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state."
RCW 90.58.100:
"(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(b) A public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas;
(c) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;. . ."
***
"(4) Master programs will reflect that state-owned shorelines of the state are particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and will give appropriate special consideration to same."
(c) Protection and restoration of the ecological functions of shoreline natural resources.
RCW 90.58.020:
"The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization protection, restoration, and preservation."
"This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. . ."
"To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment."
"Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area. . ."
RCW 90.58.100:
"(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection;
(g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values;. . ."
(d) Protection of the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state.
RCW 90.58.020:
"This policy contemplates protecting. . .generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto."
"Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical,. . .any interference with the public's use of the water."
(e) The protection and restoration of buildings and sites having historic, cultural and educational value.
RCW 90.58.100:
"(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values;. . ."
(f) Planning for public facilities and utilities correlated with other shorelines uses.
RCW 90.58.100:
"(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element."
(g) Prevention and minimization of flood damages.
RCW 90.58.100:
"(2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate, the following:
(h) An element that gives consideration to the statewide interest in the prevention and minimization of flood damages."
(h) Recognizing and protecting private property rights.
RCW 90.58.020:
"The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership;. . .and, therefore coordinated planning is necessary. . .while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private rights consistent with the public interest."
(i) Preferential accommodation of single-family uses.
RCW 90.58.020:
"Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures. . ."
RCW 90.58.100:
"(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single-family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single-family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment."
(j) Coordination of shoreline management with other relevant local, state, and federal programs.
RCW 90.58.020:
"In addition. . ." the legislature ". . .finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state."
". . .and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state. . ."
"There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines."
RCW 90.58.100:
"In preparing the master programs, and any amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent feasible:
(a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts;
(b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact;
(c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state;
(d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;
(e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;
(f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate modern scientific data processing and computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered."
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-176, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-181
Special policy goals of the act and guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance.
In accordance with RCW 90.58.020, the "department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary."
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-181, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-186
Governing principles of the guidelines.
The governing principles listed below are intended to articulate a set of foundational concepts that underpin the guidelines, guide the development of the planning policies and regulatory provisions of master programs, and provide direction to the department in reviewing and approving master programs. These governing principles, along with the policy statement of RCW 90.58.020, other relevant provisions of the act, the regulatory reform policies and provisions of RCW 34.05.328, and the policy goals set forth in WAC 173-26-176 and 173-26-181 should be used to assist in interpretation of any ambiguous provisions and reconciliation of any conflicting provisions of the guidelines.
(1) The guidelines are subordinate to the act. Any inconsistency between the guidelines and the act must be resolved in accordance with the act.
(2) The guidelines are intended to reflect the policy goals of the act, as described in WAC 173-26-176 and 173-26-181.
(3) All relevant policy goals must be addressed in the planning policies of master programs.
(4) The planning policies of master programs (as distinguished from the development regulations of master programs) may be achieved by a number of means, only one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by RCW 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: The acquisition of lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other local governments; and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects and incentive programs.
(5) The policy goals of the act, implemented by the planning policies of master programs, may not be achievable by development regulation alone. Planning policies should be pursued through the regulation of development of private property only to an extent that is consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations (where applicable, statutory limitations such as those contained in chapter 82.02 RCW and RCW 43.21C.060) on the regulation of private property. Local government should use a process designed to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights. A process established for this purpose, related to the constitutional takings limitation, is set forth in a publication entitled, "State of Washington, Attorney General's Recommended Process for Evaluation of Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property," first published in February 1992. The attorney general is required to review and update this process on at least an annual basis to maintain consistency with changes in case law by RCW 36.70A.370.
(6) The territorial jurisdictions of the master program's planning function and regulatory function are legally distinct. The planning function may, and in some circumstances must, look beyond the territorial limits of shorelines of the state. RCW 90.58.340. The regulatory function is limited to the territorial limits of shorelines of the state, RCW 90.58.140(1), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2).
(7) The planning policies and regulatory provisions of master programs and the comprehensive plans and development regulations, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be integrated and coordinated in accordance with RCW 90.58.340, 36.70A.480, 34.05.328 (1)(h), and section 1, chapter 347, Laws of 1995.
(8) Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of "fragile" shoreline "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial development permit requirement of the act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, and development that is exempt from the act's permit requirements. The principle regarding protecting shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these guidelines in several ways, and in the context of related principles. These include:
(a) Local government is guided in its review and amendment of local master programs so that it uses a process that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful understanding of current and potential ecological functions provided by affected shorelines.
(b) Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions.
(i) Local master programs shall include regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted development will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline; local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.
(ii) Local master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
(c) For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards.
(d) Local master programs shall evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the policy goals of the act. To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities. Evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider:
(i) Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and
(iii) Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws.
It is recognized that methods of determining reasonably foreseeable future development may vary according to local circumstances, including demographic and economic characteristics and the nature and extent of local shorelines.
(e) The guidelines are not intended to limit the use of regulatory incentives, voluntary modification of development proposals, and voluntary mitigation measures that are designed to restore as well as protect shoreline ecological functions.
(9) To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26 WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances.
(10) Local governments, in adopting and amending master programs and the department in its review capacity shall, to the extent feasible, as required by RCW 90.58.100(1):
"(a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts;
(b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact;
(c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state;
(d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;
(e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;
(f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate, modern scientific data processing and computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered."
(11) In reviewing and approving local government actions under RCW 90.58.090, the department shall insure that the state's interest in shorelines is protected, including compliance with the policy and provisions of RCW 90.58.020.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-186, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173-26-191
Master program contents.
(1) Master program concepts. The following concepts are the basis for effective shoreline master programs.
(a) Master program policies and regulations. Shoreline master programs are both planning and regulatory tools. Master programs serve a planning function in several ways. First, they balance and integrate the objectives and interests of local citizens. Therefore, the preparation and amending of master programs shall involve active public participation, as called for in WAC 173-26-201(3). Second, they address the full variety of conditions on the shoreline. Third, they consider and, where necessary to achieve the objectives of chapter 90.58 RCW, influence planning and regulatory measures for adjacent land. For jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act, the requirements for consistency between shoreline and adjacent land planning are more specific and are described in WAC 173-26-191 (1)(e). Fourth, master programs address conditions and opportunities of specific shoreline segments by classifying the shorelines into "environment designations" as described in WAC 173-26-211.
The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline. Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. The regulations apply to all uses and development within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required, and are implemented through an administrative process established by local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 and enforcement pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 through 90.58.230.
(b) Master program elements. RCW 90.58.100(2) states that the master programs shall, when appropriate, include the following elements:
"(a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, industrial projects of statewide significance, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of shorelines of the state;
(b) A public access element making provision for public access to publicly owned areas;
(c) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas;
(d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element;
(e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land;
(f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection;
(g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values;
(h) An element that gives consideration to the statewide interest in the prevention and minimization of flood damages; and
(i) Any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of this chapter."
The Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) also uses the word "element" for discrete components of a comprehensive plan. To avoid confusion, "master program element" refers to the definition in the Shoreline Management Act as cited above. Local jurisdictions are not required to address the master program elements listed in the Shoreline Management Act as discrete sections. The elements may be addressed throughout master program provisions rather than used as a means to organize the master program.
(c) Shorelines of statewide significance. The Shoreline Management Act identifies certain shorelines as "shorelines of statewide significance" and raises their status by setting use priorities and requiring "optimum implementation" of the act's policy. WAC 173-26-251 describes methods to provide for the priorities listed in RCW 90.58.020 and to achieve "optimum implementation" as called for in RCW 90.58.090(4).
(d) Shoreline environment designations. Shoreline management must address a wide range of physical conditions and development settings along shoreline areas. Effective shoreline management requires that the shoreline master program prescribe different sets of environmental protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development standards for each of these shoreline segments.
The method for local government to account for different shoreline conditions is to assign an environment designation to each distinct shoreline section in its jurisdiction. The environment designation assignments provide the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulatory measures specific to the environment designation. WAC 173-26-211 presents guidelines for environment designations in greater detail.
(e) Consistency with comprehensive planning and other development regulations. Shoreline management is most effective and efficient when accomplished within the context of comprehensive planning. For cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW requires mutual and internal consistency between the comprehensive plan elements and implementing development regulations (including master programs). The requirement for consistency is amplified in WAC 365-195-500:
"Each comprehensive plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. This means that each part of the plan should be integrated with all other parts and that all should be capable of implementation together. Internal consistency involves at least two aspects:
(1) Ability of physical aspects of the plan to coexist on the available land.
(2) Ability of the plan to provide that adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur (concurrency).
Each plan should provide mechanisms for ongoing review of its implementation and adjustment of its terms whenever internal conflicts become apparent."
The Growth Management Act also calls for coordination and consistency of comprehensive plans among local jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.100 states:
"The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues."
Since master program goals and policies are an element of the local comprehensive plan, the requirement for internal and intergovernmental plan consistency may be satisfied by watershed-wide or regional planning.
Legislative findings provided in section 1, chapter 347, Laws of 1995 (see RCW 36.70A.470 notes) state:
"The legislature recognizes by this act that the growth management act is a fundamental building block of regulatory reform. The state and local governments have invested considerable resources in an act that should serve as the integrating framework for all other land-use related laws. The growth management act provides the means to effectively combine certainty for development decisions, reasonable environmental protection, long-range planning for cost-effective infrastructure, and orderly growth and development."
And RCW 36.70A.480(1) (The Growth Management Act) states:
"For shorelines of the state, the goals and policies of the shoreline management act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 are added as one of the goals of this chapter as set forth in RCW 36.70A.020 without creating an order of priority among the fourteen goals. The goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city approved under chapter 90.58 RCW shall be considered an element of the county or city's comprehensive plan. All other portions of the shoreline master program for a county or city adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, including use regulations, shall be considered a part of the county or city's development regulations."
Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.481 states:
"Nothing in RCW 36.70A.480 shall be construed to authorize a county or city to adopt regulations applicable to shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030 that are inconsistent with the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW."
The Shoreline Management Act addresses the issue of consistency in RCW 90.58.340, which states:
"All state agencies, counties, and public and municipal corporations shall review administrative and management policies, regulations, plans, and ordinances relative to lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as the [to] achieve a use policy on said land consistent with the policy of this chapter, the guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines of the state. The department may develop recommendations for land use control for such lands. Local governments shall, in developing use regulations for such areas, take into consideration any recommendations developed by the department as well as any other state agencies or units of local government. [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 34.]"
Pursuant to the statutes cited above, the intent of these guidelines is to assist local governments in preparing and amending master programs that fit within the framework of applicable comprehensive plans, facilitate consistent, efficient review of projects and permits, and effectively implement the Shoreline Management Act. It should be noted the ecology's authority under the Shoreline Management Act is limited to review of shoreline master programs based solely on consistency with the SMA and these guidelines. 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.
Several sections in these guidelines include methods to achieve the consistency required by both the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act.
First, WAC 173-26-191 (2)(b) and (c) describe optional methods to integrate master programs and other development regulations and the local comprehensive plan.
Second, WAC 173-26-221 through 173-26-251 translate the broad policy goals in the Shoreline Management Act into more specific policies. They also provide a more defined policy basis on which to frame local shoreline master program provisions and to evaluate the consistency of applicable sections of a local comprehensive plan with the Shoreline Management Act.
Finally, WAC 173-26-211(3) presents specific methods for testing consistency between shoreline environment designations and comprehensive plan land use designations.
(2) Basic requirements. This chapter describes the basic components and content required in a master program. A master program must be sufficient and complete to implement the Shoreline Management Act and the provisions of this chapter. A master program shall contain policies and regulations as necessary for reviewers to evaluate proposed shoreline uses and developments for conformance to the Shoreline Management Act. As indicated in WAC 173-26-020, for this chapter: The terms "shall," "must," and "are required" and the imperative voice, mean a mandate; the action is required; the term "should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, sufficient reason, based on a policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, for not taking the action; and the term "may" indicatesthat the action is within discretion and authority, provided it satisfies all other provisions in this chapter. (continued)