Opinion ID: 2622996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Development Permits

Text: ¶ 17 Under the SMA, counties develop shoreline management plans and Ecology approves the county plan. Then, applications for actual permits are made to the counties (local or other governments) who determine compliance with their local plans. It is worthy of note here that while the County did comply with SEPA at each stage, and its decisions were supported by a FEIS, and later addenda, Ecology never undertook SEPA analysis. ¶ 18 RCW 90.58.140(10) does allow Ecology to review conditional use permits or variances issued by the local permitting authority. [8] See also WAC 173-27-200. Ecology may attach provisions to such conditional use permits and may penalize violations. See RCW 90.58.210; WAC 173-27-280(1). However, no similar statute gives Ecology direct review authority for local government substantial development permits, and Ecology cannot issue fines for complying with a valid county shoreline permit. This marks the legislature's clear division of authority between state and local government. See RCW 90.58.140(3) (The administration of the [permitting] system so established shall be performed exclusively by the local government. (emphasis added)). ¶ 19 Even Twin Bridge's county permits for the original business were primarily for substantial development as defined by the SMA. [9] See former RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) (1996). Tellingly, the Twin Bridge dry-storage marina is currently permitted on local, state, and federal levels without a new conditional use permit. Rather, Twin Bridge was eventually issued a substantial development permit from the County. In light of these statutory provisions, the SMA does not give Ecology plenary power to set aside the County's analysis of its own SMA plan when issuing substantial development permits. [10] ¶ 20 Another factor, the Skagit County Shoreline Master Plan (SMP), also requires the holding that the preexisting permits were primarily substantial development. For example, permit 15-86 was issued under section 7.07 of the SMP (among others), which is titled Marinas and Launch Ramps. Under section 7.07, in the rural shoreline designation, the SMP does not require a conditional use permit for a marina, it states Marinas and boat launch ramps are permitted subject to the General and Tabular Regulations. AR Ex. R-102 at 7-40. Compare this language with the rural residential shoreline designation, which explicitly states Marinas are permitted as a conditional use subject to the General and Tabular Regulations. Id.; see also CP at 84, 88 (designating Twin Bridge as a rural classification within the SMP). The, SMP has been in place since 1976 and was approved by Ecology as required by the SMA. Since a conditional permit was never required, then Twin Bridge cannot be held in violation of the SMP or the SMA. ¶ 21 We have held that the SMA does not give Ecology the authority to directly review the local government's decision to issue a substantial development permit. This court has previously said: Under the SMA, Ecology's primary role is to review and approve SMPs. RCW 90.58.080. In this sense, it is reviewing local government action. However, once an SMP has been approved, the SMA specifically grants local governments the exclusive power to administer the permit system. RCW 90.58.140(3). Nowhere in the statute is Ecology explicitly given the right to directly review a local government's decision regarding a substantial development permit. Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d at 455, 54 P.3d 1194. Ecology argues that the dry marina exceeded the impact foreseen by the original permits. It is counterintuitive that a dry-storage facility would have more shoreline impact than a water marina. Further, the County had taken all the impacts into consideration because it had the benefit of two EIS's. In contrast, Ecology never performed its own environmental impact analysis and did not even substantively review Twin Bridge's later information submitted to the County for the 2000 addendum. CP at 389-90. Thus, Ecology could not have a better opinion on whether the expanded project would harm the ecosystem or even enough record for an informed opinion. The County, which commissioned the environmental impact statementsone in 1976 and then a recent supplement in 2000and was involved in the city of Anacortes LUPA challenge, had the best available information. [11] ¶ 22 The SMA gives local government the exclusive permitting authority and the County was in the best position to make this decision. Here, the County's characterization of the permits must control, especially when the County is the original permitting authority and is the only government agency to have performed environmental impact analysis on the disputed project.