Opinion ID: 2622996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The issuance of the building permits by the County was a land use decision, which could have been appealed by Ecology under LUPA

Text: ¶ 54 If Ecology disagreed with the County's implicit determination that a new substantial development permit was not required, Ecology should have timely challenged the issuance of the building permits under LUPA. [17] If Ecology fails to file a timely LUPA petition, it cannot collaterally attack the local government's land use decision by exerting its enforcement powers against the developer. Id. at 463, 54 P.3d 1194. ¶ 55 LUPA applies in this situation because the issuance/reinstatement of a building permit is a land use decision. James v. Kitsap County, 154 Wash.2d 574, 584, 115 P.3d 286 (2005) (building permits are subject to judicial review under LUPA). LUPA is the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, with a few exceptions. [18] A `[l]and use decision' is a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals. RCW 36.70C.020(1). If a decision is not timely appealed, then the initial decision is final. Once a decision is final, a person who has standing, which includes the requirement that all administrative remedies be exhausted, can file a LUPA petition in superior court. [19] See RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). ¶ 56 In this case, the reinstatement of the building permits on February 12, 2001, was a final land use decision by the County. [20] Regardless of whether a substantial development permit was pending with the County, the reinstatement of the building permits was a final decision that left nothing open to further dispute between the County and Twin Bridge. [21] If Ecology wished to appeal that decision, it should have exhausted its administrative remedies under the county code and then filed a timely LUPA petition. ¶ 57 As the dissent notes, requiring Ecology to comply with LUPA to challenge an implicit determination that a development complies with the SMA limits Ecology's ability to enforce the SMA. Dissent at 1067. A local government could knowingly or innocently issue a building permit authorizing development that violates the SMA. Then, Ecology would be precluded from challenging the building permit decision after 21 days expired regardless of whether Ecology was notified of the issuance of the building permit. While this presents a possible obstacle to ensuring the enforcement of the SMA, our role is to interpret the statutes as enacted by the legislature, not to rewrite the law. ¶ 58 Finally, applying LUPA to the issuance of the building permits, including the implicit decision that the proposed development complies with the SMA, does not preclude Ecology's ability to enforce compliance with the SMA. As we stated in Samuel's Furniture, Ecology can and should disagree with a local government decision when it believes that it is in conflict with the SMA. We require only that Ecology follow the proper procedures when challenging that decision. 147 Wash.2d at 456 n. 14, 54 P.3d OWENS, J. (dissenting). ¶ 59 This case presents the question of whether a local government's decision to issue its own building permits can limit the independent authority of the Department of Ecology to enforce compliance with an existing shoreline permit under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA), chapter 90.58 RCW. The majority relies on an expansive interpretation of this court's holding in Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 147 Wash.2d 440, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002), to conclude that the issuance of two building permits by Skagit County (County) implied a land use decision under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, which necessarily limited Ecology's independent enforcement authority under the SMA. ¶ 60 I believe that the issuance of the building permits did not require Ecology to comply with LUPA because: the County never made a land use decision from which Ecology could appeal under LUPA; the SMA grants Ecology independent authority to enforce compliance with existing shoreline permits; and Samuel's Furniture does not effectively limit Ecology's jurisdiction to enforce the SMA. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.