Washington Administrative Code Title 330 - Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle

23 Jun 2025 --
0 Comments

I. Overview and Legal Purpose

WAC Title 330 governs the procedural requirements for public hearings conducted by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (commonly referred to as “Metro”) when planning, locating, and designing mass rapid transit systems.

Title 330 does not grant substantive powers to Metro. Instead, it implements procedural obligations imposed by statute—specifically RCW 35.58.273—and ensures that Metro complies with Washington administrative law and public participation requirements before making certain transit decisions.

The title reflects a legislative intent that major transportation infrastructure decisions must involve public input, especially where those decisions may have social, economic, or environmental impacts.

II. Statutory Authority

Title 330 is adopted pursuant to RCW 35.58.273, which requires Metro to:

Follow the Administrative Procedure Act when adopting rules, and

Conduct public hearings before approving the location or design of a mass rapid transit system under specified conditions.

Thus, WAC Title 330 functions as the administrative implementation of that statute.

III. Scope and Applicability

WAC Title 330 applies only when all of the following conditions are present:

Metro proposes to approve and construct a mass rapid transit system;

The project involves acquiring or constructing facilities on a right-of-way separate from existing public streets; and

The project will be funded using certain special tax revenues authorized by law.

If these conditions are not met, Title 330 does not apply.

IV. Structure of Title 330

Title 330 consists of a single chapter (Chapter 330-01), focused exclusively on public hearing procedures.

V. Key Provisions Explained

1. Authority and Purpose

The rules establish formal procedures for holding public hearings related to:

Transit corridor selection (where the system will run), and

System design (major physical and operational features).

The purpose is to ensure that decisions with significant impacts are made only after meaningful public participation.

2. Definitions

Title 330 defines several critical terms that determine when hearings are required:

Corridor public hearing
A hearing conducted before a specific transit route or alignment is finalized.

Design public hearing
A hearing conducted after the corridor is selected but before final design approval.

System
A new mass rapid transit system, not routine improvements or minor modifications to existing transit services.

These definitions are legally significant because they trigger Metro’s obligations under the rule.

3. Timing and Sequence of Hearings

Title 330 establishes a two-stage public hearing process:

Corridor Hearings

Must occur before Metro commits to a specific route.

Intended to allow public input on alternative alignments and locations.

Design Hearings

Must occur after the corridor is chosen but before final design approval.

Intended to address major design features that may affect surrounding communities.

Metro may not lawfully finalize decisions that have substantial impacts without providing these opportunities for public participation.

4. Relationship to Environmental Review

Title 330 allows Metro to combine public hearings required under this chapter with hearings conducted under environmental review laws (such as SEPA or NEPA), provided that:

Public notice requirements are satisfied; and

The hearing clearly allows public comment on both environmental and transit-specific issues.

If no environmental impact statement is prepared, Title 330 independently governs notice and hearing procedures.

VI. Legal Effect of Noncompliance

Failure to comply with WAC Title 330 can render Metro’s actions procedurally invalid. Under Washington administrative law:

Agencies must follow their own duly adopted rules.

Actions taken in violation of those rules may be set aside by a court.

Courts may find such actions arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, or procedurally defective.

VII. Case Law Context

A. Limited Direct Interpretation

There is very little published Washington case law that directly interprets WAC Title 330 itself. This is primarily because:

The rule is narrow and procedural;

Transit planning disputes are more often litigated under environmental statutes or broader statutory authority; and

Many challenges are resolved at the administrative or trial level without generating published appellate opinions.

B. Indirect Judicial Treatment

Although courts rarely cite WAC Title 330 by name, Washington courts consistently apply the following principles in cases involving agencies like Metro:

Agencies are bound by their own procedural rules
Failure to follow required hearing procedures can invalidate agency decisions.

Public participation requirements are enforceable
When a statute or rule requires public hearings, those hearings must be meaningful, timely, and properly noticed.

Deference is limited to substance, not procedure
Courts may defer to agency expertise on technical transit design, but procedural compliance is strictly enforced.

Harmless error doctrine is narrowly applied
If procedural violations affect public participation rights, courts are unlikely to excuse them as harmless.

These principles apply fully to WAC Title 330.