IT?Corp.?v.?Solano?County?Bd.?of?Supervisors?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?81?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?513;?820?P.2d?1023 [No.?S017701.?Dec?23,?1991.] IT?CORPORATION,?Plaintiff?and?Appellant,?v.?SOLANO?COUNTY?BOARD?OF?SUPERVISORS?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants. (Superior?Court?of?Solano?County,?No.?100993,?Jay?A.?Pfotenhauer,?Judge.?fn.?*?) (Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Gordon,?Defraga,?Watrous?&?Pezzaglia,?Titchell,?Maltzman,?Mark,?Bass,?Ohleyer?&?Mishel,?Bruen?&?Gordon?and?Scott?W.?Gordon?for?Plaintiff?and?Appellant. Ronald?A.?Zumbrun,?Robin?L.?Rivett?and?Charles?A.?Klinge?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Appellant. Charles?O.?Lamoree?and?Thomas?H.?Gordinier,?County?Counsel,?Vicki?Sieber-?Benson,?Assistant?County?Counsel,?and?Daniel?P.?Selmi?for?Defendants?and?Appellants. Ira?Reiner,?District?Attorney?(Los?Angeles),?Harry?B.?Sondheim?and?Brent?Riggs,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?David?Nawi,?County?Counsel?(Santa?Barbara),?Stephen?Shane?Stark?and?Timothy?McNulty,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?Shute,?Mihaly?&?Weinberger,?Fran?M.?Layton,?Wendy?S.?Strimling?and?Christy?H.?Taylor?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants. OPINION BAXTER,?J. We?granted?review?to?decide?whether?state?laws?governing?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?preempt?the?efforts?of?Solano?County?(County)?to?force?removal?of?wastes?unlawfully?deposited?by?a?facility?operator?within?the?”buffer”?or?”setback”?zone?long?established?by?County?land?use?permits.?We?find?no?express?or?implied?state-law?restriction?on?the?traditional?rule?that?a?local?government?may?specifically?enforce?its?valid?land?use?regulations?by?demanding?the?elimination?of?offending?conditions.?Indeed,?the?County’s?order?defers?to?all?conceivable?state?regulatory?concerns.?The?operator’s?attack?upon?the?order,?accepted?by?the?courts?below,?would?permit?the?company?to?reap?the?benefits?of?the?illegal?encroachments.?We?will?therefore?reverse?in?part?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal. Facts IT?Corporation?(IT)?operates?a?106-acre?”Class?I”?hazardous?waste?disposal?facility?(the?Panoche?facility)?in?the?rolling?hills?of?the?County.?The?City?of?Benicia?(City)?adjoins?the?Panoche?facility?downslope?to?the?southwest.?The?Panoche?facility?and?surrounding?land?are?zoned?for?agricultural?use. In?1968,?the?County?issued?conditional?use?permit?R-418?allowing?the?parcel?then?owned?by?IT’s?predecessor,?Howard?Jenkins,?to?be?employed?for?[1?Cal.4th?86]?the?disposal?of?liquid?and?solid?hazardous?wastes.?Permit?R-418?included?a?condition?that?all?treatment?and?storage?of?hazardous?waste?must?be?set?back?at?least?200?feet?of?the?outer?perimeter?of?the?permitted?property. Jenkins?created?a?number?of?surface?impoundments-ponds?containing?liquid?waste-on?the?property.?By?1972,?several?of?these?impoundments?(ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17,?and?18),?as?well?as?surface?solid?wastepile?17P,?had?encroached?within?200?feet?of?Jenkins’s?property?line.?Pond?17?came?to?the?attention?of?the?County’s?planning?commission?(Commission)?as?early?as?1971?because?the?pond?had?intruded?beyond?Jenkins’s?property?onto?neighbors’?land.?Apparently?Jenkins?was?allowed?to?cure?the?pond?17?violation?by?purchasing?additional?land?to?bring?this?impoundment?within?a?reconfigured?200-foot?setback. In?1973,?the?County?issued?a?new?permit?for?the?site,?No.?R-708.?Permit?R-708?related?to?a?specific?site?map?provided?by?Jenkins?and?included?a?200-?foot?setback?condition?(Condition?3.F.)?that?was?substantially?identical?to?the?1968?restriction.?fn.?1 IT?acquired?the?Panoche?facility?in?1975?and?continued?to?deposit?wastes?in?ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17,?and?18,?and?in?surface?wastepile?17P.?IT?also?inherited?two?landfills?which?encroached?beyond?the?setback?line?referred?to?in?permit?R-708.?IT?added?hazardous?waste?to?these?landfills?as?well.?IT?itself?established?the?so-called?north?drum?burial?site,?which?intruded?into?the?setback?zone. Since?1975,?IT?has?purchased?additional?contiguous?land?west,?north,?and?east?of?the?facility.?The?effect?of?these?acquisitions?is?that?only?pond?13A,?the?encroaching?unit?nearest?the?City,?remains?less?than?200?feet?from?the?outer?boundary?of?property?now?owned?by?IT. In?1981,?the?Department?of?Health?Services?(DHS),?acting?under?state?and?federal?laws,?issued?an?”Interim?Status?Document”?authorizing?operation?of?the?facility.?In?September?1985,?the?County’s?director?of?public?works?issued?a?stop?order?against?grading?work?at?the?site?on?grounds?that?a?grading?permit?was?required?and?had?not?been?obtained.?IT?appealed?the?stop?order?to?the?County’s?board?of?supervisors?(Board).?In?January?1986,?as?partial?settlement?of?the?grading?dispute,?IT?stipulated?to?formal?hearings?before?the?Commission?to?determine?IT’s?compliance?with?permit?R-708. During?1986?and?1987,?the?Commission?held?numerous?hearings?and?took?voluminous?evidence.?As?IT?concedes,?evidence?of?noncompliance?with?[1?Cal.4th?87]?Condition?3.F.?was?”overwhelming.”?The?record?also?touched?upon?the?troubled?regulatory?history?of?the?facility,?which?included?citations?by?the?California?Regional?Water?Quality?Control?Board?(RWQCB)?and?the?United?States?Environmental?Protection?Agency?(EPA).?Testimony?and?documentary?evidence?catalogued?leakage?and?migration?of?hazardous?wastes?from?encroaching?storage?areas?into?surrounding?soil?of?the?setback?zone?and,?with?respect?to?pond?13A,?beyond?the?borders?of?IT’s?property. On?June?25,?1987,?the?Commission?found?that?IT?was?out?of?compliance?with?several?conditions?of?the?permit.?Among?other?things,?the?Commission?determined?that?”IT?is?in?violation?of?Condition?3.F.?due?to?the?encroachment?of?portions?of?Ponds?12,?13,?13A,?17?and?18,?as?well?as?portions?of?waste?pile?17P,?the?old?landfill?and?the?north?drum?burial?area?on?the?200?foot?buffer.” The?Commission?proposed?a?two-pronged?remedy?for?the?violation?of?Condition?3.F.?First,?IT?must?”immediately?cease?using?and?close”?all?encroachments.?Second,?IT?must?within?90?days?submit?to?pertinent?state?and?federal?regulators?its?”plans?for?clean?closure,?i.e.,?removal?of?all?wastes?[except?drum?burials]?and?contaminated?soils”?from?the?setback?zone;?must?modify?its?closure?plans?as?required?by?the?agencies;?and?must?begin?closure?immediately?upon?obtaining?necessary?regulatory?approvals. IT?was?ordered?to?consult?further?with?the?agencies?on?the?safest?plan?for?closure?of?the?drum?burial?encroachment,?and?to?submit?a?closure?plan?on?that?basis.?If?”clean?closure”?approval?was?not?obtained?for?any?encroachment?subject?to?that?requirement,?the?Commission?promised?to?”reopen?the?hearings?to?review?appropriate?remedies?at?that?time.”?fn.?2 IT?appealed?the?”clean?closure”?order?to?the?Board.?The?company?urged,?inter?alia,?that?the?proposed?remedy?of?complete?restoration?was?preempted,?arbitrary,?unreasonable,?and?estopped?by?the?County’s?long?delay?in?enforcing?Condition?3.F.?IT?estimated?that?”clean?closure”?of?the?encroachments?entailed?removal?of?some?174,000?cubic?yards?of?hazardous?material?and?might?cost?as?much?as?$40.5?million. The?Board?ordered?the?Commission?staff?to?study?alternate?remedies.?For?the?most?part,?these?included?variations?on?IT’s?proposal?that?the?company?[1?Cal.4th?88]?close?and?cleanse?only?the?encroachment?adjacent?to?City?(i.e.,?pond?13A)?and?simply?”dedicate”?a?new?200-foot?setback?conforming?to?the?current?boundaries?of?IT’s?property. In?March?1988,?after?considering?the?staff?report?and?conducting?hearings?de?novo,?the?Board?adopted?the?Commission’s?remedial?order.?IT?sought?mandamus. The?superior?court?granted?relief.?The?court?ruled?that?a?violation?of?Condition?3.F.?was?established?by?the?administrative?record.?Applying?the?”substantial?evidence”?test?of?review,?it?also?found?”unsupported?by?the?record”?IT’s?separate?defenses?of?laches,?estoppel,?and?the?statute?of?limitations.?fn.?3?However,?the?court?concluded?that?because?”state?law?has?pre-?empted?the?storage,?treatment,?and?disposal?of?[hazardous?waste,]?…?[t]he?Board?is?without?authority?to?dictate?the?remedy”-i.e.,?”clean?closure”-for?IT’s?permit?violation.?On?the?other?hand,?the?court?held,?the?Board?could?order?IT?to?submit?for?appropriate?state?regulatory?approval?”one?or?more?plans?by?which?[IT]?proposes?to?remedy?the?non-compliance.”?(Italics?added.) Both?parties?appealed.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed. Addressing?IT’s?appeal,?the?court?reasoned?as?follows:?No?limitations?period?had?run,?because?IT’s?violations?were?”continuing.”?With?respect?to?IT’s?equitable?defenses,?the?trial?court?properly?reviewed?the?Board’s?findings?under?the?deferential?”substantial?evidence”?standard,?rather?than?the?more?stringent?”independent?judgment”?standard?urged?by?IT.?fn.?4?The?”ambiguous”?administrative?record?did?not?make?clear?when?the?County?actually?knew?or?should?have?known?of?the?bulk?of?the?encroachments.?Hence,?the?trial?court?correctly?declined?to?uphold?IT’s?claims?of?laches?and?estoppel. Addressing?the?County’s?appeal,?the?court?reasoned?as?follows:?The?setback?condition?was?a?valid?local?land?use?regulation,?and?the?Board?was?entitled?to?enforce?it?by?ordering?IT?to?”cease?using”?and?”close”?the?encroachments.?However,?by?dictating?the?method?of?closure?of?a?hazardous?waste?disposal?site,?a?matter?of?statewide?concern,?the?Board?invaded?the?state’s?”comprehensive”?regulation?of?that?subject.?[1?Cal.4th?89] The?County?alone?sought?review,?urging?that?the?courts?below?had?erroneously?resolved?the?issue?of?preemption. Discussion Implied?preemption. [1a]?Neither?the?trial?court?nor?the?Court?of?Appeal?discussed?IT’s?claims?of?express?preemption?because?both?courts?accepted?IT’s?more?general?contention?that?the?Board’s?”clean?closure”?order?was?impliedly?preempted?by?the?comprehensive?state?statutes?and?regulations?governing?the?treatment,?storage,?and?disposal?of?hazardous?waste.?The?County?and?its?amici?curiae?fn.?5?urge?first?that?this?conclusion?was?erroneous.?We?agree. “A?county?may?make?and?enforce?within?its?limits?’all?local,?police,?sanitary,?and?other?ordinances?and?regulations?not?in?conflict?with?general?law.’?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?XI,???7.)?…”?(People?ex?rel.?Deukmejian?v.?County?of?Mendocino?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?476,?483-484?[204?Cal.Rptr.?897,?683?P.2d?1150]?(Mendocino).)?[2]?The?power?of?cities?and?counties?to?zone?land?use?in?accordance?with?local?conditions?is?well?entrenched.?(See,?e.g.,?3?Manaster?&?Selmi,?Cal.?Environmental?Law?and?Land?Use?Practice?(1991?rev.)????60.10,?60.11,?pp.?60-14,?60-15;?1?Longtin’s?Cal.?Land?Use?(2d?ed.?1987)???3.02,?pp.?234-235;?Cal.?Zoning?Practice?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1969)????1.3-1.6,?pp.?4-7.)?The?Legislature?has?specified?certain?minimum?standards?for?local?zoning?regulations?(Gov.?Code,???65850?et?seq.)?but?has?carefully?expressed?its?intent?to?retain?the?maximum?degree?of?local?control?(see,?e.g.,?id.,????65800,?65802). A?zoning?ordinance?may?allow?conditional?uses,?pursuant?to?permit,?for?particular?parcels?within?a?zone.?The?reasonable?conditions?included?in?such?a?permit?become?part?of?the?zoning?regulation?applicable?to?the?affected?parcel.?(1?Longtin’s,?supra,???3.71[1],?at?pp.?360-?362;?3?Manaster?&?Selmi,?supra,???60.71[1],?at?pp.?60-97,?60-98;?see?Gov.?Code,????65901,?65909.) When?use?of?a?parcel?violates?applicable?zoning?rules,?the?responsible?agency?may?obtain?abatement-i.e.,?removal?of?the?violation?and?restoration?of?legal?use-even?when?substantial?expense?is?involved.?(See,?e.g.,?County?of?San?Diego?v.?McClurken?(1951)?37?Cal.2d?683?[234?P.2d?972]?[remove?[1?Cal.4th?90]?fixed?48,000-?gallon?storage?tanks];?People?v.?Gates?(1974)?41?Cal.App.3d?590?[116?Cal.Rptr.?172]?[remove?auto?wrecking?business];?City?and?County?of?San?Francisco?v.?Padilla?(1972)?23?Cal.App.3d?388?[100?Cal.Rptr.?223]?[remove?2?dwelling?units];?People?v.?Watkins?(1959)?175?Cal.App.2d?182?[345?P.2d?960]?[remove?portion?of?structure?beyond?setback?line];?Donovan?v.?City?of?Santa?Monica?(1948)?88?Cal.App.2d?386?[199?P.2d?51]?[remove?20?dwelling?units;?reconvert?main?structure?to?single-family?residence].)?Abatement?does?not?depend?on?a?finding?that?the?zoning?violation?constitutes?a?”nuisance?per?se.”?(City?of?Santa?Clara?v.?Paris?(1977)?76?Cal.App.3d?338,?341-342?[142?Cal.Rptr.?818];?City?etc.?of?San?Francisco?v.?Burton?(1962)?201?Cal.App.2d?749,?756-757?[20?Cal.Rptr.?378].) Permit?R-708?expressly?authorizes?the?Commission?to?hold?periodic?compliance?reviews?and?to?determine?”[a]ny?action?deemed?appropriate”?to?correct?noncompliance?therein?found?to?exist.?Indeed,?IT?stipulated?to?such?a?review?as?partial?settlement?of?its?grading-permit?dispute?with?the?County.?Thus,?it?is?clear?that?neither?the?setback?condition?in?IT’s?permit,?nor?the?Board’s?issuance?of?a?remedial?order?for?noncompliance,?exceeds?the?County’s?general?land?use?control?powers. [1b]?IT?argues?instead?that?this?particular?order?is?invalid?because?it?invades?the?sensitive?field?of?hazardous?waste?management?in?ways?which?are?closely?and?exclusively?regulated?by?the?state.?In?particular,?IT?invokes?the?state’s?complex?scheme?for?overseeing?the?”closure”?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?sites-a?scheme?designed?to?minimize?health,?safety,?and?environmental?risks?when?use?of?a?site?is?discontinued.?This?scheme,?IT?argues,?places?all?”closure”?procedures?and?decisions?in?the?hands?of?an?expert?state?agency,?DHS,?and?thus?precludes?a?local?government?from?dictating?the?method?of?”closure.” The?trial?court?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?agreed?with?this?contention.?We?conclude?it?lacks?merit.?Nothing?in?state?hazardous?waste?disposal?law?implies?that?a?city?or?county?is?precluded?from?abating?a?clear?and?potentially?dangerous?violation?of?its?valid?land?use?regulations. [3]?”Local?[regulation]?in?conflict?with?general?law?is?void.?Conflicts?exist?if?the?[regulation]?duplicates?[citations],?contradicts?[citation],?or?enters?an?area?fully?occupied?by?general?law?…?[citations]?….”?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?476,?484-485,?quoting?Lancaster?v.?Municipal?Court?(1972)?6?Cal.3d?805,?806-808?[100?Cal.Rptr.?609,?494?P.2d?681].) “…?In?determining?whether?the?Legislature?has?preempted?by?implication?to?the?exclusion?of?local?regulation?we?must?look?to?the?whole?purpose?[1?Cal.4th?91]?and?scope?of?the?legislative?scheme.?There?are?three?tests:?'(1)?the?subject?matter?has?been?so?fully?and?completely?covered?by?general?law?as?to?clearly?indicate?that?it?has?become?exclusively?a?matter?of?state?concern;?(2)?the?subject?matter?has?been?partially?covered?by?general?law?couched?in?such?terms?as?to?indicate?clearly?that?a?paramount?state?concern?will?not?tolerate?further?or?additional?local?action;?or?(3)?the?subject?matter?has?been?partially?covered?by?general?law,?and?the?subject?is?of?such?a?nature?that?the?adverse?effect?of?…?local?[regulation]?on?the?transient?citizens?of?the?state?outweighs?the?possible?benefit?to?the?[local?government].’?[Citations.]”?(Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?485,?quoting?In?re?Hubbard?(1964)?62?Cal.2d?119,?128?[41?Cal.Rptr.?393,?396?P.2d?809];?accord:?Western?Oil?&?Gas?Assn.?v.?Monterey?Bay?Unified?Air?Pollution?Control?Dist.?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?408,?423?[261?Cal.Rptr.?384,?777?P.2d?157]?(WOGA).) Here,?of?course,?there?is?no?issue?of?the?challenged?order’s?undue?effect?on?”transient?citizens.”?The?question?is?whether?state?law?has?so?occupied?the?subject?of?hazardous?waste?management?as?to?preclude?a?local?government?from?enforcing?its?long-standing?restrictions?on?the?locations?within?a?facility?at?which?hazardous?waste?may?be?treated?or?stored. The?Hazardous?Waste?Control?Act?(HWCA),?adopted?in?1972?(Stats.?1972,?ch.?1236,???1,?p.?2388?et?seq.),?is?codified?as?chapter?6.5?of?the?Health?and?Safety?Code?(??25100?et?seq.).?The?HWCA?directs?DHS?to?adopt?standards?and?regulations?governing?the?”management?of?hazardous?wastes”?in?order?to?”protect?against?hazards?to?the?public?health,?to?domestic?livestock,?to?wildlife,?or?to?the?environment.”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25150,?subd.?(a).)?Among?other?things,?DHS?must?issue?permits?authorizing?operation?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities?and?must?apply?applicable?regulations?and?standards?through?the?permit?system.?(Id.,????25150,?subd.?(b),?25200.) DHS?may?grant?”interim?status”?operating?authority?to?a?pre-1980?facility?such?as?Panoche,?pending?final?determination?of?the?operator’s?permit?application.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25200.5,?subd.?(a).)?For?HWCA?purposes,?the?Panoche?facility?apparently?has?always?operated?under?”interim?status”?authority. The?HWCA?further?requires?DHS?to?adopt?”closure”?regulations?and?standards?for?hazardous?waste?disposal?facilities.?These?regulations?must?specify?financial?assurances?by?facility?operators?to?cover?postclosure?damage?claims,?as?well?as?the?cost?of?closure?and?postclosure?maintenance.?The?regulations?must?also?ensure?that?every?such?facility?”can?be?closed?and?maintained?[thereafter]?for?at?least?30?years”?without?health?or?environmental?damage,?and?that?the?escape?of?contamination?from?a?closed?site?into?the?soil,?[1?Cal.4th?92]?water,?and?atmosphere?will?be?”[minimized]?or?[eliminated].”?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25245,?subd.?(a).) The?HWCA?provides?that?when?they?apply?for?permits,?”or?when?otherwise?requested?by?[DHS],”?facility?operators?must?submit?”closure?and?postclosure?plans”?for?approval?by?DHS?and?RWQCB.?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25246,?subds.?(a),?(b).)?DHS?must?approve?a?plan?that?complies?with?all?pertinent?regulations.?(Id.,???25247,?subds.?(a),?(b).) DHS?has?implemented?the?required?permit?system?and?has?developed?extensive?regulations?governing?the?design,?construction,?operation,?maintenance,?monitoring,?closure,?and?postclosure?maintenance?of?hazardous?waste?facilities.?(See?Cal.?Code?Regs.,?tit.?26?(hereafter?Regulations),????22-?66260.1?et?seq.,?22-66264.110?et?seq.;?former????22-66316?et?seq.,?22-?67102?et?seq.)?fn.?6?Among?these?are?detailed?standards?for?the?”closure”?or?”partial?closure”?of?hazardous?waste?disposal?sites,?and?for?the?contents?of?closure?plans?to?be?submitted?by?facility?operators.?(Regs.,????22-66260.10,?22-66264.110,?22-66264.111,?22-66264.112;?former????22-?66027,?22-66152,?22-67210?et?seq.) [1c]?IT?contends?that?the?HWCA?places?the?initiative?for?closure?plan?design?on?the?facility?operator?alone,?subject?only?to?state?regulatory?standards?which?do?not?necessarily?require?complete?restoration?of?a?site?to?its?original?condition.?IT?asserts,?and?no?party?disputes,?that?IT?has?designed?and?submitted?for?DHS?approval?its?own?HWCA?plan?to?”close?in?place”?the?[1?Cal.4th?93]?entire?Panoche?facility,?including?the?encroaching?deposits.?fn.?7?Hence,?IT?contends,?the?Board’s?order?conflicts?with?the?HWCA?by?requiring?IT?to?submit?an?additional?plan?that?specifies?”clean”?closure?of?the?encroachments. We?cannot?accept?the?premise.?With?specific?exceptions?discussed?below,?nothing?in?the?HWCA?or?its?implementing?regulations?indicates?any?intent?or?need?to?immunize?a?state-authorized?facility?from?the?enforcement?of?applicable?local?land?use?regulations.?Indeed,?the?HWCA?expressly?suggests?otherwise.?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25105?provides?that?”[n]o?provision?of?this?chapter?[i.e.,?ch.?6.5,]?shall?limit?the?authority?of?any?state?or?local?agency?in?the?enforcement?or?administration?of?any?provision?of?law?which?it?is?specifically?permitted?or?required?to?enforce?and?administer.”?(Italics?added.) As?we?noted?in?Mendocino,?use?of?the?word?”law”?is?significant?in?this?context,?for?”law”?includes?local?ordinances.?(See?Mendocino,?supra,?36?Cal.3d?at?p.?489.)?Moreover,?the?legislative?decision?to?reserve?local?powers?despite?adoption?of?the?HWCA?was?conscious?and?specific.?The?words?”or?local”?were?added?to?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?25105?(originally???25172)?during?the?Legislature’s?consideration?of?the?HWCA.?fn.?8?Given?the?historic?role?of?cities?and?counties?in?local?land?use?regulation,?we?must?assume?the?Legislature?meant?to?allow?the?”enforcement”?of?”local”?zoning?”law[s],”?as?applied?through?use?permit?conditions.?(See?Mendocino,?supra.)?fn.?9 Moreover,?the?HWCA?expressly?provides?for?joint?state?and?local?authority?over?the?siting?and?operation?of?hazardous?waste?facilities.?Among?other?[1?Cal.4th?94]?things,?the?HWCA?limits?local?power?to?reject?a?new?facility?in?derogation?of?statewide?interests?(see?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???25199?et?seq.)?but?also?allows?delayed?effectiveness?of?a?new?state?permit?”until?the?applicant?is?granted?a?local?land?use?permit.”?(Id.,???25199.3,?subd.?(a).) […]
