How much growth is “too much,” and who gets to make that decision under Washington law? In Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, No. 80115-1 (Aug. 14, 2008), the Washington Supreme Court issued an interesting — but highly technical — ruling on the issue that provides some insight into the issue. The bottom line: counties have great discretion when adopting their growth plans, and Growth Management Hearings Boards should not establish statewide growth policies.
Under the Growth Management Act, Washington counties are required to draw boundaries around urban areas (Urban Growth Boundaries) to limit how much development may occur outside of these boundaries. Under the GMA, these boundaries must be “sufficient” to allow for projected population growth. Thurston County adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1995, and updated it, including the urban growth boundary, in 2004. In the update, the County relied on population estimates developed by the regional planning council (which was based on state population projections). The urban growth boundaries adopted by the County exceeded the projected need for developable land (see pages 19-23 of the opinion for the reasons why).
An environmental group challenged the plan, and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board determined the County violated the GMA. The Board ruled the size of the urban growth areas exceeded the capacity necessary to accommodate future population, and the County had not adequately explained why. The Board also ruled that regulations setting the size of the growth areas violated two of the nonprioritized Growth Management Act goals. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed.
First, it held that only those portions of the revised comprehensive plan that were revised could be challenged. Slip op. at 13-15 The court based this decision on the need for finality in land use decisions. “Finality is important because ‘[i]f there were not finality, no owner of land would ever be safe in proceeding with development of his property.'” Slip op. at 15 (quoting Deschenes v. King County, 521 P.2d 1181 (Wash. 1974), overruled in part by Clark County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Wilkinson, 991 P.2d 1161 (Wash. 2000)).
Second, the court held the county’s urban growth boundary designation “cannot exceed the amount of land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected…plus a reasonable land market supply factor.” Slip op. at 25. The Board and the court of appeals had determined that an urban growth boundary designation could only exceed the projected need if the County expressly explained why. The Supreme Court rejected that result, holding “[t]he GMA does not support this ruling. A comprehensive plan is presumed valid upon adoption, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating the plan fails to comply with the GMA.” Slip op. at 26. The court held [t]he GMA does not require a county to explicitly identify a land market supply factor or provide justifications for adopting such a factor in the comprehensive plan.” Id.
Turning to the question of whether exceeding the projected urban growth was reasonable, the court rejected the Board’s bright-line rule of 25%, and held that the counties have the discretion, not the Board:
[I]n determining whether a market supply factor is reasonable, a board must recognize counties have great discretion in making choices about accommodating growth and the land market supply factor may be based on local circumstances. RCW 36.70A.110(2). A board shall not find a county’s use of a land market supply factor unreasonable unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous in light of the entire record.
Slip op. at 28. The court also considered densities for rural development, and held that the Board could not use a bright-line rule to “delineate between urban and rural densities, nor may it subject certain densities to increased scrutiny. Slip op. at 35.
Read the entire opinion here.