BRINNON GROUP v. Jefferson County
245 P.3d 789
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jefferson County enacted Ordinance 01-0128-08 amending the comprehensive plan to designate a 256-acre Master Planned Resort (MPR) in Brinnon, including a marina and golf facilities.
- The Brinnon Group challenged the ordinance via a petition for review to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board and a constitutional/statutory writ in Clallam County Superior Court.
- The Board concluded the ordinance complied with the GMA, PEA, and SEPA, and Thurston County Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision.
- Clallam County Superior Court dismissed Brinnon Group’s writ as Brinnon Group had an adequate remedy at law through appellate review of the Board’s decision.
- The Brinnon Group argued SEPA and PEA deficiencies, while Statesman and Jefferson County defended the process under the GMA public participation framework.
- The Washington appellate court upheld the Board and trial courts, finding no reversible error in the public participation, SEPA, or PEA analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BOCC complied with GMA public participation requirements | Brinnon Group argues substantial public input was required for changes to the Commission’s recommendation | Statesman/County contend modifications were within EIS scope and did not require new public comment | Yes; public participation satisfied where changes appeared in the EIS and were within scope |
| Whether PEA provisions were satisfied when the text amendment was adopted | RCW 36.70.400 and 36.70.430 require referral to the Planning Commission for exact text changes | Board held Commission reference was adequate; changes were within the EIS-prepared context and public comment | Yes; text amendment complied with PEA requirements as described in the EIS and related records |
| Whether SEPA adequately supported the 30 conditions and analyzed alternatives | 30 conditions lack specific SEPA policy citations per WAC 197-11-660(1) and alternatives were inadequate | County based conditions on SEPA policies and described mitigation; alternatives analyzed under the rule of reason | Yes; SEPA compliance and alternative analysis were adequate under governing standards |
| Whether the internal consistency of the Brinnon Plan was maintained | Brinnon asserts misalignment between maps and subarea plan designations | Phased process allows future adjustments; subarea plan statements indicate maps are initial, not final designations | Yes; internal consistency maintained through phased amendments and explanatory statements |
Key Cases Cited
- King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133 (2000) (2000) (board deference and statutory interpretation in GMA review)
- Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) (2006) (clear error standard for Board findings; burden on challenger)
- Thurston Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wash.2d 329, 190 P.3d 38 (2008) (2008) (APA standards; deference to agency findings)
- Whatcom Cnty. v. Brisbane, 125 Wash.2d 345, 884 P.2d 1326 (1994) (1994) (read statutes together; harmonization of PEA with GMA)
- Durocher v. King Cnty., 80 Wash.2d 139, 492 P.2d 547 (1972) (1972) (early PEA framework and planning procedures)
- Levine v. Jefferson Cnty., 116 Wash.2d 575, 807 P.2d 363 (1991) (1991) ( SEPA policy citation requirements for conditions)
- Manke Lumber Co., Inc. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash.App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011 (2002) (2002) (APA review standards and substantial evidence standard)