Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County
159 Wash. App. 446
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jefferson County amended its comprehensive plan in 2008 to permit a Master Planned Resort (MPR) near Brinnon, identified in a Brinnon Subarea Plan and within a large conceptual MPR boundary.
- Brinnon Group challenged the ordinance in both the Western Growth Management Hearings Board proceedings and state court, asserting GMA, PEA, and SEPA noncompliance.
- The Board concluded the County complied with the GMA, PEA, and SEPA; Thurston County and Clallam County Superior Courts upheld and dismissed respectively, authorizing consolidated appeal.
- The MPR project contemplated 256 acres with phases: plan amendment, zoning/development agreements, permit processing, infrastructure, and building permits, with a 890-unit cap and specified on-site facilities.
- The final ordinance implemented three principal changes to the plan: MPR designation on a Land Use map, inserted descriptive text about the MPR, and incorporation of a boundary map with 30 conditions intended to guide phased development.
- Brinnon Group argued that public participation requirements, exact text amendments, map alterations, and SEPA/PEA provisions were violated; the boards rejected these challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public participation compliance under GMA/SEPA | Brinnon Group contends the County violated the public participation program by altering the amendment without proper comment. | County complied because changes were within the draft EIS and linked to the five-phase plan, with notice and opportunities to comment. | Public participation satisfied; no new comment required for post-EIS changes. |
| Text amendment referral under PEA RCW 36.70.400/430 | BOCC needed Commission referral before adopting text amendments to the plan. | RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) allows changes reflected in the draft EIS without separate Commission referral; RCW 36.70.400 concerns description, not exact language. | No violation; text amendment adequately described the change and aligned with the EIS. |
| BOCC map amendment and designations | BOCC map added features not in Commission map, altering designations and seven conditions. | Adjustments were minor, consistent with EIS, and implemented to align with public input and phasing. | Map changes and conditions, including adoption of seven conditions, were permissible and not a public participation violation. |
| SEPA adequacy of EIS and alternatives | Final EIS failed to present alternatives at lower environmental cost that attain objectives. | EIS analyzed reasonable alternatives (Brinnon Subarea Plan and hybrid) and mitigated impacts; adequate under 'rule of reason'. | SEPA requirements satisfied; alternatives were sufficiently discussed and analyzed. |
| Internal consistency and building intensities in the plan | Internal inconsistency between maps and failure to specify building intensities in the initial amendment. | Phaseed development and LNP policies allow intensities to be defined in later phases; no inconsistency. | No internal inconsistency; future phases will harmonize intensities with policies. |
Key Cases Cited
- King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543 (2000) (Board review of GMA compliance; deference to agency findings with clear-error standard)
- Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488 (2006) (Board presumes plan validity; burden on challenger to show error)
- Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329 (2008) (Clarifies ‘clearly erroneous’ standard and APA review framework)
- Whatcom County v. Brisbane, 125 Wn.2d 345 (1994) (GMA/PEA read harmoniously; statutory context in tandem)
- Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597 (2007) (Statutory interpretation; read statutes to determine legislative intent)
- Manke Lumber Co. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wn. App. 615 (2002) (Deference to board findings; substantial evidence standard)