Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
256 P.3d 1193
Wash.2011Background
- Kittitas County and RIDGE petitioned the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) after the County updated its Plan (Ordinance 2006-63) and revised development regulations (Ordinance 2007-22).
- The Board found multiple Plan and regulatory provisions noncompliant with the Growth Management Act (GMA), including lack of a written rural-element record, inadequate protection of rural areas and water, and problematic rural densities and agricultural land uses.
- The County and challengers argued Board discretion, evidentiary deference to local planning, and the sufficiency of community input; the Board also addressed airport zoning and water resources.
- The Board remanded certain issues, including the three-acre rural-density topic, to reconsider after the County provides local data and a proper written record.
- The Supreme Court majority held the Board correctly found violations in the written-record requirement, rural-protection provisions, and agricultural and water protections, but wrongly concluded the airport overlay was noncompliant; the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- Concurring opinion by Justice Chambers (in part) would largely reverse, emphasizing deference to local planning and criticizing the Board’s remand approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board properly defer to local planning while reviewing compliance with the GMA? | RIDGE argues the Board treated local plans with insufficient deference. | Kittitas County contends the Board reviewed de novo within GMA standards. | Yes; deference proper, but Board must apply GMA standards and consider local record. |
| Did the Board correctly require a written record explaining the rural element? | County asserts the Plan itself suffices as the record; testimonies support rural densities. | Board required explicit written explanation tying rural element to GMA goals. | Board correctly found no adequate written record; remanded for proper explanation. |
| Did the Board improperly use a bright-line rule to define rural densities? | County argues rural densities depend on local context, not a fixed line. | Board appeared to apply a three-acre density concept as an implicit bright line. | Board cannot rely on a bright-line unless supported by local data; remand for fact-specific review. |
| Did the Board properly determine the Plan failed to protect rural character? | Plan’s aspirational GPOs were sufficient to protect rural character. | Plan lacked mandatory measures to protect rural areas per RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c). | Board correctly found failure to include protective measures; remand to include protections in Plan. |
| Did the Board correctly find that the Plan failed to provide for a variety of rural densities? | Plan’s GPOs and six density designations show variety. | Plan did not directly provide for a variety of densities within the Plan itself. | Board’s conclusion that Plan lacked explicit variety was proper; remand for Plan amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543 (2000) (high deference to county planning decisions; clear erroneous standard)
- Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488 (2006) (deference to GMA interpretation; substantial weight to board’s view)
- Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wash.2d 329 (2008) (no bright-line rural-density rule; fact-specific analysis required)
- Gold Star Resorts, Inc. v. Futurewise, 167 Wash.2d 723 (2009) (no bright-line density rule; density is fact-specific)
- Campbell & Gwinn, LLC v. Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d 1 (2002) (water-resource planning and grant of executive discretion to counties)