Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed challenges to Thurston County's 2004 comprehensive-plan updates under the Growth Management Act. It held that challenges to a county's failure to revise a comprehensive plan after a seven-year update are limited to provisions directly affected by new or substantively amended GMA requirements, and that challenges to urban-growth-area designations during a ten-year review require a changed population projection. The court remanded for further determinations concerning the use of a market-supply factor, the validity of the urban-growth-area designations, and rural-density requirements.

Holdings

1. A party may challenge a county's failure to revise a comprehensive plan only as to provisions directly affected by new or recently amended GMA provisions, provided the petition is filed within 60 days after publication of the update.
2. A party may challenge a county's failure to revise its urban-growth-area designations during a ten-year update only if the Office of Financial Management population projection for the county has changed.
3. A county's urban-growth-area designation may not exceed the land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected by OFM plus a reasonable land-market-supply factor.
4. The GMA does not require a county to identify expressly or justify expressly a land-market-supply factor in its comprehensive plan. Once the UGA size is challenged, however, the county may explain whether a factor or other local circumstances account for the excess supply, and the Board must determine whether the designation was clearly erroneous without applying a bright-line percentage rule.
5. A growth management hearings board may not use a bright-line rule that densities greater than one dwelling unit per five acres are necessarily urban or subject to heightened scrutiny. Whether a density is rural is a fact-specific determination based on local circumstances, whether it is characterized by urban growth, and whether it is consistent with rural character.
6. Resource lands designated for agriculture, forestry, or mineral resources are not part of the rural element and cannot contribute to the variety of rural densities within that element. Innovative zoning techniques may independently establish a variety of rural densities, regardless of the underlying zoning classifications.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a growth management hearings board may review a county's failure to revise portions of a comprehensive plan during a seven-year update when those portions are not directly affected by new or recently amended GMA provisions.
2. Whether a party may challenge a county's failure to revise urban-growth-area designations during a ten-year review only when the Office of Financial Management population projection has changed.
3. Whether a county's urban-growth-area designation may exceed land necessary to accommodate projected growth by a reasonable land-market-supply factor, and whether the county must identify and justify that factor in the comprehensive plan.
4. Whether a growth management hearings board may apply a bright-line rule that densities greater than one dwelling unit per five acres are not rural densities.
5. Whether resource lands and innovative zoning techniques may be considered in determining whether a comprehensive plan provides a variety of rural densities.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded