King County v. Central Puget Sound
| Decision Date | 14 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 68284-4.,68284-4. |
| Citation | 14 P.3d 133,142 Wash.2d 543 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOKING COUNTY, Respondent, v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, an agency of the State of Washington, Defendant, and Upper Green Valley Preservation Society; Hollywood Hill Association; Robert E. Tidball (d/b/a T & M Berry Farm); Preserve Land for Agriculture Now; and Puget Sound Farm Trust, Appellants, and Jun and Shelley Akutsu; City of Woodinville; Woodinville Fire & Life Safety District; Michael J. Alberg, Thomas A. Alberg, Kay L. Alberg; and Novelty Neighbors, Defendants, and Northshore Youth Soccer Association; Pro Parks; Woodinville Little League; Woodinville West Little League; Bothell North Little League; and Northshore Little League, Respondents. |
Christine Gregoire, Atty. Gen., Alan Copsey, Michael Lufkin, Asst. Attys. Gen., amicus curiae on behalf of State of Wash.
Helsell, Fetterman, Peter Eglick, Jane Kiker, Reed, McClure, Darrell Mitsunaga, Hilary Franz, Robert Johns, Seattle, Christine Gregoire, Atty. Gen., Marjorie Smitch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, Brian Snure, Des Moines, for Appellant.
Herbert Sorg, Glenn Amster, Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, H. Kevin
Wright, Deputy, Peter Ramels, Deputy, John Keegan, Jeffrey S. Weber, Seattle, for Respondent.
In this case, we must determine whether 1997 amendments to King County's comprehensive plan and zoning code, which allow active recreational uses on properties located within a designated agricultural area, violate the Growth Management Act. We hold that the amendments do not comply with the Act and that the land in question does not qualify for innovative zoning techniques under RCW 36.70A.177.
The Growth Management Act (GMA or Act), chapter 36.70A RCW, was enacted in 1990 and 1991 "in response to public concerns about rapid population growth and increasing development pressures in the state, especially in the Puget Sound region."1 The GMA requires local governments, such as King County (County), to adopt comprehensive growth management plans and development regulations in accordance with the Act's provisions. RCW 36.70A.040.
The Act creates three growth management hearings boards for the state. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, with jurisdiction in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties, has authority in this case. RCW 36.70A.250(1).
Each board consists of three members "qualified by experience or training in matters pertaining to land use planning and residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the applicable board." RCW 36.70A.260(1). At least one member of each board must be admitted to practice law in this state, and at least one member must have been a city or county elected official. Id. The growth management hearings boards are charged with adjudicating GMA compliance. RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a).
In 1994, King County adopted a new comprehensive plan pursuant to the GMA. The comprehensive plan designated agricultural lands in areas called Agricultural Production Districts (APDs). Approximately 40,500 acres of land—about three percent of the County's 1.4 million acres—was set aside in four APDs (Snoqualmie Valley, Enumclaw Plateau, Sammamish Valley, and Lower Green River Valley).
Since that time, there has been a growing demand for soccer and baseball fields—which the County's comprehensive plan terms "active recreational facilities"—in the Northshore community planning area of unincorporated King County. To meet the demand, the Northshore Youth Soccer Association (N.Y.SA) proposed that the County acquire several parcels of land for development into new athletic facilities, to be known collectively as South Gateway Park. These properties (the Kaplan, Zante, Brown, Murray, Murray, and Moore properties) encompass more than 40 acres in the north end of the Sammamish Valley APD. The properties contain prime agricultural soils.
In December of 1996, NYSA agreed to purchase the Kaplan property for $960,000.2 NYSA assigned its purchase and sale agreement for the Kaplan property to the County with the provision that the County contribute $750,000 of the purchase price. The sale closed on April 15, 1997.
The County then committed to enter into a 30 year concession agreement with NYSA for the management of new athletic facilities on the Kaplan property. The County further agreed that the final concession agreement would contain a provision "to automatically extend the agreement to adjacent parcels that may be added to the park in the years to come specifically for soccer use." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1100.
At the time the Kaplan property was acquired, the County's comprehensive plan discouraged active recreational uses within the APDs, and the County's zoning code prohibited active recreational facilities in agricultural areas. In order to develop the Kaplan property into athletic fields, the County decided to amend its comprehensive plan and zoning code to allow active recreation in the APDs.3 The County's 1997 amendments to its comprehensive plan (Ordinance No. 12927) and its zoning code (Ordinance No. 12930), which allow limited placement of athletic fields in the APDs, are at issue in this case.
The County's amendment to its comprehensive plan (shown in legislative style) reads as follows:
RL (Resource Lands)-308
When new parks or trails are planned for areas within or adjacent to Agricultural Production Districts, King County should work with farmers to minimize impacts to farmland and agricultural operations. Active recreational facilities ((should)) shall not be located within Agricultural Production Districts, except under the following circumstances:
A. the property within the APD has been purchased with funds that were earmarked for recreation, and the purchase pre-dates designation of the APD, or
B. there is a transfer of uses between a property purchased consistent with subsection A and other properties within the same APD.
Under the limited circumstances in which active recreational facilities are allowed in the APD, activities and site improvements shall be limited in order to allow the future use of the property for agricultural purposes when the recreational use is abandoned. ((When new parks or trails are planned for areas within or adjacent to Agricultural Production Districts, King County should work with farmers to minimize impacts, to farmland and agricultural operations.))
Specifically, the amendment allows properties within APDs, which were purchased prior to APD designation with Forward Thrust or Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) funds, to be developed for active recreational facilities.4
Such properties can also transfer their active recreational use to any other parcels within the same APD. The Hmong property, located in the Sammamish Valley APD, was among those identified as being purchased with Forward Thrust/IAC funds.5 The Kaplan, Zante, Brown, Murray, Murray, and Moore properties are also affected because the amendments transfer the recreational use from the Hmong property to these properties. The amendments do not limit the number of acres of agricultural land that can be converted to recreational use by receiving a transfer of such use from the Hmong property.6
The County's amendment to its zoning code (development regulations), with new language underlined, reads as follows:
d. Facilities in the F [Forest], A [Agriculture], or M [Mineral] zones, or in a designated Rural Farm or Forest District, shall be limited to trails and trail-heads and active recreation facilities, including related accessory uses such as parking and sanitary facilities. Active recreation facilities shall be limited to those properties within the Agricultural Production District (APD) that are acquired prior to designation of the APD, using voter-approved recreation funds, state funds mandated for recreation, or King County Board of Recreation funds. Active recreation uses allowed on parcels as noted above m[a]y be transferred to other parcels within the same APD. However, active recreation from lands outside of the APD shall not be relocated to any parcel within an APD. Where such facilities are permitted within an APD, the following deed restrictions will be applied:
(1) Active recreation uses shall be designed in a manner that visually screens adjacent agricultural uses from park users and that restricts physical trespass onto adjacent Agricultural Production District properties;
(2) Buildings associated with recreational uses shall be limited to restroom facilities, picnic shelters and storage/maintenance facilities for equipment used onsite;
(3) No use that permanently compacts, removes, sterilizes, pollutes or otherwise materially impairs the future use of the soil for raising agricultural crops shall be allowed;
(4) Any soil surfaces temporarily disturbed through construction activities shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses, including restoration of the original soil horizon sequence, as soon as practical following such disruptions;
(5) Access to recreational uses shall be designed to minimize impact on the surrounding Agricultural Production District and should be limited to direct access along District boundaries whenever feasible; and
(6) Although the recreational use of Agricultural Production District properties may be long term, such use shall be recognized as an interim use of the Production District's prime agricultural soils. As such, any acquisition funding or policy restrictions for the recreational use of the property shall be viewed as subordinate to the County's prior commitment to the preservation of prime agricultural soils and the viability of local agricultural production. Whenever the County declares through action of the King County Council a critical shortage of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wash. State Dairy Fed'n v. State
..." Port of Seattle , 151 Wash.2d at 588, 90 P.3d 659 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. , 142 Wash.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000) ). We will not overturn the PCHB's decision unless it is "clearly erroneous", and we are " ‘defi......
-
Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims
...("`RAP 9.11 restricts appellate consideration of additional evidence on review.'" (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 549 n. 6, 14 P.3d 133 (2000))); United States v. Hoffman, 154 Wash.2d 730, 735 n. 3, 116 P.3d 999 (2005) (amicus briefs mus......
-
Whatcom Cnty., Corp. v. Hirst
...Instead, deference to counties remains “bounded ... by the goals and requirements of the GMA.” King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 561, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). Further, we do not afford counties any deference when it comes to interpreting the GMA. Kittitas ......
-
Ongom v. Dept. of Health
...Bd., 151 Wash.2d 568, 588, 90 P.3d 659 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)). ¶ 47 Ms. Ongom failed to establish that the trial court's decision was not supported by substantia......
-
§ 21.11 Standards of Judicial Review
...Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 778, 790, 51 P.3d 744 (2002); King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). Courts do not defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute the agency does not administer, or to statutes that determine the agen......
-
Table of Cases
...138 Wn.2d 161, 979 P.2d 374 (1999): 2.3(3), 2.17(1)(c), 2.17(1)(d), 2.17(1)(e) King Cnty. v. CPSGMHB (Soccer Fields), 142 Wn.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133 (2000): 1.14(2)(a), 1.14(4), 4.2(1)(c), 4.3, 4.4(3), 13.6(2), 13.6(2), 13.7(4) King Cnty. v. High, 36 Wn.2d 580, 219 P.2d 118 (1950): 8.12(2)(d) K......
-
Table of Cases
...Bd., 138 Wn.2d 161, 979 P.2d 374 (1999): 21.5(1)(d), 21.10(3)(a) King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d543, 14 P.3d 133 (2000): 21.11(1)(b) King County v. Wash. State Boundary Review Bd. for King Cnty., 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993): 12.4 King v. Clodfel......
-
§ 13.6 - The Board's Review
...review, all of which reflect a strong deference to the local jurisdiction's planning efforts. King Cnty. v. CPSGMHB, 142 Wn.2d 543, 552, 14 P.3d 133 (2000) (quoting Dep't of Ecology v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 121 Wn.2d 179, 201, 849 P.2d 646 (1993)). On appeal to the GMHB, a local jurisdict......