Lewis County v. Hearings Bd.
| Citation | 157 Wn.2d 488,139 P.3d 1096 |
| Decision Date | 10 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 76553-7.,76553-7. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | LEWIS COUNTY, Appellant, v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, Eugene Butler, Edward G. Smethers, Douglas H. Hayden, Annette H. Yanisch, Brenda Boardman, Dorothy L. Smith, Debra Ertel Burris, Michael T. Vinatieri, Deanna M. Zieske, Vince Panesko, John T. Mudge, Evaline Community Association, Susan Roth, Richard Roth, Karen Knutsen, and Valerie Gore, Respondents. |
Alexander Weal Mackie, Perkins Coie LLP, Olympia, Douglas Emry Jensen, Lewis County Prosecutor's Office, Chehalis, for Petitioner/Appellant.
Lewis Handfield Zieske, Deanna Zieske, Chehalis, for Appellee/Respondents.
Timothy E. Allen, Law Offices of Gulliford, McGaughey & Du, Bellevue, Tim Trohimovich, Futurewise, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae, Futurewise.
Maureen A. Hart, Olympia, Alan D. Copsey, Attorney General's Office, Olympia, for Amicus Curiae, State of Washington Attorney General.
¶ 1 After failing four times to satisfy the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) that it properly designated agricultural lands for conservation under the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, Lewis County now asks us to reverse the latest Board orders rebuffing its efforts. We conclude that the Board incorrectly defined agricultural land in reviewing Lewis County's 2003 ordinances. Accordingly, we reverse the Board's conclusion that the county violated the GMA by focusing on the farm industry's projected needs, rather than on soil and land characteristics, in designating agricultural lands for conservation. We also remand the case to the Board to determine whether the county's designations of agricultural land comply with the GMA, using the correct definition of agricultural land.1 We conclude, however, that the Board did not err by invalidating the ordinances that: (a) allowed non-farm uses within designated agricultural lands, and (b) excluded "farm centers" and farm homes from those lands. Therefore, we partially affirm the Board's orders.
¶ 2 Lewis County has long struggled to meet GMA requirements to designate and conserve agricultural lands. In June 2000, March 2001, and July 2002, the Board found the county's efforts noncompliant.
¶ 3 In response to the Board's September 8, 2003, deadline to achieve GMA compliance, the county staff prepared a report explaining how it identified agricultural lands to be conserved. The 2003 staff report said that of the 1,117 farms existing in Lewis County as of the 1997 census, only 176 farms had gross sales of $25,000 or more, and only 161 of them were larger than 180 acres. The report also said that of about 150,000 acres eligible for agricultural designation based on soil type, about 50,000 had no recent agricultural activity. The report described a decline in dairies and field crops, an absence of "significant clusters" of organic farms, and a poultry industry constrained by a lack of water rights. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 242. The report also said no land conservation was needed for the hay and Christmas tree industries because they do not depend on soil, and "[g]rass hay in particular is a marginal operation, in that in good years the return is often barely enough to pay taxes on the property." Id. at 254. Finally, the staff report said most Lewis County farms are not economically self sufficient and therefore need "non farm income" for survival. Id. To address that need, the report recommended allowing each farm to have a "farm center" of up to five acres where rural commercial and industrial uses would be allowed. Id. at 255.
¶ 4 The Lewis County Planning Commission held public hearings and approved the staff report almost entirely. It recommended that the Lewis County Commission designate 54,500 acres of agricultural land, "appropriate in location and amount to reasonably conserve the land-based needs of the commercial agriculture industry for the foreseeable future."2 Id. at 283. On September 8, 2003, the Lewis County Commission adopted by ordinance the planning commission findings and most of its recommendations, along with maps designating an agricultural zone of about 54,400 acres. And while prohibiting certain non-farm land uses, the commission allowed others—including residential subdivisions, home-based businesses and telecommunication facilities—to be located in agricultural lands as long as they met certain conditions.3 The ordinances designated 13,767 of "Class A" farmlands, characterized by prime farm soils, over 40,000 acres of "Class B" farmlands, and "[f]armlands of [l]ocal [i]mportance." Id. at 670. The commission removed some lands from designation because they: (1) had "already been divided," (2) "lost irrigation rights," or (3) were "isolated and in areas where land development and potential changes create the potential for conflict and . . . significant change." Id. at 283. The latter included lands near Interstate 5 where the county wants to attract "major industry." Id.
¶ 5 The county's designation of 54,400 acres of agricultural lands, as compared with 66,000 acres receiving special agricultural tax status and 283,000 acres of land with prime farm soils in Lewis County, was controversial. In January 2004, the Board held a hearing to review citizen petitions challenging the county's 2003 actions and to determine GMA compliance.4 The citizen petitioners, using soil and aerial maps, claimed to identify 140,645 acres that were currently or recently used for agriculture and that should have been conserved. In February 2004, the Board issued a 49-page order concluding that Lewis County still failed to comply with the GMA. The Board reasoned as follows:
The GMA defines the requirements for designating natural resource lands based on the characteristics of the lands. Instead of basing its designation decisions on the characteristics of agricultural land, Lewis County focused its decision-making on its assessment of the needs of the local agricultural industry. . . . Historically, in Lewis County as well as in other counties, the agricultural industry has changed as the market for agricultural products changed. Agricultural economists are not able to predict which products will be in demand next year, let alone for the foreseeable future. The legislature, therefore, did not tie the designation of agricultural lands to economic conditions which shift unpredictably but to the characteristics of the land. The moving concern underlying the GMA's requirement for designation and conservation of agricultural lands is to preserve lands capable of being used for agriculture because once gone, the capacity of those lands to produce food is likely gone forever.
CP at 634. The Board invalidated the ordinances and maps that: (a) designated the agricultural lands to be conserved, (b) excluded "`farm centers'" and farm homes from designated agricultural lands, (c) allowed nonagricultural uses on the designated lands, and (d) required "`sufficient irrigation capability'" for designation as Class A farmland.5 CP at 674, 675. In a May 2004 order on reconsideration, the Board said that "until the County utilizes a compliant approach . . . potential agricultural resource lands in the rural zones must be preserved from incompatible development so that they will be available for assessment under a compliant approach."6 Id. at 684.
¶ 6 Lewis County appealed both 2004 orders to the Lewis County Superior Court. On December 23, 2004, the superior court affirmed the Board's orders, agreeing with the Board that "the . . . `needs of the industry' argument is clearly erroneous" and that "the definition of long-term significance refers to the growing capacity and productivity of the soil." Id. at 10. We granted review.
¶ 7 The Growth Management Hearings Board is charged with adjudicating GMA compliance and invalidating noncompliant plans and development regulations. RCW 36.70A.280, .302. The Board "shall find compliance" unless it determines that a county action "is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements" of the GMA. RCW 36.70A.320(3). To find an action "clearly erroneous," the Board must have a "firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed." Dep't of Ecology v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Jefferson County, 121 Wash.2d 179, 201, 849 P.2d 646 (1993). On appeal, we review the Board's decision, not the superior court decision affirming it. King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000) (). "`We apply the standards of RCW 34.05 directly to the record before the agency, sitting in the same position as the superior court.'" Id. (quoting City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 45, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998)).
¶ 8 The legislature intends for the Board "to grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of" the GMA. RCW 36.70A.3201. But while the Board must defer to Lewis County's choices that are consistent with the GMA, the Board itself is entitled to deference in determining what the GMA requires. This court gives "substantial weight" to the Board's interpretation of the GMA. Soccer Fields, 142 Wash.2d at 553, 14 P.3d 133.7
¶ 9 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, a court shall grant relief from an agency's adjudicative order if it fails to meet any of nine standards delineated in RCW 34.05.570(3). Here, Lewis County asserts that the Board erroneously applied the law, warranting relief under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), and engaged in an unlawful decision-making process. RCW 34.05.570(3)(c). The burden of demonstrating that the Board erroneously applied the law or failed to follow prescribed procedure is on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whatcom Cnty., Corp. v. Hirst
...when it comes to interpreting the GMA. Kittitas County, 172 Wash.2d at 156, 256 P.3d 1193 (citing Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 498, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) ). On appeal to this court, the County retains the burden of establishing that the Board's decision i......
-
Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
...and had to be reserved for resolution by the courts. (AR Tab 60, at 46); see Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 513, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) (Johnson, J., concurring and dissenting) (GMA boards are not allowed to reach constitutional or equitable issues or dis......
-
Kittitas County v. Eastern Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
...(board) decisions, courts give “ ‘substantial weight’ ” to a board's interpretation of the GMA. Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 498, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 1......
-
Group v. Jefferson County
...GMA compliance and may invalidate noncompliant comprehensive plans and development regulations. Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 497, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) (citing RCW 36.70A.280, .302). The Board may also find that a county is not in compliance with the GM......
-
Table of Cases
...Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wn. App. 142, 53 P.3d 44 (2002): 21.5, 21.5(1)(b) Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006): 21.11(1)(b) Lewis River Golf, Inc. v. O.M. Scott & Sons, 120 Wn.2d 712, 845 P.2d 987 (1993): 18.2(6), 18.5, 20.8(2) Lewis......
-
Table of Cases
...Wn.2d 575, 807 P.2d 363 (1991): 14.2(4)(b)(iii) Lewis v. City of Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 548 P.2d 1093 (1976): 8.7(3) Lewis Cnty. v. WWGMHB, 157 Wn.2d 488, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006): 1.14(2)(a), 2.7(1), 4.2(3), 4.2(3)(a), 4.2(3)(b), 4.3, 4.4(5), 4.5, 4.5(3), 4.9, 4.9, 4.10, 13.7(4) Lince v. City of......
-
§ 21.11 Standards of Judicial Review
...counties and cities in how they plan consistent with the Growth Management Act. Cf. Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488, 498, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006) (although the Growth Management Hearings Board must defer to the county's choices that are consistent with the GMA......
-
Washington's Way Ii: the Burden of Enforcing Growth Management in the Crucible of the Courts and Hearings Boards
...797, 959 P.2d at 1176. 150. Id. at 804-05, 959 P.2d at 1179-80. 151. Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd, 157 Wash. 2d 488, 139 P.3d 1096(2006). 152. Id. at 499, 139 P.3d at 153. Id. at 502, 139 P.3d at 1103. The phrase was actually already part of the statutory definition, bu......