Skagit Surveyors and Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County
| Decision Date | 25 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 64798-4,64798-4 |
| Citation | 958 P.2d 962,135 Wn.2d 542 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | SKAGIT SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS, LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation; Skagit County Association of Realtors, a Washington non-profit corporation; and Willard M. Hendrickson, and Ida M. Hendrickson, husband and wife, d/b/a Hendrickson Realty, Respondents, v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT COUNTY, a Washington non-profit corporation, Petitioner, Barbara Rudge and Andrea Xaver, individually; and The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendants, State of Washington, Intervenor. SKAGIT COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT COUNTY, a Washington non-profit corporation, Petitioner, Barbara Rudge and Andrea Xaver, individually; and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendants, State of Washington, Intervenor. |
Bricklin & Gendler, David Bricklin, Seattle, for Petitioner.
Barbara Rudge, Anacortes, Andrea Xaver, David Needy, Skagit County Prosecutor, John Moffat, Deputy Skagit County Prosecutor, Paul Taylor, Mount Vernon, Peter Buck, Kitteridge Oldham, Buck & Gordon, Seattle, Groen & Stephens, John Groen, Bellevue, for Petitioners.
Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, Marjorie Smitch, Alan Copsey, Assistant Attorney Generals, Olympia, for Respondents.
Paul M. Parker, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Counties.
Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu, Jeffrey M. Eustis, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of 1000 Friend of Washington.
In this direct appeal from a growth management hearings board decision, we are asked to determine the scope and validity of the enforcement sections of Washington's Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, and the validity of their application in this case.
Petitioners claim that a growth management hearings board does not have authority to invalidate a zoning ordinance which was enacted before the effective date of the Growth Management Act. They also claim the Growth Management Act violates federal and state constitutional guarantees. We agree that the growth management hearings board did not have statutory authority, in this case, to invalidate the county's pre-Act regulations. Because we decide this appeal on statutory grounds, we do not reach the constitutional issues.
To provide a basis for better understanding the factual background and procedural history of this case, a discussion of the development of the Growth Management Act precedes the statement of facts.
This state's Growth Management Act was enacted in 1990 in response to the problems associated with an increase in population in this state, particularly in the Puget Sound area, in the 1980s. Laws of 1990, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 17. These problems included increased traffic congestion, school overcrowding, urban sprawl, and loss of rural lands. See Richard L. Settle & Charles G. Gavigan, The Growth Management Revolution in Washington: Past, Present, and Future, 16 U. P UGET S OUND L. R EV. 867, 880 (1993); Jeffrey M. Eustis, Between Scylla and Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation that Avoids Takings and Substantive Due Process Limitations, 16 U. P UGET S OUND L. R EV. 1181, 1185 (1993). The law has been amended every year since it was enacted. 1
The reason for the enactment is expressed in RCW 36.70A.010, as follows:
The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state....
The Growth Management Act imposed substantial new requirements on local governments. Erickson & Assocs. v. McLerran, 123 Wash.2d 864, 876, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). Among those requirements is the duty on the part of most counties, including Skagit County, to develop a comprehensive land use plan which, at a minimum, includes a plan, scheme, or design addressing each of the following elements: (1) land use, (2) housing, (3) capital facilities, (4) utilities, (5) rural areas, and (6) transportation. RCW 36.70A.040, .070. See also RCW 36.70A.080 ().
The Legislature adopted 13 goals to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans. Two of those goals are involved in this case. They are:
1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
The primary method required for meeting these two goals is set forth in RCW 36.70A.110. That provision requires counties to "designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." RCW 36.70A.110(1). 2 It is this requirement of the Act that is at the core of the dispute in this appeal.
As enacted in 1990, the Growth Management Act required counties to designate "urban growth areas" (UGAs) concurrently with the adoption of their comprehensive plans on or before July 1, 1993. Laws of 1990, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 17, §§ 4(3), 11. It became apparent that counties would not be able to meet this deadline and so, in 1993, the Legislature extended the time for counties to complete their comprehensive plans to July 1, 1994. Laws of 1993, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 6, § 1(3). However, the 1993 amendments to the Act also required counties to designate "interim urban growth areas" (IUGAs) that would be effective on or before October 1, 1993, during a county's planning period. Laws of 1993, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 6, § 2(4).
As originally enacted, the Growth Management Act had no administrative enforcement mechanism. In 1991 the Legislature created three growth management hearings boards, one for Eastern Washington, one for Western Washington, and one for the Central Puget Sound area. Laws of 1991, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 32, § 5 (codified at RCW 36.70A.250). 3 The boards have authority to hear and determine petitions filed pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280 and .290, and to order compliance with the Act within a reasonable time. RCW 36.70A.300.
Enforcement provisions were added in 1991 and in 1995. Laws of 1991, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 32, § 14(3) (codified at RCW 36.70A.330(3)); Laws of 1995, ch. 347, §§ 110, 112 (). RCW 36.70A.330(3) authorizes a hearings board to recommend that the Governor impose economic sanctions against a local government that is not in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. This section is not at issue in this appeal. Former RCW 36.70A.300(2) authorizes a hearings board, in certain circumstances, to invalidate county plans or regulations that substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of the Act. 4 It is this provision of the Act that is challenged by the petitioners in this case.
Skagit County adopted its zoning ordinance in 1979. Skagit County Code (SCC) 14.04. It is not disputed that this ordinance does not comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
After the passage of the Growth Management Act, Skagit County adopted the temporary or interim zoning regulations which are pertinent to this appeal. One, SCC Ordinance 14925, was intended to reduce urban sprawl by establishing a five-acre minimum lot size for all residential zoning outside of urban areas. In adopting this urban sprawl control ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners stated:
[D]uring the first six months of 1993 there have been a significant increase in the number of proposed land divisions at densities greater than 1 residence per 5 acres and if permitted to continue in the unincorporated portion of Skagit County, undesirable sprawling, low-density growth patterns quickly emerge. Left unchecked, this land development pattern creates an imminent danger to public or private property and poses a threat to the environment[.]
The County also adopted statutorily required ordinances establishing interim urban growth areas.
In early March 1995, Friends of Skagit County and two individual petitioners, Barbara Rudge and Andrea Xaver (hereafter referred to collectively as Friends or Friends of Skagit County), filed petitions with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board). In part, the petitions challenged the method of adoption and adequacy of the Skagit County ordinance which established interim urban growth areas. Friends claimed, in part, that the County was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act because the County allowed urban residential, commercial, and industrial development outside municipal boundaries without proper adoption of IUGAs. The County's ordinance enacted to control urban sprawl was not challenged.
The cities of Anacortes and Mt. Vernon intervened in the action.
Following a hearing, the Board determined that Skagit County was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act with respect to the adoption of its ordinances pertaining to interim urban growth areas. The Board ordered the County to:
1. Eliminate any urban growth area designations outside of the city or town limits of Anacortes, Mt. Vernon, Burlington, Hamilton, La Conner, Sedro Woolley, Lyman, and Concrete within 30 days of this Order. No other interim growth areas may be designated until the information and analysis required by the [Growth Management Act] is completed.
2. Clarify the language of the ordinances to preclude new urban residential, commercial, or industrial development outside a property [sic] designated IUGA within 60 days of the date of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peltier
...Wash.App. 58, 61, 604 P.2d 1015 (1979) (quoting State v. Fogel, 16 Ariz.App. 246, 248, 492 P.2d 742 (1972)). 23.Id. at 62 n. 3, 604 P.2d 1015. 24.Skagit Surveyors and Eng'rs. LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542, 556, 958 P.2d 962 (1998). 25.Id. 26.113 Wash.App. 347, 350, 57 P.3......
-
1000 Friends of Washington v. McFarland
...question raised as to whether we abandoned or limited the canon of legislative acquiescence in Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542, 958 P.2d 962 (1998). We did not. The question in Skagit Surveyors was whether a growth management hearings board (GM......
-
Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS
...(same); Ohnstad v. City of Tacoma, 64 Wash.2d 904, 906, 395 P.2d 97 (1964) (same); see also Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542, 546, 958 P.2d 962 (1998) (because the case was decided on statutory grounds, constitutional issues were not reached); Stat......
-
In re Personal Restraint Petition of Dalluge
...that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, but personal jurisdiction can be waived. Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542, 556, 958 P.2d 962 (1998). Jurisdictional requirements embodied in statutes can be waived, but waiver should be found only ......
-
Washington's Growth Management Revolution Goes to Court
...123 Wash. 2d 151, 868 P.2d 116 (1994). 180. See, e.g., Skagit Surveyors and Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash. 2d 542, 958 P.2d 962 181. See generally Whatcom County v. Brisbane, 125 Wash. 2d 345, 884 P.2d 1326 (1994); Anderson I, 123 Wash. 2d 151, 868 P.2d 116 (1994); Sa......
-
§ 21.5 Filing and Service Requirements for Initiating Judicial Review Proceedings and Cross Appeals
...requirements goes to jurisdiction, any party can raise the issue at any time. Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Cnty., 135 Wn.2d 542, 556, 958 P.2d 962 (1998) (citing In re Saltis, 94 Wn.2d 889, 893, 621 P.2d 716 (1980); RAP 2.5(a)(1)); see also Litowitz v. Cent. Puget Sou......
-
Table of Cases
...682, 54 L. Ed. 905 (1910) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.12[1] Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Cnty., 135 Wn.2d 542, 958 P.2d 962 (1998).14.02[1]; 28.06[8] Skarbek, In re Marriage of, 100 Wn. App. 444, 997 P.2d 447 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
-
Table of Cases
...10.5(5) Skagit Cnty. v. Waldal, 163 Wn. App. 284, 261 P.3d 164 (2011): 19.3(2) Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit Cnty., 135 Wn.2d 542, 958 P.2d 962 (1998): 15.9(2) Skamania Cnty. v. State, 102 Wn.2d 127, 685 P.2d 576 (1984): 12.2(2)(a)(ii), 12.2(2)(b), 12.2(2)(c)(iii) Smit......