FILED 

JUNE 18,2015 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

W A State Court of Appeals, Division III 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

SPOKANE COUNTY, a political ) 

subdivision ofthe State ofWashington, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

. v. ) 

) 

EASTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH ) 

MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, a ) 

statutory entity, NEIGHBORHOOD ) 

ALLIANCE OF SPOKANE COUNTY, ) 

FUTUREWISE, FIVE MILE PRAIRIE ) 

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ) 

SOUTHGATE NEIGHBORHOOD ) 

COUNCIL, THE GLENROSE ) 

ASSOCIATION, PAUL KROPP, LARRY ) 

KUNZ, DAN HENDERSON, STATE OF ) 

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ) 

COMMERCE, and WASHINGTON ) 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF ) 

TRANSPORTATION, ) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

No. 32240-8-111 

PUBLISHED OPINION 

LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. - The Washington State Growth Management Act 

(GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, requires counties to provide for early and continuous 

public participation before a county or city votes on any change to a comprehensive plan 
No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

or development regulation. Here, Spokane County (County) adopted Resolution 13-0689, 

which expanded the County's urban growth area (UGA) boundary by 4,125 acres and, 

without notice to the public, increased the population growth projection from 113,541 to 

121,112 to fit the expanded boundary. 

The Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County, Futurewise, the Five Mile Prairie 

Neighborhood Association, the Southgate Neighborhood Council, the Glenrose 

Association, Paul Kropp, Larry Kunz, Dan Henderson, the State of Washington 

Department of Commerce, and the Washington State Department of Transportation 

(collectively the Neighborhood Alliance) petitioned the Eastern Washington Growth 

Management Hearings Board (Board) for review of the resolution, alleging that the 

County failed to comply with the public participation requirements of the GMA in 

adopting the increased population growth projection. 

The Board found that the County's adoption of the increased population projection 

represented a significant change in the comprehensive plan that required public review 

and comment. It remanded the resolution to the County for compliance with the GMA's 

public participation requirements. It also invalidated the resolution, finding its continued 

validity would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of GMA goals. 

2 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed. 


On direct appeal from the Board's order, the County argues that the Board erred by 

concluding that a change in the population growth projection is a change to an 

amendment to a comprehensive plan under RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a). The County also 

asserts that the Board's order is not supported by substantial evidence and is the product 

of unlawful procedure. We conclude that the County's failure to notity the public of its 

increased population projection violates the GMA's public participation requirement. We 

also hold that the continuing validity of the resolution substantially interferes with the 

goals ofthe GMA. Accordingly, we affirm. 

FACTS 

In 2009, Spokane County adopted a population growth projection as the basis for 

planning regarding potential changes to its UGA. The Board of Commissioners for 

Spokane County adopted Resolution 09-0531, "IN THE MATTER OF ALLOCATION 

OF THE 20 YEAR POPULATION FORECAST FOR 2011 to 2031," which further 

provides "the Board hereby adopts for planning purposes regarding the review and 

revision if necessary ofthe urban growth area boundary the population projection and 

allocations for the 20 year period ending in 2031 as described herein and set forth in 

Attachment'A.'" Administrative Record CAR) at 963, 965. Attachment A adopted a 

2008 to 2031 total population projection of612,226 for 2031, with a projection of urban 

3 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


population growth of 114,919 persons between 2008 and 2031. 

In the process ofplanning for the UGA expansion, the County prepared two 

environmental impact statements (EISs). In 2011, the County prepared a draft and final 

EIS examining four alternatives for UGA expansion. In 2012, the County prepared 

another draft and final EIS adding a fifth alternative to the analysis. Both ofthe EISs 

used a 2011 to 2031 UGA population growth projection of 113,541, consistent with the 

projection adopted in Resolution 09-0531. The number was a little lower than the 2008 to 

2031 UGA population growth projection, apparently to adjust for the 2011 to 2031 

shorter time horizon. Using this population growth projection, all five alternatives 

showed a population capacity surplus, meaning that there was no need to expand the 

UGA. 

On July 18,2013, the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners adopted 

Resolution 13-0689, which added 4,125 acres ofland to Spokane County's UGA and 

increased the UGA population growth projection from 113,541 to 121,112. The County's 

unilateral increase of the population projection appears to have been a retrofit driven by 

the desire to increase the UGA. During the Board hearing, the Board asked how the 

County could change the population forecast after the comment period had been 

completed. The county attorney, David Hubert, responded: 

4 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

Well, I don't think that the change itself is de minimis. I don't think that 

the difference in the numbers is de minimis or insignificant in any sense. 

The fact that the analysis was made based on the initial population 

projection, the County's answer is that that was always-it was always 

anticipated that those numbers would be the starting point. We would do 

our analysis. We would look at what that means, what that population 

projection would require in terms of a size of a UGA and capital facilities 

and so on and so forth as a starting point so that we would know that if we 

choose one of the alternatives, then there's going to be a difference and that 

we're going to then have to adjust the land quantity analysis. We're going 

to have to adjust the capital facilities plan and everything to accommodate 

the final UGA boundary that's actually adopted. 

CP at 127-28. 

A Board member then asked if the population projection was driven by "the 

desired size of the UGA as opposed to a [real] population projection," observing, "We're 

fitting the population projection into the desired UGA size; isn't that true?" CP at 128. 

Mr. Hubert answered: 

Well, we are fitting the population into the UGA boundary that's 

adopted.... [I]n developed areas that aren't yet in the UGA, those need to 

be considered for being put in the UGA, if possible, and so forth. And so I 

agree with you that, yes, we're saying that the UGA boundary is going to 

tell us what popUlation projection we have to adopt, but it wasn't simply a 

desire kind of a decision. It was a complex decision that was made, we 

believe, under the requirements of the GMA. 

CP at 128-29. During oral argument before this court, Mr. Hubert conceded that 

. the County drew its desired urban growth area map and then increased the 

5 
No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed. 


population growth projection to 121,270 to fit the chosen area. l 

The County published the last public notice inviting public comment on the 

proposed changes to the UGA on February 3, 2013. The notice stated that the County 

was considering "PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY URBAN 

GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY INCLUDING CONCURRENT COMPREHENSIVE 

PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS." AR at 1041. It provided in part: 

The proposal examines the adequacy of the County's Urban Growth Area 

and its ability to provide for future growth. The action includes amendment 

to the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code maps should 

modification of the UGA be deemed necessary. Five alternative land use 

scenarios are considered within the proposal. A final decision on the UGA 

update may include any combination of study areas from the different 

alternatives. 

AR at 1041. 

The notice indicated that the Spokane County Planning Commission and the 

Steering Committee of Elected Officials for Spokane County had made recommendations 

and that a topic of discussion at the meeting may include environmental documents that 

I Although the record does not reflect this, the parties agree and, therefore, we 

clarify the following point: The increased population growth projection of 121,112 was 

within the range of population growth projected by the office of financial management 

(OFM). Nevertheless, in its 2009 resolution, the County chose 114,919, a number also 

within the OFM range, as its population growth projection. As explained earlier in this 

opinion, the 114,919 growth projection number was the basis for the 113,541 growth 

projection number used in the County's 2011 and 2012 EISs. 

6 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


had been prepared with the proposal. The notice also referred to the 2011 and 2012 EISs. 

However, neither the notice nor the recommendations suggested that the County was 

considering any changes to the UGA population growth projection. 

The Neighborhood Alliance parties filed two petitions for review alleging that the 

County had not complied with the public participation requirements ofthe GMA in 

adopting the expanded UGA. They also asserted that the resolution should be declared 

invalid because it substantially interfered with GMA goals. The State Department of 

Commerce and State Department ofTransportation filed a supporting response arguing 

that "population numbers are a necessary precursor to decisions on designations of the 

UGA" and that the County's unilateral adjustment ofthese numbers violated the GMA. 

AR at 1096. 

The Board granted the respondents' motion and remanded the resolution to the 

County to address the public participation flaws regarding the population projection of 

121,112. The Board specifically found (1) the continued validity ofthe new population 

projection of 121,112, which had not been subjected to adequate public participation 

processes, would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of GMA goals; (2) there was 

a significant risk of vesting; and (3) the resolution was invalid in its entirety and required 

public participation. It concluded: "[b]ased on the importance of the public participation 

7 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd 

requirements of the GMA, [and] the basic significance of the County[' s] adopted 

population growth target, ... the Board determines [that] Resolution No. 13-0689 would 

substantially interfere with the fulfillment ofGMA Planning Goals 1,2,3, 11, and 12." 

AR at 1321. 

The Board meticulously outlined its reasoning. Starting with the proposition that 

"[t]he [UGA] population projection is the key starting point for determining the amount 

of land that is needed and appropriate for future growth, not vice versa," the Board noted 

that "[t]he GMA requires the size ofa UGA must be 'based upon' the OFM 20-year 

population growth projection and a County's UGA designation cannot exceed the amount 

of land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected by OFM, plus a reasonable 

land market supply factor." AR at 1313 (citing RCW 36.70A.1IO). The Board noted that 

as population projections change, jurisdictions are required to adopt corresponding 

changes in their capital facilities, such as sewer systems, road/vehicle capacity, and 

school facilities. These considerations, according to the Board, "lead to the inevitable 

conclusion that the first step in adopting changes to the size of urban growth areas is the 

population projection." AR at 1315. 

The Board elaborated as follows: 

In the matter now before the Board, rather than updating its projected 

population targets through a clear cut public update process, as it initially 

8 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


had done, the County changed its population projection and allocations for 

its UGA at the conclusion, that is, within challenged Resolution No. 13­

0689 itself. There is no evidence in the record the County considered a 

change in the population projection or allocations until after the comment 

and review period. In fact, there is no evidence in the record of the actually 

adopted population allocation of 121,112 at any date prior to the date of 

adoption of Resolution No. 13-0689. 

AR at 1315. 

The Board rejected the County's argument that it was a logical inference that some 

of the five alternatives under consideration would require an increase in the projected 

population growth, finding that it was an equally valid inference that the alternatives that 

resulted in excess urban population capacity would lead the County to reject the 

expansion of the UGA. The Board reasoned: 

[A]s previously addressed, the County's Notice of Hearing fails to reference 

the possibility of a change in the population projection. Rather, that is left 

to possible inference. One could infer an upward adjustment would be 

required to justity adoption of one of the alternatives which would 

otherwise result in an excessive population capacity. In essence, that is the 

position of the County. On the other hand, one could also infer that the 

extensive EIS analysis, including popUlation studies, would lead the 

decision makers to reject any expansion resulting in excess population 

capacity. For example, all of the four alternatives the County studied 

showed that they exceeded the County's 2009 population projection for 

2031 by 4,259 to 17,803 people. Even the no-action alternative, without 

any change in the existing UGA boundaries, exceeded the County's 

population projection by 4,259 people. A logical conclusion from this 

might be that the previous UGA boundaries were adequate, without any 

enlargement, to accommodate the projected growth for the County's 

population. 

9 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd 

The County's argument also ignores the fact that several years of 

consideration of the UGA update had been based on the population 

projection of 113,541. While the County may be correct that all ofthe 

alternative study areas included different UGA population targets which 

were shown to the public, it was not disclosed to the public that a change 

would be made in the original population projection. The Notice of 

Hearing makes no mention whatsoever of the possibility of a change in the 

population projection. 

AR at 1316-17 (footnotes omitted). 

The Board then addressed the County's argument that the County was exempt 

from the GMA's public participation requirement because all of the proposals had been 

subject to extensive environmental impact studies. The Board concluded the exception 

did not apply because the population projection of 121,112 was not within the range of 

alternatives considered in the environmental impact statements. 

Based on its finding that the resolution violated the GMA, the Board invalidated 

the resolution in its entirety. In addition to finding that the increased population 

projection had not been subjected to adequate public participation processes, the Board 

also found that the resolution violated other goals of the acts, including the reduction of 

urban sprawl and providing for adequate planning for public services and facilities. The 

Board stated: 

The currently approved Resolution 13-0689 can also affect Goal 1, which 

encourages growth in urban areas, and Goal 2, reducing sprawl and the 

inappropriate development of undeveloped land, because it allows for 

10 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


vesting in the currently expanded urban growth areas before the Resolution 

can be reviewed and decided upon by the Growth Board. The County has 

held pre-application conferences for subdivisions on 87.5 acres of land in 

the urban growth area expansions and on the day the expansions were 

approved another application for a subdivision was filed for 33.5 acres. 

Even if the Petitioners prevail in their challenge to the County, it is likely 

that these and other applications for subdivisions will vest before this case 

is decided and remanded to the County. The importance of the proper 

sizing of urban areas is a key component of reducing sprawl and limiting 

the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land. 

AR at 1320-21 (footnote omitted). 

This court granted the parties' joint petition for discretionary review. 

ANALYSIS 

I. Administrative Procedure Act (AP A) Review Standard 

Growth management hearings boards are charged with determining 

whether a comprehensive plan or development regulation is compliant with the GMA. 

RCW 36.70A.302. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, 

governs our review of the Board's order. PTAir Watchers v. Dep 't ofEcology, 179 

Wn.2d 919,925,319 P.3d 23 (2014). Our Supreme Court has set forth the standard of 

review as follows: 

The 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 

11 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

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. " 

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 

the 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. 

Lewis County v. W Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488,497-98, 139 

P.3d 1096 (2006). 

While growth management hearings boards defer to local planning processes, such 

deference "is neither unlimited nor does it approximate a rubber stamp." Swinomish 

Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wn.2d 415, 435 n.8, 

166 P.3d 1198 (2007). A county's discretion is limited by the 13 planning objectives and 

statutory constraints of the GMA. King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. 

Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543,561,14 P.3d 133 (2000). One of these goals is to 

"encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination 

between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts." RCW 36.70A.020(l1). 

Moreover, "when it comes to interpreting the GMA, the same deference to counties does 

not adhere, and we give substantial weight to a board's interpretation." Kittitas County v. 

E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 172 Wn.2d 144,156,256 PJd 1193 (2011). 

12 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed. 


The party challenging the hearings board decision bears the burden of proving it is 

invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). RCW 34.05.570(3) sets out nine grounds for invalidating 

an administrative order. The County asserts three. First, it argues that the Board 

erroneously interpreted or applied the law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). The County also 

argues that the Board failed to follow prescribed procedure and that the order is not 

supported by substantial evidence under RCW 34.05.570(3)(c) and (e). 

"Our review is de novo under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b) through (d), determining 

whether the order contains a legal error." Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. 

Hearings Ed., 176 Wn. App. 555, 565, 309 P.3d 673 (2013). The Board's interpretation 

of the GMA is not binding on the courts. Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. 

Hearings Ed., 164 Wn.2d 329,341,189 P.3d 38 (2008). 

A challenge to the evidence is a mixed question of law and fact. City ofArlington 

v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed., 164 Wn.2d 768, 779-80, 193 P.3d 

1077 (2008) (quoting Lewis County, 157 Wn.2d at 498). In reviewing that question, we 

determine the law independently and apply it to the facts found by the Board. Id. (quoting 

Lewis County, 157 Wn.2d at 498). We review challenged findings of fact for substantial 

evidence: i.e., evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the finding's truth 

or correctness. City ofRedmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed., 136 

13 

No. 32240-8-II1 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

Wn.2d 38, 46,959 P.2d 1091 (1998) (quoting Callecodv. State Patrol, 84 Wn. App. 663, 

673,929 P.2d 510 (1997)), "We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

party who prevailed in the highest forum that exercised fact-finding authority." Miotke v. 

Spokane County, 181 Wn. App. 369, 376,325 PJd 434 (2014). 

II. County GMA Compliance 

The County first assigns error to the Board's conclusion that the County violated 

the public participation requirements ofthe GMA in adopting an increased population 

growth prediction without notice to the pUblic. Specifically, the County asserts that the 

Board erred in concluding that the population growth projection of 121,112 constituted a 

significant change in the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. It argues, 

"[t]he fatal error in the Neighborhood Alliance's and in the Growth Management 

Hearings Board's logic is that the alleged change in the population growth projection, that 

Neighborhood Alliance complains of, is not a change to any of the 5 proposed alternative 

amendments to the UGA boundary." Appellant's Br. at 11. The County argues that the 

increased population projection could be inferred from four ofthe five alternatives being 

considered by the County, all ofwhich were fully disclosed to the public, fully evaluated 

in environmental impact statements, and subject to extensive public participation. 

14 

No. 32240-8-II1 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

Neighborhood Alliance disputes the County's interpretation of the GMA, arguing 

that RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a) applies to any change to the amendment of a comprehensive 

plan. Noting that the change in the projected population growth resulted in a significant 

expansion of the UGA by 4,125 acres, Neighborhood Alliance argues that the change 

"had a significant effect of Spokane County's plan for the future and was done without 

any public involvement." Br. ofResp'ts at 18. It also disputes the County's argument 

that it was a logical inference that the alternatives being considered for the UGA 

boundary update would require an increase in the projected population growth, 

countering, "[r]ather than assume that the County might increase the population 

projection, a reasonable person would believe that the County would reject the proposed 

expansion ofthe UGA or even reduce the size of the UGA to make the capacity 

consistent with population growth projections." Bf. of Resp'ts at 23. 

The issue before us is a question of law: whether the County's adoption of 

Resolution 13-0689, which unilaterally increased the OFM's population growth 

prediction from 113,541 to 121,112, without notice to the public, constitutes a change to 

an amendment ofa comprehensive plan under RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a), thus requiring 

public participation. 

15 

No. 32240-8-II1 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


" 'The primary goal in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the 

intent of the legislature." King County, 142 Wn.2d at 555 (quoting Nat 'I Elec. 

Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland, 138 Wn.2d 9,19,978 P.2d 481 (1999)). To discern the 

legislature's intent, we start with the plain language of the statute. Quadrant Corp. v. 

Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd, 154 Wn.2d 224,238-39, 110 P.3d 1132 

(2005) (quoting King County, 142 Wn.2d at 555). When the plain language is 

unambiguous, we construe the provision as written. Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 

745,752,888 P.2d 147 (1995) (quoting Krystadv. Lau, 65 Wn.2d 827,844,400 P.2d 72 

(1965)). We evaluate the plain meaning ofa statutory provision from the ordinary 

meaning of the language in the statute, as well as from the context ofthe statute in which 

that provision is found, and the statutory scheme as a whole. Wash. Pub. Ports Ass 'n v. 

Dep't ofRevenue, 148 Wn.2d 637,645,62 PJd 462 (2003). We do not liberally construe 

statutory language in the GMA. Thurston County, 164 Wn.2d at 342 (quoting Woods v. 

Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597, 612 n.8, 174 PJd 25 (2007)). 

A. Overview ofthe Growth Management Act 

The purpose of the GMA is to control urban sprawl by "[r]educ[ing] the 

inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development" 

and to ensure that "citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector 

16 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning." 

RCW 36.70A.020(2); RCW 36.70A.OIO. "In a region like Washington State, where a 

rich tapestry of distinct rural and urban communities has long provided for a wide range 

of diverse lifestyles, maintaining the fundamental distinction between town and country is 

widely viewed as an essential function of growth management law." Brent D. Lloyd, 

Accommodating Growth or Enabling Sprawl? The Role ofPopulation Growth 

Projections in Comprehensive Planning under the Washington State Growth 

Management Act, 36 GONZ. L. REv. 73, 76 (2001). 

The GMA requires that counties prepare a detailed comprehensive growth 

management plan which, among other things, designates UGAs. RCW 36.70A.070. 

UGAs "are regions within which urban growth is encouraged and outside of which 

growth can occur only ifit is not urban in nature." Miotke, 181 Wn. App. at 377. The 

comprehensive plan is the "coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body." 

RCW 36.70A.030(4). Each plan must include "population densities; building intensities, 

and estimates of future population growth." RCW 36.70A.070(1). "A comprehensive 

plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in 

RCW 36.70A.l40." RCW 36.70A.070. 

17 

No. 32240-8-II1 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


RCW 36.70A.140 provides: 

Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under 

RCW 36.70A.040 shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a 

public participation program identifYing procedures providing for early and 

continuous public participation in the development and amendment of 

comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing 

such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of 

proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public 

meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, 

communication programs, information services, and consideration of and 

response to public comments. 

Comprehensive plans must designate UGAs based on the OFM population growth 

predictions: 

(1) Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 

36.70A.040 shall 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. Each city that is located in such a county 

shall be included within an urban growth area. 

(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made 

for the county by the office offinancial management, the county and each 

city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit 

the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the 

succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas 

contained totally within a national historic reserve. As part ofthis planning 

process, each city within the county must include areas sufficient to 

accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the 

projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, 

institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses. 

RCW 36.70A.II0 (emphasis added). 

18 

No. 32240-8-II1 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed. 


Thus, population growth predictions are the foundation of effective long-tenn 

comprehensive planning. As just detailed, the legislature has entrusted the OFM to 

prepare countywide population growth projections and entrusted counties, in turn, to 

designate UGAs based on these projections. 

B. RCW 36.70A.035: Public Participation under the GMA 

RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a) provides: 

Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, if the legislative 

body for a county or city chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a 

comprehensive plan or development regulation, and the change is proposed 

after the opportunity for review and comment has passed under the county's 

or city's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the 

proposed change shall be provided before the local legislative body votes 

on the proposed change. 

The County's interpretation ofthis requirement overlooks the central point that 

OFM projections of future population growth directly impact the designation of a UGA 

because the size of a UGA cannot be calculated without knowing what population a 

county is planning to accommodate within the expanded UGA. RCW 36. 70A.11 0(2); 

Thurston County, 164 Wn.2d at 351. Thus, OFM population projections "cap ... the 

amount ofland a county may allocate to UGAs." Diehl v. Mason County, 94 Wn. App. 

645,654,972 P.2d 543 (1999). One commentator has noted, "[p]opulation growth is a 

fundamental consideration in making long-range land use planning decisions .... 

19 
No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

Indeed, all key planning decisions-including those involving public facilities and 

services, residential and commercial zoning, road and highway design, and landfill 

placement, to name only a few-are contingent on the number ofpeople that must be 

accommodated during the planning cycle." Lloyd, supra, at 77. 

In Diehl, Division Two of this court held that the GMA requires that counties use 

OFM population projections in determining UGAs. Diehl, 94 Wn. App. at 653-54. In 

that case, Mason County challenged the Western Washington Growth Management 

Hearings Board's decision that Mason County had violated the GMA by failing to use 

OFM population projections in designating UGAs. Id. Mason County defended its 

position by arguing that its use of independently-generated population projections was 

justified because the OFM projection was too low. Id. at 653. The court held that 

RCW 36.70A.II 0(2) precludes counties from using their own projections in lieu of the 

OFM's, reasoning, "[i]f a county could enlarge UGAs to accommodate any popUlation 

maximum it chose, then the result would likely be the urban sprawl the GMA is trying to 

avoid." Id. 

Given the foundational role of the OFM's population projection in determining the 

size of a UGA, the County's unilateral adoption of an increased population projection, 

which was used to justify a significant expansion of the UGA, constituted a significant 

20 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


change, mandating public review and comment as provided in RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a). 

While it is arguable, as the County contends, that an upward population adjustment could 

be inferred to justify adoption of one of the alternatives that would otherwise result in an 

excessive population capacity, it is an equally logical inference that the County would 

reject expansion that would result in such excess population capacity. In fact, Spokane 

County's land quantity analysis showed that the existing UGA had more land than needed 

to accommodate the UGA population growth projection of 113,541. This analysis 

documented: 

The County's population projection expects the addition of 113,541 people 

in the County's UGA between the years 2010 and 2031. The current UGA 

has the capacity to include 117,800 additional people. This result shows 

that the increase in population can be accommodated within the current 

UGA and that there is an additional excess of capacity equaling 4,259 

people. 

ARat 437. 

The resolution does not retlect why the County provided no notice that upward 

population adjustment was being considered. The resolution's finding of fact 21 states 

that the Board had previously adopted a resolution adopting a total population project of 

612,226, which corresponds with the prior adopted population projection of an increase 

of 113,541 people. Moreover, the OFM predicted slower population increases for 

Spokane County in its 2012 update. While the resolution attempts to characterize the 

21 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

113,541 figure as "preliminary," there is no evidence in the record that the County had 

considered a change in the population projection until after it expanded the UGA 

boundary and the period for comment and review had passed. By increasing the 

population forecast to fit the UGA boundary expansion desired by the County, the County 

effectively turned GMA planning procedures on their head, and deprived the public of its 

opportunity for review and comment. 

Nevertheless, the County contends that the challenged notice of hearing complies 

with the "spirit" ofthe public participation guidelines under RCW 36. 70A.140, which 

allows for some deviance from "exact compliance" with GMA procedures "ifthe spirit of 

the program and procedures is observed." To support its position, the County contends 

that the notice informed the public that the purpose ofthe hearing was to consider 

testimony related to the update ofthe County's UGA, directed the public to the related 

environmental documents, and identified the five alternative proposals. The County 

argues, "[i]t is difficult to imagine that after a process spanning 7 years of developing and 

publishing the 5 alternative proposed amendments to the UGA boundary that anyone did 

not have ample opportunity to review the proposed amendments and comment on them at 

some forum or before the Board of County Commissioners." Br. of Appellant at 16. The 

County also argues that because an environmental impact statement regarding all five 

22 

No. 32240-8-II1 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


proposals had been prepared, the change in the resolution was exempt from the public 

review requirement under RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b). 

RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) provides that an additional period for public review and 

comment is not required under the GMA if "[a]n environmental impact statement has 

been prepared under chapter 43.21 C RCW for the pending resolution or ordinance and the 

proposed change is within the range of alternatives considered in the environmental 

statement." The County's argument overlooks the fact that the environmental impact 

statements did not include a range of population projections--only one was used: 

1l3,541. Neither the EIS nor any other document in the record gave any indication that 

the County intended to change its population projection and allocations. 

In its reply brief, the County argues that because the upward population projection 

could be inferred from the environmental impact statements, it did not need to include the 

121,112 projection in the notice. It argues, "all five (5) of the alternatives from which the 

UGA boundary adopted by Spokane County was taken are clearly found within the 

[environmental impact statement] along with a clear indication of the projected 

population growth that would be accommodated within the boundary area." Reply Br. of 

Appellant at 10. Citing Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446, 245 P.3d 

789 (2011), the County argues that the notice of hearing adequately informed the public 

23 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


of the proposed change and that the exact population projection was not a necessary 

component of such notice. 

Brinnon does not help the County. In that case, Jefferson County enacted an 

ordinance that amended its comprehensive plan to permit the development of a 256 acre 

master planned resort (MPR) near Brinnon, Washington. Id. at 454,461. Brinnon Group 

challenged the ordinance for failure to comply with the public participation requirements 

of the GMA. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board concluded 

the ordinance had complied with the GMA. Brinnon Group appealed, arguing that the 

ordinance included significant changes from the commission's recommendation and 

therefore the public should have been given the opportunity to comment on the changes. 

Id. at 466. The group specifically argued that the Board of County Commissioners 

violated the public participation requirement when it added a MPR boundary map that 

made "'substantial changes" to the commission's recommended map. Id. at 472. 

Division Two of this court rejected Brinnon Group's argument: 

Although Brinnon Group exhaustively details the minor differences 

between these maps, these differences do not support Brinnon's Group's 

contention that the public lacked effective notice of the overall MPR 

proposal. As we detailed above, the [Board of County Commissioner's 

(BOCC's)] adopted boundary map is consistent with the maps that the 

public viewed in the draft EIS. Thus, the public had effective notice of the 

proposal that the BOCC adopted. Moreover, even assuming that the 

ordinance "'changed" the proposed amendment, the County was 

24 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

not required to provide an additional comment period under 

RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(i) since the information in the draft EIS clearly 

reflected the BOCC' s changes. 

Id. at 476. 

In contrast to Brinnon, the public here was not given accurate information in the 

environmental impact statements. Both the 2011 and 2012 EISs relied on the OFM's 

population growth estimate of 113,541 persons, not 121,112. This is not the sort of 

"minor" difference contemplated in Brinnon. Id. The County's adoption of the 121,112 

figure provided the justification for expanding the UGA by 4,125 acres. By failing to 

inform the public of this increased population projection, the County's notice cannot be 

deemed to have complied with the "spirit" of the GMA. 

Citizen participation is a core goal ofthe GMA. RCW 36.70A.020(11). Spokane 

County's own public participation guidelines provide that "Spokane County must take 

steps to involve the public in a meaningful manner." CP at 1016. Here, given that the 

County's planning process revealed that the existing UGA contained an urban population 

surplus in excess ofprojected growth, it would not have been unreasonable for a person 

to believe that the County would reject the proposed expansion or even reduce the size of 

the UGA. Such action would be consistent with our Supreme Court's directive that "a 

county's UGA designation cannot exceed the amount ofland necessary to accommodate 

25 

No. 32240-8-II1 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


the urban growth projected by OFM." Thurston County, 164 Wn.2d at 352. Here, not 

only has the public been excluded from a component ofthe decision making process, it 

has been excluded from the component that is the key to the justification ofthe entire 

proposal to expand the UGA. Thus, the Board correctly concluded that the County's 

adoption of the increased population projection in Resolution 13-0689 violated the 

GMA's public participation requirement. 

III. Invalidation ofResolution 13-0689 

The final question before us is whether the Board's decision to invalidate the 

resolution exceeded its authority. The County argues that the Board's authority regarding 

the dispositive motion on public participation was limited to determining whether the 

County complied with the notice and public participation goals of the GMA. It contends 

that "[n]othing in the GMA supports an argument that after a finding of noncompliance 

on any basis, the Growth Management Hearings Board is then free to consider any other 

basis for a determination of invalidity." Br. of Appellant at 22. It argues that none of the 

goals cited by the Board as a basis for its determination of invalidity pertain to public 

participation and therefore they cannot constitute a basis for invalidating the resolution. 

Finally, the County also asserts that the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the 

possibility of vesting as a basis for invalidation of the ordinance. 

26 
No. 32240-8-111 

Spokane County v. E. Wash Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 

RCW 36.70A.280 authorizes growth management hearings boards to hear 

challenges to whether state agencies or local governments are in compliance with the 

GMA. If the Board finds that a plan or regulation is not in compliance, it may enter a 

finding of noncompliance or a finding of invalidity. Town o/Woodway v. Snohomish 

County, 180 Wn.2d 165, 175-76,322 P.3d 1219 (2014). If the Board finds only 

noncompliance, the GMA directs the Board to remand the matter for compliance. 

RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b). The GMA also provides that "[u]nless the board makes a 

finding of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302, a finding of noncompliance and an order of 

remand shall not affect the validity of comprehensive plans and development regulations 

during the period of remand." RCW 36.70A.300(4)(a). 

The County's argument fails to recognize that invalidity is a remedy to address a 

finding of noncompliance. Any time the Board finds noncompliance, it may then proceed 

to determine whether a motion for a determination for invalidity should be granted under 

RCW 36.70A.302(1). RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b) provides that if the Board also determines 

that the "continued validity ofpart or parts of the plan or regulation would substantially 

interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of this chapter," the Board may invalidate the 

offending parts of the plan or regulation. "Upon a finding of invalidity, the underlying 

provision would be rendered void." King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. 

27 

No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


Hearings Bd., 138 Wn.2d 161, 181,979 P.2d 374 (1999). 

The legislature has authorized the Board to adopt procedural rules for "expeditious 

and summary disposition of appeals." RCW 36.70A.270(7). Under that authority the 

Board adopted WAC 242-03-560, allowing challenges to the "compliance with the notice 

and public participation requirements ofthe act." Contrary to the County's contentions, 

the Board followed proper procedure and did not base the determination of invalidity on 

findings ofnoncompliance beyond the scope of issues raised in the respondents' motion. 

Neighborhood Alliance asked for a determination of invalidity because the ongoing 

validity of the resolution would substantially interfere with certain GMA planning goals. 

In line with RCW 36.70A.302, the Board considered whether continued validity of the 

resolution would substantially interfere with the goals of the GMA. 

We reject the County's assertion that none of the GMA's goals relate to public 

participation. Instead, we agree with the Board that failure to allow public participation 

on decisions about future population size will adversely impact "a whole host ofplanning 

functions, including planning for increased housing, commercial facilities, transportation, 

potable water, wastewater treatment, and other public infrastructure to serve the 

significantly increased population." AR at 1318. 

Noncompliant expansion ofa UGA undercuts the central goal of the GMA of 

28 
No. 32240-8-III 


Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. 


encouraging urban growth in areas with adequate public services and the goal of reducing 

urban sprawl. RCW 36. 70A.020( 1), (2). Here, in view of a UGA expansion of 4,125 

acres, the Board correctly emphasized that "[t]he importance ofthe proper sizing of urban 

areas is a key component of reducing sprawl and limiting the inappropriate conversion of 

undeveloped land." AR at 1320-21. This is consistent with Thurston County, where our 

Supreme Court noted, '" [0 ]versized UGAs are perhaps the most egregious affront to the 

fundamental GMA policy against urban sprawl, and it is this policy that the UGA 

requirements, more than any other substantive GMA mandate, are intended to further.'" 

Thurston County, 164 Wn.2d at 351 n.3 (quoting Lloyd, supra, at 105). 

Finally, contrary to the County's position, the Board properly considered the 

potential of vesting of development in invalidating the resolution. Neighborhood 

Alliance argues, "[vJesting of development permits in an improperly expanded UGA 

substantially interferes with the goals of the GMA to direct urban growth to urban areas 

and to reduce sprawl, so [it] is properly within the scope of the issues that the Board may 

consider when deciding whether to make a determination of invalidity." Br. ofResp'ts at 

38. If a resolution were found noncompliant but allowed to remain valid, development 

proposals could vest within the expanded UGA while the resolution wallows on remand. 

The Miotke court addressed this problem, holding that a County cannot use the vested 

29 

No. 32240-8-III 

Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed. 

rights doctrine to shield itself from its failures in the planning process: 

The vested rights doctrine and the provisions ofthe GMA are often 

intertwined, but nothing in our vested rights cases or in the language ofthe 

corresponding statutes indicates that the vesting of developers' rights 

somehow relieves a [c ]ounty from its obligation to comply with planning 

goals under the GMA. 

Miotke, 181 Wn. App. at 379. 

Here, the record shows that project proponents attempted to vest in the expanded 

UGA before the Board issued its order. If the Board was to only find that the expansion 

ofthe UGA was noncompliant, that remedy would be futile ifthe County could allow 

development within the noncompliant UGA and then later argue that these areas must be 

included in future UGA expansions because they have been urbanized. We conclude that 

the Board followed proper procedures in invalidating the resolution. 

Affirmed. 

Lawrence-Berrey 

WE CONCUR: 


Fearing, J. \ 

30