Opinion ID: 2450913
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We defer to the City's interpretation of what constitutes a demonstrated need under WMC 21.44.070(1)

Text: ¶ 14 When construing an ordinance, a `reviewing court gives considerable deference to the construction of' the challenged ordinance `by those officials charged with its enforcement.' Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle, 160 Wash.2d 32, 42, 156 P.3d 185 (2007) (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. City of Seattle, 107 Wash.App. 42, 57, 25 P.3d 1022 (2001)); see also Keller v. City of Bellingham, 92 Wash.2d 726, 731, 600 P.2d 1276 (1979); Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wash.2d 275, 300 P.2d 569 (1956). Although this is not a Growth Management Act (GMA) (ch. 36.70A RCW) case, [9] to the extent that the GMA is implicated, we note that the GMA does not prescribe a single approach to growth management. Viking Props., Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wash.2d 112, 125, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Instead, the legislature specified that `the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of [the GMA], and implementing a county's or city's future rests with that community.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting RCW 36.70A.3201). Thus, the GMA acts exclusively through local governments and is to be construed with the requisite flexibility to allow local governments to accommodate local needs. Id. at 125-26, 118 P.3d 322. These principles of deference apply to a local government's site-specific land use decisions where the GMA considerations play a role in its ultimate decision. ¶ 15 WMC 21.44.070 states that a zone reclassification shall be granted only if... (1)[t]here is a demonstrated need for additional zoning as the type proposed. The City interpreted the demonstrated need criterion under WMC 21.44.070(1) to require an objective judgment by the City Council based upon plans, goals, policies and timeframes. CP at 193 (FF 14), 200 (FF 13). To this end, the City found that the proposed rezone is not `needed' at this time because current property zoning is consistent with its comprehensive plan, [10] the City is on target to meet its growth targets for 2022, [11] the City currently has a diversity of housing to allow for a wide variety of housing types, incomes, and living situations, [12] and because the City has prioritized development of the downtown area to implement the GMA, Vision 2020 (a long-range growth and transportation strategy for the Puget Sound region) and relevant King County-wide planning policies. [13] We defer to the City's determination of what constitutes demonstrated need under WMC 21.44.070(1) and hold that the City properly interpreted its own ordinance to require a showing that a rezone is needed to achieve larger policy objectives.