Opinion ID: 2449273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The County's Approval of the Applications Was a Clearly Erroneous Application of the Law to the Facts

Text: ¶ 8 Counties required or choosing to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA), ch. 36.70A RCW, must adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations that implement the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.040(3)(d), (4)(d). A county's comprehensive plan serves as a `guide' or `blueprint' to be used when making land use decisions. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wash.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997) (quoting Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wash.2d 843, 849, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980)). `Development regulations' are controls placed on development or land use activities. RCW 36.70A.030(7); see City of Seattle v. Yes for Seattle, 122 Wash.App. 382, 391, 93 P.3d 176 (2004) (because the proposed ordinance places controls on development and land use, it was held to be a development regulation). Such regulations necessarily constrain individual land use decisions. Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wash.2d 597, 613, 174 P.3d 25 (2007). Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. RCW 36.70B.030(1). ¶ 9 Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.80.212 provides: No subdivision, commercial development or conditional uses shall be approved without a written finding that: (1) All providers of water, sewage disposal, schools, and fire protection serving the development have issued a letter that adequate capacity exists or arrangements have been made to provide adequate services for the development. (2) No county facilities will be reduced below applicable levels of service as a result of the development. As it applies to the present case, the plain language of WCC 20.80.212 prohibits approval of certain land uses without a letter from the Fire District stating either that capacity to adequately serve the proposed development currently exists or that arrangements have been made to ensure that adequate capacity will exist. This is a control on land use and, consequently, a development regulation. See Yes for Seattle, 122 Wash.App. at 391, 93 P.3d 176. ¶ 10 WCC 20.80.212 is a particular type of development regulation known as a concurrency regulation. Concurrency is the concept that an adequate level of service should be available concurrently with the impacts of the development or within a reasonable time thereafter. Thomas M. Walsh & Roger A. Pearce, The Concurrency Requirement of the Washington State Growth Management Act, 16 U. PUGET SOUND L. REV. 1025, 1026 (1993); see WAC 365-196-210(7), -840(1)(b). Concurrency is one of the enumerated goals of the GMA. RCW 36.70A.020(12). Except for transportation concurrency, whether to adopt concurrency requirements is generally left to the discretion of planning authority. [2] WAC 365-196-840(2); see RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) (mandating adoption of transportation concurrency ordinances). By enacting WCC 20.80.212, the County has plainly decided to require concurrency for, among other public facilities and services, fire protection. ¶ 11 Not only does WCC 20.80.212 make a finding of concurrency a prerequisite to approval of various land uses, it also vests in the relevant providers the authority to determine whether concurrency exists. WCC 20.80.212 does not require a finding by the County that there is concurrency with respect to fire protection; instead it requires a letter from the provider of fire protection services (i.e., the Fire District) stating that concurrency exists. Such an assignment of responsibility is rational; the Fire District may reasonably be thought to be in the best position to determine what level of fire protection service is adequate and whether it is capable of providing that level of service. The decision to adopt concurrency regulations and assign concurrency determinations to the provider of the relevant public service is a fundamental land use planning choice that serves as the basis for project review under RCW 36.70B.030(1). ¶ 12 The County erred in applying WCC 20.80.212 to the land use applications at issue in the present case. It is undisputed that the Fire District declined to issue the required concurrency letters. Under a proper construction of WCC 20.80.212, this ends the inquiry; the applications cannot be approved without the required letters. [3] When the County proceeded to independently determine that adequate capacity existed to serve the developments, it committed clear error. The County cannot, during project review, revisit its decision to assign to the Fire District the authority to determine concurrency. RCW 36.70B.030(1). ¶ 13 Moreover, contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, the County's comprehensive plan does not establish[ ] the availability and adequacy of fire protection services. Whatcom County Fire Dist. No. 21, 151 Wash.App. at 612, 215 P.3d 956. We may assume, without deciding, that the County's identification of the gold standard for ambulance services and aid services constitutes adoption of that standard. CP at 243. We may further assume that the chart entitled Comparison of Level of Service Standards establishes a five-minute response time as the applicable level of service for fire emergencies. BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN, Chapter 17Capital Facilities Plan, at 17-13, available at http://www.co.whatcom. wa.us/pds/planning/birchbay_subarea.jsp (last visited May 4, 2011). The comprehensive plan identifies three improvements that will be necessary to meet the anticipated population growth in the Birch Bay area: manning the fire station at Semiahmoo on a 24-hour basis, [a]dditional equipment for the Semiahmoo station, and substantial remodeling of the Birch Bay station. CP at 243. The comprehensive plan further states that the costs of the changes to the Semiahmoo station will be born[e] by taxes paid by a growing population, but the plan does not provide for funding of the necessary remodeling of the Birch Bay station. Id. Absent provision for necessary funding, the comprehensive plan cannot be considered determinative of the availability of fire protection services. See RCW 36.70B.030(2)(c) (regulations and plans are determinative of the . . . [a]vailability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by chapter 36.70A RCW (emphasis added)); RCW 36.70A.070(3) (comprehensive plan must include capital facilities plan specifying plan to finance capital facilities and clearly identifying sources of public money for such funding).