IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THURSTON COUNTY. Petitioner, Respondents, Intervenor/Respondent I.

Transcription

1 Hearing Date: December 7, 2018 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Judge/Calendar: Honorable Christine Shaller Hon. Christine Shaller 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THURSTON COUNTY WRIGHTS CROSSING, LLC, et al., v. ISLAND COUNTY, et al., and Petitioner, Respondents, WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) * Intervenor/Respondent NO RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 1 I. INTRODUCTION The opening brief of Petitioner Wright s Crossing begins with strained, almost nonsensical hyperbole for instance, about Island County trying to scare off the Court 1 and continues with a series of confusing, scattershot legal arguments. Behind all of that, however, the issue is simple: Did Island County have a duty to docket, and to fully evaluate, Petitioner s proposed * We note that when Petitioner filed this case, it spelled Whidbey wrong in the caption (omitting the h ). The correct name of the party is Whidbey Environmental Action Network, after Whidbey Island. 1 See Petitioner s Opening Brief at 16 (Oct. 23, 2018) (herein, Pet. s Op. Br. ). Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

2 comprehensive plan amendment, the sole purpose of which is to accommodate Petitioner s desire to build a new 1,000- to 1,500-unit residential home development outside the Oak Harbor Urban Growth Area, on land that is currently zoned for agriculture and rural, non-urban densities of development? The answer, too, is simple: No, the county does not have such a duty. Under Washington s Growth Management Act ( GMA ), Ch A RCW, the county has discretion when it receives a request to amend its comprehensive plan to either (a) docket the request for full consideration, or (b) to determine that further consideration is not warranted at that time. This discretion can be seen in the text of the GMA and its implementing regulations. This discretion has been recognized and upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. And this discretion is clear in the plain language of the Island County Code ( ICC ). Island County acted reasonably and within the bounds of the law when it reviewed Petitioner s request to expand the Urban Growth Area and determined that it did not warrant further review, based in no small part on the availability of limited administrative resources. Ultimately, Petitioner s sole request for relief is that Island County be required to take up its requested comprehensive plan amendment for full consideration on the county s annual review docket for comprehensive plan amendments requested by third parties. See Pet. s Op. Br. at 25. But the law does not require the county to do so. For the reasons below, Whidbey Environmental Action Network ( WEAN ) a local nonprofit advocating for protection of the Whidbey Island environment requests denial of the petition. 2 / / / In addition to the arguments below, WEAN fully adopts the arguments made in Island County s Response Brief (Nov. 9, 2018) regarding interpretation of the GMA, the GMA s implementing regulations, and provisions of the Island County Code, local comprehensive plan, and other local laws and policies. Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 2 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

3 1 II. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE A. Comprehensive Plans and the Periodic Review Process The GMA was enacted in 1990 to prevent uncoordinated and unplanned growth, and to prevent land uses that pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. RCW 36.70A.010. To those ends, the GMA requires Washington s largest cities and counties, including Island County, to adopt a comprehensive plan, the purpose of which is to provide a generalized coordinated land use policy that will guide future development. RCW 36.70A.030(4). Each county s comprehensive plan is to serve as a blueprint to be used when making land use decisions and when adopting development regulations in the local city or county code. See Whatcom County Fire Dist., No. 21 v. Whatcom County, 171 Wn.2d 421, 427, 256 P.3d 295 (2011). The goal is that through planned growth as guided by the comprehensive plan, sprawling, uncoordinated growth and unplanned impacts will be avoided. Among the elements that must be included in every comprehensive plan is the Urban Growth Area or UGA, the purpose of which is to both (a) provide a designated area for urbanlevel densities of development, and (b) to prevent urban development from unnecessarily encroaching on areas better suited for rural use. See RCW 36.70A.110(1) ( Each county... 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. ). By statute, the UGA must be large enough to accommodate projected growth over the next 20 years. See id. at (2). But UGA also must not be too big i.e., it cannot be larger than necessary to accommodate projected growth over that same time period. See WAC (2)(3) ( The urban growth area may not exceed the areas necessary to accommodate the growth management planning projections, plus a reasonable land RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 3 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

4 market supply factor, or market factor. ) By limiting urban densities to the UGA, these requirements serve the GMA s goal to [r]educe the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. RCW 36.70A.020(2). Of course, cities and counties grow and change over time, and so do projections of future growth and employment. Thus, to ensure that local comprehensive plans stay current over time, and that they continue to serve the GMA s goals as populations change, the GMA establishes a process known as periodic review, wherein cities and counties must re-evaluate their plans comprehensively, and make any necessary changes, on an eight-year cycle. See generally RCW 36.70A.130. Island County s first periodic review deadline was in See id. at (5)(b). Most recently, Island County undertook this periodic review process in Many elements of that process are recounted in the Island County resolution that is at issue in this case Island County Resolution No. C , which may be found in the Administrative Record at AR As part of its 2016 periodic review process, Island County considered whether to expand the UGA boundaries in its comprehensive plan, including the UGA associated with the City of Oak Harbor. The county worked with an Intergovernmental Working Group, which consisted of staff from the cities of Oak Harbor, Coupeville, and Langley, to consider potential updates to the UGA boundaries, including 20 meetings to discuss future population projections. AR 39. The county conducted a Buildable Lands Analysis in coordination with these cities, concluding that the existing Oak Harbor UGA had adequate land to accommodate the next 20 years of projected growth. Id. The county then held 47 community and advisory meetings in Oak Harbor, Coupeville, Freeland, Langley, and Camano Island to discuss the update and its underpinnings, in addition to more than 94 meetings of the Island County Board of Commissioners, 33 meetings of the Planning RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 4 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

5 Commission, and 8 joint meetings of the Board and Commissioners. AR 40. The county reviewed 500 public comments received during the 2016 update process. Id. It was a lengthy, complex, and time-consuming undertaking. Ultimately, based on the county s expertise, extensive public and agency involvement, and as an exercise of the county s legislative discretion, the county declined in 2017 to expand the Oak Harbor UGA. AR 36. The County found that the existing UGA was already sufficient to accommodate future growth. It is this same UGA which Petitioner now wants to expand, although it chose not to appeal the county s original decision in B. The Annual Docket Process for Comprehensive Plan Amendments In addition to the standard periodic review process, the GMA also establishes an annual process for cities and counties to consider comprehensive plan amendments proposed by the public. This requirement is codified, in part, at RCW 36.70A.470(2), which provides as follows: Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan or development regulation amendments. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis, consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130. RCW 36.70A.470(2). 3 This section of the GMA was passed in 1995 in response to a perceived need to ensure that cities and counties actually consider needed changes to their comprehensive plans, instead of simply sweeping them under the rug or forgetting about them altogether. Before that time, inadequacies might go forever ignored, or resolved through an ad hoc process that See also RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) ( Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 36.70A.035 and36.70a.140 that identifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year.... ). Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 5 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

6 deviates from the standard laid out at RCW 36.70A.130 for the initial adoption and eight-year periodic review of comprehensive plans. See Laws of 1995, ch. 437, 101. In its brief, Wright s Crossing goes far beyond the stated purpose of RCW 36.70A.460(2) when it argues that, in addition to ensuring that all proposed plan amendments be docketed and considered, the annual docketing process was also intended to ensure that all such proposals must be given full and equal consideration regardless of their respective merits and no matter how taxing they would be on the local jurisdiction. For that proposition, Petitioner places emphasis on the final sentence of the block quote above i.e., that proposed changes to the comprehensive plan shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis. See Pet. s Op. Br. at 6 7. But that is a false interpretation of the GMA and RCW 36.70A.470(2). Even assuming the duty to docket and consider is mandatory in every instance, cities and counties have wide latitude in deciding how to docket an individual proposal, and how much consideration must be given. First, it is important to understand what the GMA does and does not say about the process for docketing and considering public suggestions for comprehensive plan amendments. As noted above, the GMA requires public suggestions to be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis, but the statute says very little about what the docket consists of and what level of consideration must be given. In fact, all the GMA says on this score is that docketing refers to compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan... in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available by the public. RCW 36.70A.470(4). That is all the statute requires a list of proposed changes, that the changes be available to the public, and a guarantee that consideration (a broad, undefined term) be given to each proposal. The statute does not say that each proposal must receive the same level of consideration. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 6 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

7 Instead, that issue is resolved by regulations adopted by the Washington Department of Commerce, which are designed to assist cities and counties in complying with the GMA s requirements. These regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A.190, which provides, in part, that the Department must adopt[] by rule procedural criteria to assist counties and cities in adopting comprehensive plans and development regulations that meet the goals and requirements of [the GMA]. RCW 36.70A.190(5). See also WAC (1)(a) (rules apply to all cities and counties planning under the GMA). As regulations adopted by the agency charged with implementing the GMA, these regulations are entitled to substantial deference. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wn.2d 568, 593, 90 P.3d 659 (2004) (agency interpretation must be given great weight ); see also Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wn.2d 439, 445, 932 P.2d 628 (1997) ( [I]t has been established in a variety of contexts that properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law. ). Relevant here, the Department of Commerce s GMA-implementing regulations speak to the issue of how much consideration must be given to any particular proposal in order to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A.470(2). First, a consideration of proposed amendments as that term is used in the GMA does not require a full analysis of every proposal within twelve months if resources are unavailable. WAC (6)(b). In other words, while the GMA requires public proposals to be docketed and considered annually, WAC (6)(a), the level and depth of review may vary. If the local jurisdiction determines in its initial consideration that it does not have sufficient resources to fully evaluate the proposal, the consideration process may end. This rule serves the GMA s goal to ensure that proposed changes are actually considered, not simply ignored, but not so draconian as to require that every proposed amendment be fully evaluated when local resources are lacking. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 7 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

8 The Department of Commerce rules also provide more generally that the docket and consideration process may have two phases one phase to determine which third-party proposals will receive a detailed evaluation, and then a second phase to more fully consider the proposals that survive the first round of review. This screening mechanism is expressed in WAC (6)(d), which provides that [o]nce a proposed amendment is received, the county or city may determine if a proposal should receive further consideration as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. As above, this regulation does not say that a proposed comprehensive plan amendment may simply be thrown in the trash and ignored. But it does say, consistent with the text of the GMA, that having considered the proposal at the initial stage of the docketing process, the local jurisdiction may decide that it does not warrant further detailed review. A city or county is allowed to select which proposals it will consider in depth, so long as some consideration is given to all of them at the initial stage of review. In 2012, this interpretation of the GMA s annual docket process was tested in the Washington Supreme Court case of Stafne v. Snohomish County, 174 Wn.2d 24, 271 P.3d 868 (2012). In Stafne, the petitioner (Stafne) sought an amendment to Snohomish County s comprehensive plan to allow him to develop rural lands that he recently acquired, arguing they were essentially mis-classified as forest lands under the county s existing plan, and therefore improperly designated as an area where development could not occur. See Stafne, 174 Wn.2d at 28. But in Snohomish County, the annual docket and consideration process had two phases, as envisioned by WAC (6)(d). The following block quote is from Snohomish County s brief to the Supreme Court, submitted herewith as Appendix A, in which the county explained its two-phase docketing process: RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 8 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

9 Docket proposals are processed under the County's docketing regulations and its regulations for GMA legislative actions established in chapter [of the Snohomish County Code or SCC ]. Under these procedures, docketing occurs in two phases. During the first phase, the County s Department of Planning and Development Services, a County administrative department, accepts all docket proposals submitted by members of the public and conducts an initial review and evaluation of those docket proposals based on certain codified criteria. The planning department forwards its initial review and evaluation to the Snohomish County Council. SCC ; (1); ; (1). The County Council holds a public hearing regarding all of the docket proposals the County has received during that year s docketing cycle. SCC (2). At the public hearing, the County Council accepts public testimony regarding the docket proposals. SCC (2). The County Council then determines which docket proposals to approve for further processing as potential legislative amendments to the County s comprehensive plan and development regulations.... Docket proposals not approved for processing to the final docket receive no further consideration. The second phase of the County s docketing process involves only those docket proposals that have been forwarded onto the final docket.... The Planning Commission reviews all of the proposals on the final docket and holds a public hearing regarding those proposals. SCC ; (1). At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes a written recommendation to the County Council regarding which final docket proposals, if any, should be adopted by the County Council as legislative amendments to the County's comprehensive plan and development regulations. SCC App. A at 6 7 (footnotes omitted). As noted above, this two-phase docketing process is consistent with WAC (6)(d), which provides that [o]nce a proposed amendment is received, the county or city may determine if a proposal should receive further consideration as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process (emphasis added). In turn, the word may here is discretionary. See, e.g., Strenge v. Clarke, 89 Wn.2d 23, 28, 569 P.2d 60 (1997) ( The ordinary meaning of the word may conveys the idea of choice or discretion. ). In Stafne, the dispute arose when Snohomish County held an initial public hearing on the proposed amendment (during the first phase of the county s review), but ultimately decided not to place Stafne s proposal on the final docket. Stafne, 174 Wn.2d at 28 (emphasis added). In other RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 9 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

10 words, Stafne s proposal did not make the first cut of the consideration process. Later, when Stafne sued the county for not placing the proposal on the final docket, the Supreme Court held that its decision to exclude the amendment from further consideration was effectively beyond judicial review. As the Court explained: County and city councils have legislative discretion in deciding to amend or not amend their comprehensive plans. Absent a duty to adopt a comprehensive plan amendment pursuant to the GMA or other law, neither the board nor a court can grant relief (that is, order a legislative discretionary act). In other words, any remedy is not through the judicial branch. Instead, the remedy is to file a proposal at the County s next annual docketing cycle or mandatory review or through the political or election process. Id. at 38 (footnote omitted). In the quote above, the Supreme Court spoke of the legislative discretion in deciding to amend or not amend the comprehensive plan. In doing so, it was speaking directly to the county s decision to not even docket Stafne s proposal for further consideration, which the Court characterized as a matter of local legislative discretion. Like Snohomish County, and in the spirit of WAC (6)(d), Island County has also adopted a two-phase docketing and consideration process under RCW 36.70A.470(2). That process is codified at Section of the Island County Code ( ICC ). 4 In the first phase of Island County s docketing process, the Planning Commission is tasked with evaluating each proposal and recommending whether each proposal should be placed on the county s final docket, to be given more extensive review. In making its recommendation, the Island County Code provides that the Commission should (not must ) consider several factors, as stated in the block quote below: Section of the Island County Code is submitted herewith as Appendix B. The Island County Code is available online at _ordinances?nodeid=titxviplsu_ch16.26coplderereampr. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 10 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

11 In making its docket recommendation, the Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. The application is deemed complete; 2. The application, in light of all proposed amendments being considered for inclusion in the year's annual docket, can be reasonably reviewed within the staffing resources and operational budget allocated to the Department by the Board; 3. The proposed amendment would not require additional amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations not otherwise addressed in the application, and is consistent with other goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 4. The proposed Plan amendment raises policy, land use, or scheduling issues, or that the proposal is comprehensive enough in nature that it would more appropriately be addressed as part of a periodic review cycle; 5. The application proposes a regulatory or process change that for which no amendment to the comprehensive plan is required and should be reviewed for potential consideration as a part of the work plan; 6. The application lacks sufficient information or adequate detail to review and assess whether or not the proposal meets the applicable approval criteria. A determination that the proposal contains sufficient information and adequate detail for the purpose of docketing does not preclude the Department from requesting additional information at a later time. ICC E.1 6. As can be seen above, these factors involve more than the simple merits of a proposed plan amendment. Instead, many of these factors are based on the availability of county administrative resources and as a policy matter whether the proposal would be better addressed during the county s next comprehensive periodic review cycle. These are legislative decisions, not adjudicative ones. Following the Planning Commission s consideration of these factors, it must send a recommendation to the Island County Board of Commissioners stating whether each proposal should be included in the final docket, excluded from the final docket, or deferred to a later date. See ICC D. The Board of Commissioners must then vote to accept or reject the Planning RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 11 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

12 Commission s recommendation, though it need not consider any particular factors. See ICC , Table A. If the Board decides to exclude a proposal, it is without prejudice; the proposed plan amendment may be resubmitted in any following year. See ICC D.2 (decision to exclude is without prejudice to the applicant or the proposal ). Later, in the second phase of Island County s docketing process (much like the second phase of Snohomish County s process in Stafne), the Planning Commission holds additional public hearings and provides more detailed review of plan amendments that survive the first phase of the screening process. See ICC , Table B. See also ICC D F. The Board of Commissioners must then decide as a matter of legislative discretion whether to accept or reject each surviving proposal. See ICC G. C. Wright s Crossing s Proposal and the County s Decision to End Consideration at Phase I On August 1, 2017, Petitioner submitted a proposal to expand Island County s UGA for the City of Oak Harbor (the same UGA that the county decided not to expand earlier that year during its periodic review cycle), which requires an amendment to the county s comprehensive plan. This was the only requested plan amendment submitted that year, though several requests had been deferred from the year before. See AR 34. The proposed expansion would cover 250 acres of land on which Petitioner wishes to build a 1,000- to 1,500-unit housing development, plus 50 acres between that project and the UGA s current boundary. See AR 34. The land that would be affected by this change is currently zoned rural-agricultural and rural, which would not allow this project. AR 6-8. To our knowledge, the proposed housing development would be the largest single development ever proposed or developed in Island County, either before or after adoption of the GMA. AR 145. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 12 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

13 In essence, Petitioner wants to expand the Oak Harbor UGA to accommodate a massive new housing project and it wants to force the county to expend significant resources in doing so little more than a year after the county already determined that the Oak Harbor UGA is sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next 20 years. In part, Petitioner based its request upon its own personal estimate of purported employment growth in Oak Harbor, which, it says, requires a re-analysis of the county s buildable lands analysis. As noted above, the county had just completed that analysis as part of its 2016 periodic review cycle, in support of its decision to not expand the UGA. AR 41. Ironically, if Petitioner felt the original buildable lands analysis was made in error, it could have appealed that decision. But it chose not to. See AR 665 ( The Petitioner did not challenge the County s recent Comprehensive Plan update and... it is considered GMA compliant. ). In such an appeal, the county s decision to not expand the UGA would have been presumed valid. RCW 36.70A.320(1). After a public hearing on September 25, 2017, the Planning Commission considered Petitioner s proposal to expand the UGA to accommodate the new housing development. Later, the Commission recommended that the Board of Commissioners exclude that proposal from the final docket, consistent with ICC D.2, WAC (6)(d), and WAC (6)(b). The Planning Commission s findings and conclusions in support of that decision are summarized in the administrative record at AR 38 47, and show clearly that the commission considered the factors at ICC E.1 6 for decisions to include, exclude, or defer consideration of proposed changes. See AR Later, on November 7, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the planning commission s recommendation through County Resolution C , PLG , adding additional findings of fact. See AR Among other things, the Board of Commissioners found RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 13 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

14 the proposal was premature, that the current UGA is adequate to accommodate projected growth, that a number of tentative actions by the Navy and the Department of Commerce make consideration of the proposal difficult or impossible at this time, and that changing the UGA at this time would be a significant undertaking for the county s limited administrative resources. See AR See also AR 46 (finding that [r]unning a new [buildable lands analysis] is a significant undertaking, and is not a reasonable use of limited staffing resources and operational budget one year into the 20-year planning period ). As the Growth Management Hearings Board would later observe, these detailed findings demonstrate that the County did not exercise its discretion to deny adding Petitioner s proposals to the 2018 docket lightly. AR 668. Although the ultimate decision was a matter of legislative discretion, many policy reasons supported the county s decision to exclude the proposal, without prejudice, from the 2018 docket not the least of which was limited staffing resources and budget constraints. In denying Petitioner s request, the Board of County Commissioners decision was consistent with WAC (6)(d), which gives the county discretion to determine if a proposal should receive further consideration as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Board s decision was consistent with the Stafne decision, which upheld a similar two-phase process used by Snohomish County. It was consistent with the Island County Code, under which the county has discretion to exclude a particular proposal from that year s final docket. And it was is consistent with WAC (4)(e)(i), which counsels against piecemeal amendment of a county s UGA, and recommends that counties defer such proposals to the next periodic review cycle: A modification of any portion of the urban growth area affects the overall urban growth area size and has county-wide implications. Because of the significant amount of resources needed to conduct a review of the urban growth area, and RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 14 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

15 because some policy objectives require time to achieve, frequent, piecemeal expansion of the urban growth area should be avoided. Site-specific proposals to expand the urban growth area should be deferred until the next comprehensive review of the urban growth area. WAC (4)(e)(i) (emphasis added). The one thing that cannot be said of the county s action is that it did not consider Petitioner s desired UGA expansion, as required by RCW 36.70A.470(2). The county considered the proposal, it just did not decide to carry it forward to the final stage of the docketing process. Under Stafne, that was a discretionary, legislative decision. D. The Growth Management Hearings Board Appeal After the Island County Board of Commissioners decided to exclude Petitioner s comprehensive plan amendment from the 2018 annual docket, Wright s Crossing filed a petition for review to the Growth Management Hearings Board ( GMHB ), the body charged with adjudicating disputes regarding city and county compliance with the GMA. Later, WEAN was granted intervention in that appeal. Both Island County and WEAN moved to dismiss Petitioner s GMHB petition for failure to state a statutory basis upon which the GMHB could grant relief. As it does here, Petitioner argued before the GHMB that the county had a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to place its UGA expansion on the final docket for full review and that by not doing so, the county was putting Petitioner s real estate deal at risk by forcing it to wait eight months to reapply. Petitioner had apparently gambled on the UGA expansion getting quick approval, and the gamble was not paying off. See AR 5. But as the GMHB noted, [i]n order to prevail on its claims based on the County s decision not to docket the proposal, the Petitioner must establish a duty requiring the County to do so. AR 663. Disappointed commercial expectations are not sufficient. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 15 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

16 After reviewing the text of the GMA, the GMA s implementing regulations, and the Supreme Court s decision in Stafne, the GMHB held that Petitioner failed to identify a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to place its proposal on Island County s final docket. In this regard, the GMHB placed special emphasis on the Department of Commerce s implementing regulations at WAC (6) and WAC (4)(e)(i), which, as discussed above, give the county discretion to determine if a proposal should receive further consideration as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process, and which counsel in favor of deferring piecemeal UGA expansions to the next periodic review cycle. In accordance with the plain language of these regulations, the GMHB held that it was within the county s discretion for it to decide not to docket the 300-acre UGA expansion, the sole purpose of which is to accommodate Petitioner s 1,000- to 1,500-unit housing development. AR 670. A local government legislative body has the discretion to docket or not docket a particular proposed comprehensive plan amendment during a RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) annual cycle in the absence of a GMA or self-imposed mandate. Here, the Board finds and concludes that the Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish the existence of such a mandate. Following the GMHB s denial of Petitioner s motion for reconsideration, AR , Wright s Crossing filed its petition for review to this Court, seeking reversal of the GMHB s determination and an order directing Island County to place its proposal to expand the Oak Harbor UGA on the county s final docket for full review. For the reasons below, the petition should be denied. / / / / / / / / / RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 16 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

17 1 III. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review The Administrative Procedure Act, chapter RCW, governs judicial review of final decisions by the Growth management Hearings Board. See King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 552, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). Under the APA, the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW (1)(a). In this case, it appears that Petitioner is alleging that the GMHB committed an error of law by holding that there is no duty under the GMA or county rules, regulations, and comprehensive plan provisions to place the UGA expansion on the county s final docket. See RCW (3) (authorizing review where [t]he agency has erroneously interpreted the law ). Courts review such issues de novo. City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wn.2d 38, 46, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998). In doing so, courts accord deference to an agency interpretation of the law where the agency has specialized expertise in dealing with such issues.... Id. Courts must also give substantial deference to agency regulations that flesh out the requirements of statutes they administer. Port of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at In addition to alleging that the GMHB misconstrued the GMA and its implementing regulations, Petitioner s brief also contains a stand-alone section on the purported standard of review under the APA for constitutional violations at RCW (3)(a). See Pet. s Op. Br. at In that section, Petitioner cites Article XI, Section II of the Washington constitution for the apparent proposition that every time a local jurisdiction misconstrues or misapplies a general law of the state, such as the GMA, it is ipso facto a constitutional violation a surprising and counter-intuitive proposition for which Petitioner provides zero authority or analysis. Petitioner also implies that it believes the county s docketing decision has robbed it of all reasonable use of its land, and that the county s docketing decision was motivated by improper environment [sic] and political concerns. Id. at 16 (internal quotes omitted). However, Petitioner does not even attempt to bolster these confusing assertions with argument and facts. As they appear only in the standard of review section of Petitioner s brief, without factual support or argument, we do not address these issues here. See, e.g., State v. Elliot, 114 Wn.2d 6, 15 (1990) ( This court will not consider claims RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 17 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

18 B. There Is No Duty to Advance the UGA Expansion to the Final Docketing Stage under the GMA or the Island County Code. At the outset, the Court does not need to reach Wright s Crossing s scattershot contentions about the validity of the county s existing Buildable Lands Analysis and growth projections, or the statutory criteria for judging the substance of an actual amendment to the comprehensive plan. 6 These considerations would have been relevant if Petitioner had appealed the results of the county s comprehensive periodic review process in See AR 665. But they are not relevant to the only issue in this appeal namely, whether the county had a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to advance Petitioner s UGA expansion to the final stage of the annual docketing process. Even assuming all factual allegations in the petition are true, no such duty exists. First, as discussed above, there is the text of the GMA and its implementing regulations. Proposals to amend a county s comprehensive plan must be docketed and considered. See RCW 36.70A.470(2). But the Department of Commerce s implementing regulations make clear that a proposal may be denied further consideration due to constraints on agency resources, and that not every proposal must be given a full analysis on that year s docket. WAC (6)(b). In turn, the GMA rules make clear that [o]nce a proposed amendment is received, the county or city may determine if a proposal should receive further consideration as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. WAC (6)(d). See also WAC (4)(e)(i) (counseling against piecemeal UGA expansions). Here, that is exactly what the county did when it decided, at the first stage of review, that the proposal should not advance to the final docket. That decision was insufficiently argued by the parties. ); State v. Tsimerman, No I, 2015 WL , *1 n.1 (July 13, 2015) ( We need not consider arguments that are unsupported by meaningful analysis and authority. ). 6 These include RCW 36.70A.110, RCW 36.70A.115, RCW 36.70A.110(3), and RCW 36.70A.070. See Pet. s Op. Br. at 17. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 18 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

19 fully compliant with the GMA and its implementing regulations. Petitioner is free to re-apply in any future year. Next, there is the Supreme Court s Stafne decision, which approved a two-phase docketing process in Snohomish County that is identical in all relevant respects to the two-phase process in Island County (codified at ICC ). More importantly, the Court in Stafne held unequivocally that decisions to advance (or not advance) a proposal to the final round of review are legislative in nature. As such, absent a clear duty under the GMA or other law to take a particular action, such decisions are effectively beyond judicial review. Stafne, 174 Wn.2d at 38 (observing that any remedy is not through the judicial branch. Instead, the remedy is to file a proposal at the County s next annual docketing cycle or mandatory review or through the political or election process. ). Here, the county may not have made its decision lightly, and it may have adopted detailed findings to show its work, but ultimately that decision was a matter of legislative discretion under Stafne. Finally, there is the Island County Code, which encourages the Planning Commission to consider a number of factors in deciding whether to advance a plan amendment to the final docket, but which does not similarly restrict the discretion of the Board of Commissioners (the final decisionmaker) to accept or reject the Planning Commission s recommendation. See ICC B E. Under Stafne, the Board s ultimate decision to advance a proposal to the final stage of review is legislative in nature. For example, is this Court really going to overrule the Commission s recommendation, and the Board s determination, that staff resources and time needed to re-run the Buildable Lands Analysis (BLA) and evaluate this application would limit the County s ability to respond to the other items on the 2018 work plan and docket, without additional resources? See AR 42. How about the Board s conclusion that [r]unning a BLA is a significant RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 19 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

20 undertaking, and is not a reasonable use of limited staffing resources and operational budget one year into the 20-year planning period? AR 46. These types of legislative considerations are exactly why the Court in Stafne held that such decisions are beyond the scope of judicial review. They are why the petition in this case should not be granted. Ultimately, Island County did exactly what the GMA and its implementing regulations require. It included Petitioner s UGA expansion on its initial docket before the Planning Commission. It considered the proposal, as required by RCW 36.70A.470(2), even if Petitioner thinks its proposal should have received more consideration. The county also complied with the procedural requirements of the Island County Code. But the county ultimately decided not to advance the proposal to the county s final docket, as is its right under WAC (6)(d) and Stafne. The county did not breach any duty under the GMA when it declined to advance Petitioner s request to the final stage of review. 7 B. The Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies Do Not Impose a Duty to Advance the UGA Expansion to the Final Docket. No doubt Petitioner knows all this that there is no duty under the GMA, the GMA s implementing regulations, or the Island County Code to advance the UGA expansion to the final 7 Also irrelevant are Petitioner s confusing arguments about the Joint Planning Area or JPA, in which Petitioner appears to take issue with Island County not moving fast enough on a request by the City of Oak Harbor. See Pet. s Br. at For one, the action on review is the county s decision to not advance Petitioner s proposed UGA expansion to the final stage of the docketing process, not the county s decision to include or not include the land within the JPA. More importantly, while Petitioner alludes to a decision by the county to defer consideration of the city s request to include the subject property within the JPA, the Petitioner (a) does not provide any citation to the decision, (b) provides no authority for its assertion that JPA decisions are ministerial, not discretionary, and (c) provides no authority for the proposition that a decision on this issue by the county must be made in any particular timeframe. We also note that Petitioner does not contest the Board of Commissioners finding that [t]he CWPPs require[] that land considered for inclusion in the UGA be within the JPA, AR 44, which the land in this case admittedly is not. The simple fact that the county in took Petitioners application does not prove somehow that this is not a requirement. Even accepted applications can be denied. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 20 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

21 stage of the county s review process. That is why, for example, the Petitioner does not contest our reading (which also is the GMHB s reading) of WAC (6)(d), which gives the county discretion to decide which proposals should be advanced for further consideration. See Pet. s Op. Br. at Instead, Petitioner argues that the county voluntarily gave up that discretion when it adopted specific mandatory docketing criteria in the county s comprehensive plan and in its Countywide Planning Policies ( CWPPs ). See id. at But those authorities do not impose such criteria. As Petitioner notes, Section of the county s comprehensive plan provides, in part, that an existing UGA may be modified outside the eight-year periodic review cycle when certain changed circumstances exist, such as unexpected population growth or the opportunity to accommodate a major new employer. See App. C at 30. Similar circumstances are enumerated in CWPP 3.3. See Pet. s Op. Br., App. A-2 (CWPPs at 17 20). But this authority to amend the UGA outside the normal cycle is discretionary, as indicated by the word may. To get around this discretion, Petitioner notes that Section of the comprehensive plan goes on to state that [i]f any of these [changed circumstances] are met, it will trigger a reevaluation of the [county s] population projections, and that [f]rom there, the allocations and buildable lands analysis will also be reevaluated on a countywide scale. App. C at 31 (emphasis added). Petitioner cites these provisions for the proposition that anytime anyone submits a desired plan amendment along with an allegation that these changed circumstances exist, the county is required to drop everything, advance that proposal to the final stage of the docketing process The county s CWPPs have been submitted as Appendix A-2 to the Petitioner s Opening Brief. The County s comprehensive plan is available online at /Pages/compplan.aspx. Relevant excerpts from the comprehensive plan are also submitted herewith as Appendix C. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 21 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

22 outlined at ICC , and fully reevaluate the current UGA boundaries. See Pet. s Op. Br. at 18. But that is not, in fact, what the cited provision of the comprehensive plan says. Far from saying that these changed circumstances require actual docketing of a project-specific comprehensive plan amendment (such as expanding the UGA in a specific location for a specific housing development), these provisions say merely that the changed circumstances will trigger a high-level re-evaluation of the buildable lands analysis and growth projections at a countywide scale. Nor does this provision say when such analysis must begin, provide any timeframe on when the analysis must be completed, or say that these decisions must even be made through the public docketing process. In essence, even if these provisions could be read as requiring some type of action on the county s part, they are a long way from requiring the specific, mandamus-like relief requested by Petitioner i.e., an order directing that this specific UGA expansion, in this location, be advanced now to the final stage of the county s docketing and review process. See Freeman v. Gregoire, 171 Wn.2d 316, 327, 256 P.3d 264 (2011) ( to compel an action in mandamus, a duty needs to be mandatory and ministerial: the duty must be defined with such particularity as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment ). Petitioner also relies on a provision of the CWPPs which says, in part, that [f]or any proposed UGA modification, a current land capacity analysis shall be prepared and shall utilize the procedures described in the CWPPs. See Pet. s Op. Br., App. A-2 (CWPPs at 19 20). Petitioner cites this provision for the proposition that anytime anyone submits a desired UGA expansion, a completely new analysis must be performed to determine if the UGA is adequately sized. See Pet. s Br. at 20. In other words, Petitioner reads it broadly as a directive to place every desired UGA expansion on the county s final docket, regardless of the availability of agency resources, and RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 22 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

23 regardless of other policy considerations that normally govern that process under ICC and WAC (6). The problem with Petitioner s reading of this provision is that it ignores context. In all the statements of purpose in the CWPPs, there is not one word indicating that they were intended to create new, mandatory docketing criteria, or that they were intended to abolish the county s normal docketing discretion codified at ICC and WAC (6). Instead, all of the policy statements in the CWPPs explain that their purpose is to establish a uniform system of coordination between Island County and the local cities within Island County as they prepare amendments to their respective comprehensive plans, in order to achieve consistency between them as required by the GMA, and to provide uniform procedures for doing so (such as preparing a current buildable lands analysis using a uniform process). See, e.g., Pet. s Op. Br., App. A-2 (Ordinance No. C-73-17; PLG-05-17). See also id. (CWPPs at 1). Read in that context aimed at consistency between jurisdictions, not forcing them to take any specific legislative actions the clear intent of the cited provision is to require a current analysis for UGA expansions (not old analyses) and to establish a division of labor for who should perform that analysis (i.e., the county, or the city associated with the UGA): For any proposed UGA modification a current land capacity analysis shall be prepared and shall utilize the procedures described in Appendix A. The land capacity analysis should be performed by the jurisdiction initiating the UGA modification, unless the modification is initiated by an individual, in which case the land capacity analysis should be completed by the County. Pet. s Op. Br., App. A-2 (CWPPs at 19 20). For the Petitioner, the words for any in the quote above carry a lot of water, but they do not say every or all (the natural way one would express what Petitioner argues). Nor is it clear that the word proposed necessarily refers to UGA modifications at the initial docketing stage (i.e., RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 23 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

24 the screening phase), or only those proposed at the second stage of the docketing process where indepth review is performed under the Island County Code, and after the county has determined whether it even has the staffing resources to review the expansion. Nor is this surprising. The intent of the quoted section of the CWPPs is to ensure that UGA modifications are made only with current analysis (using the complex procedures in Appendix A of the CWPPs), and to determine which entity must perform that analysis. The provision does not state that its intent is to entirely abolish the legislative discretion afforded the county under ICC , WAC (6), and Stafne by requiring it to undertake that same level of review every single time a land developer wants to expand a UGA for more urban development. Read against the entire backdrop of the GMA and its implementing regulations, the GMHB reviewed these provisions of the comprehensive plan and CWPPs and determined that any mandatory language (e.g., to conduct new studies and analyses of population projections) only applies after the county has made the legislative decision to docket the proposal and to advance the proposal to the final stage of the county s review process. They do not apply at the initial stage when the planning commission is deciding whether to recommend advancement to the final docket, or when the Board of Commissioners are deciding whether to accept the Commission s recommendation on that issue: AR 668. The Board has carefully reviewed all Comprehensive Plan sections and all CWPPs referenced by the Petitioner. That includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan provision that states For any proposed UGA modification, a current land capacity analysis shall be prepared and shall utilize the procedures described in the CWPPs. The County observes, and the Board agrees, that such a requirement applies only if the County opts to docket the proposal for further consideration. It does not apply until a UGA modification has been docketed. RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 24 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

25 The GMHB s conclusion on this issue represents an entirely reasonable interpretation of the cited provisions of the comprehensive plan and CWPPs, which is also endorsed by the county, the author of those very same provisions. The analysis required to fully evaluate a potential UGA expansion is a significant undertaking, a fact that is recognized by the GMA, its implementing regulations, the county code, and the CWPPs themselves. See Pet. s Op. Br., App. A-2 (CWPPs at 17; The review of a UGA for possible expansion is a significant undertaking ). The county s coordinated planning policies should not be read, against this backdrop, to require that same significant undertaking every time someone alleges that the current UGA is too small, or that it should be changed to accommodate a specific development project, regardless of agency resources or the merits of the proposal. The GMA gives the county discretion to decide when such resources should be expended, which proposals should be fully evaluated, and the CWPPs should not be read to implicitly abrogate that entire statutory and regulatory structure. IV. CONCLUSION This Court should affirm the GMHB s order and dismiss Wright s Crossing s petition. Behind its scattershot arguments and strained hyperbole, Wright s Crossing has failed to identify any duty in the GMA, the GMA s implementing regulations, the county code, or in the comprehensive plan and CWPPs that mandates the county to advance its desired UGA expansion to the final stage of review. The county considered the expansion and that is all the GMA requires. / / / / / / / / / / / / RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 25 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

26 Dated this 9th day of November, Respectfully submitted, BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP By: s/ Bryan Telegin Bryan Telegin, WSBA No Jacob Brooks, WSBA No Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA telegin@bnd-law.com brooks@bnd-law.com Attorneys for Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN) RESPONSE BRIEF OF WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK ( WEAN ) - 26 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Law 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA Tel. (206) Fax. (206)

27 APPENDIX A

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106 APPENDIX B

107 11/7/2018 Island County, WA Code of Ordinances Annual docket application review procedures. A. The annual docket application review schedule will occur pursuant to the schedule below: TABLE A. ANNUAL DOCKET APPLICATION REVIEW DUE BY PROCESS August 1 Applications due September 1 List of all amendments (public, Board, Planning Commission, or sta requests) presented to the Board and Planning Commission October 1 Board and Planning Commission review the proposed docket items November 30 Board determines the docketing request outcomes (include, exclude, or defer) Board approval of docket by Resolution no later than the end of November B. C. D. For inclusion on any given annual docket, applications initiated by the public must be submitted before August 1 of the prior year. Applications received on or after August 1 of each calendar year shall be reviewed during the next annual docket cycle. The Planning Director shall forward to the Board and Planning Commission a complete listing of all new applications for amendments requested by the public, the Board, Planning Commission, or the Planning Director, no later than September 1 of each year. The list shall also include any applications deferred from a previous docket. The Planning Director shall review the proposed annual review docket items with the Board and Planning Commission by October 1 of each year. The Board and Planning Commission shall review and consider whether any proposed amendment should be included on or excluded from the annual review docket or be deferred to the next annual cycle or periodic review docket cycle pursuant to section Include. The Board's decision to include an application in the annual docket is procedural only and does not constitute a decision by the Board as to whether the proposed amendment will ultimately be approved. Exclude. The Board's decision to exclude an application from the docket terminates the 1/3

108 11/7/2018 Island County, WA Code of Ordinances application without prejudice to the applicant or the proposal. The applicant may request a refund of the unused portion of any application fees. The Board's decision to exclude an application from the docket is a discretionary Type IV decision subject to appeal pursuant to section Defer. The Board's decision to defer an application means the application may be considered, as speci ed by the Board, either for the next annual docket cycle or the next periodic review docket cycle. E. In making its docket recommendation, the Planning Commission should consider the following: The application is deemed complete; The application, in light of all proposed amendments being considered for inclusion in the year's annual docket, can be reasonably reviewed within the sta ng resources and operational budget allocated to the Department by the Board; The proposed amendment would not require additional amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations not otherwise addressed in the application, and is consistent with other goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; The proposed Plan amendment raises policy, land use, or scheduling issues, or that the proposal is comprehensive enough in nature that it would more appropriately be addressed as part of a periodic review cycle; The application proposes a regulatory or process change that for which no amendment to the comprehensive plan is required and should be reviewed for potential consideration as a part of the work plan; The application lacks su cient information or adequate detail to review and assess whether or not the proposal meets the applicable approval criteria. A determination that the proposal contains su cient information and adequate detail for the purpose of docketing does not preclude the Department from requesting additional information at a later time. F. The selected proposed amendments collectively shall be known as the annual review docket for the next calendar year, and shall be adopted by Board resolution, preferably by October 31 but no later than November 30 of each calendar year. (Ord. C [PLG ], November 9, 1998, vol. 43, p. 62; amended by Ord. C [PLG ], December 13, 1999, vol. 44, p. 217; amended by Ord. C [PLG ], November 27, 2000, vol. 45, p. 85, readopted December 11, 2000, vol. 45, p. 115; amended by Ord. C [PLG ], July 25, 2005, vol. 2005, p. 237; amended by Ord. C [PLG ], July 2, 2012, vol. 2012, p. 98) ( Ord. No. C [PLG ], Exh. A, ) 2/3

109 11/7/2018 Island County, WA Code of Ordinances Editor's note Ord. No. C-49-17, Exh. A, adopted May 23, 2017, changed the title of from "Annual review procedures" to read as herein set out. 3/3

110 APPENDIX C

111 Land Use Element 1 Photo by Jake Root Guided by the County s vision, the Land Use goals and policies allow for Island County s growth and development while protecting its rural character, unique ecology, and natural resources. ISLAND COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE