King Cty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley

556 P.3d 132

KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, Respondent,

v.FRIENDS OF SAMMAMISH VALLEY, a Washington nonprofit corporation; and Futurewise, Petitioners,A Farm in the Sammamish Valley LLC; Marshall Leroy d/b/a Alki Market Garden; Eunomia Farms, LLC; Olympic Nursery Inc.; C-T Corp.; Roots of Our Times Cooperative; Regeneration Farm LLC; Hollywood Hills Association; Terry and David R. Orkiolla; and Judith Allen, Defendants.

No. 102177-1

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued May 21, 2024

Filed September 19, 2024

Appeal from King County Superior Court, Docket No: 22-2-01511-0, Honorable Tanya L. Thorp, Judge.

Peter J. Eglick, Joshua Adam Whited, Eglick & Whited PLLC, 1000 2nd Ave. Ste. 3130, Seattle, WA, 98104-1046, Tim Trohimovich, Futurewise, 1201 3rd Ave. Ste. 2200, Seattle, WA, 98101-3047, for Petitioner.

Cristy J. Craig, Lena Madden, King County Pros. Attorney’s Office, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7108, for Respondent.

Joseph Anthony Rehberger, Cascadia Law Group PLLC, 606 Columbia St. NW Ste. 212, Olympia, WA, 98501-1093, Louis Anders Russell, Attorney at Law, 1201 3rd Ave. Ste. 320, Seattle, WA, 98101-3075, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Western Washington Agricultural Association.

Jeffrey M. Eustis, Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Eustis, PLLC, 6042 29th Ave. NE, Seattle, WA, 98115-7202, William Scherer Bailey, University of Washington School of Law, 4223 NE Campus Parkway, Seattle, WA, 98195-3020, for Amici Curiae on behalf of Susan Boundy-Sanders, Paula Waters.

Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick, 2775 Harbor Ave. SW Third Floor Ste. C, Seattle, WA, 98126-2138, for Amicus

Curiae on behalf of Agricultural Organizations.

Meredith Crafton, Smith & Lowney, PLLC, 2317 E. John St., Seattle, WA, 98112-5412, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Sierra Club.

Adam J. Berger, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, 401 Union Street, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA, 98101, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Orca Conservancy.

Jeffrey M. Eustis, Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Eustis, PLLC, 6042 29th Ave. NE, Seattle, WA, 98115-7202, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Black Farmers Collective.

JOHNSON, J.

¶1 This case concerns King County Ordinance 19030 (Ordinance or Ordinance 19030), which altered zoning and business licensing regulations for wineries, breweries, and distilleries (WBDs), and accompanying tasting rooms, within land designated as agricultural and rural under the King County comprehensive plan. The issue presented is whether the Ordinance and the investigations King County (County) undertook prior to passage comply with the requirements set forth in the Growth Management Act (GMA), ch. 36.70A RCW, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), ch. 43.21C RCW.

¶2 The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) determined that the County failed to comply with SEPA and the GMA and invalidated portions of the Ordinance. Appeal of the Board’s final order was certified directly to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the board decision. Friends of Sammamish Valley (FOSV) and Futurewise sought review, arguing that the County’s initial failure to fully engage with the threshold determination process under SEPA and failure to address preservation of land designated agricultural required invalidation under the GMA. The County, in response, argues that SEPA and the GMA do not require them to consider potential environmental impacts because the Ordinance is a "nonproject action" not requiring environmental review under SEPA and because the GMA presumes that an ordinance is valid on adoption. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the Board’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 Ordinance 19030 applies to all of King County, but the focus of this case is on the impact to the agricultural and rural areas of Sammamish Valley. Sammamish Valley, particularly the Woodinville area, has developed into a destination in Washington for WBDs and tasting rooms. Many alcohol related businesses are located in the Woodinville city limits, but many have also been established outside the city limits in unincorporated King County. The County’s comprehensive plan designated certain areas in Sammamish Valley as appropriate for long-term protection and classified that land as agricultural under King County’s comprehensive plan. Expansion, authorization, and restrictions on additional WBDs are addressed under the Ordinance.

¶4 In response to the growing adult-beverage industry, the King County Council initiated the "Sammamish Valley Wine and Beverage Study" in 2016. The study provided policy and code recommendations regarding economic development, transportation, agriculture land use, and rural land use. The study outlined accessory uses in the agricultural and rural areas and how such uses could be expanded to serve the economic development of the community. It also uncovered that 54 WBDs were operating in unincorporated King County, and only 4 of those had permits to operate. King County produced another action report in 2018, which gave specific zoning code recommendations. The findings and recommendations of the two studies became the basis for Ordinance 19030.

¶5 Before passage of the Ordinance, county staff completed a SEPA checklist, in order to make a threshold determination about the potential environmental impact of the proposed action. Admin. R. (AR) at 29-48; WAC 197-11-315. The County’s responsible official determined that the proposed Ordinance was a nonproject action and made a threshold determination of nonsignificance (DNS), indicating no adverse environmental issues were implicated. AR at 26-27; WAC 197-11-310, - 330, -340. As a result of the staff report, no environmental impact statement (EIS) was conducted after the DNS. The County passed Ordinance 19030 on December 4, 2019.

¶6 The Ordinance made a number of zoning changes in rural and agricultural areas of King County, imposing new licensing requirements for alcoholic beverage businesses in these areas. A number of alterations were made to the existing code, some tightening restrictions on allowed uses and others expanding allowed uses. The Ordinance set different sizes of WBD facilities, classifying the uses as I, II, or III. The Ordinance eliminated the requirement that beverage sales must be limited to products produced on-site and grown in the Puget Sound and replaced it with a requirement that 60 percent of the products processed must be grown on-site. The Ordinance amended the former code to require that tasting and retail sales of products may occur only as an accessory to the primary WBD production use, whereas the former code simply stated that the tasting of products must be provided in accordance with state law. The Ordinance established temporary use permits for large events and imposed limits on the number of guests allowed based on the size of the facility (WBD IIs can have up to 150 people, WBD IIIs can have up to 250 people). The Ordinance authorized that up to 25 percent of any site with these facilities could be paved. The Ordinance also created "Demonstration Project Overlay A" in the area adjacent to Woodinville, establishing "remote tasting rooms." Ordinance, Attach. A. Tasting rooms were not explicitly allowed prior to the Ordinance, and the Ordinance provided an avenue for them to become licensed on the parcels in the demonstration project area.

¶7 FOSV filed a petition for review with the Board on March 4, 2020, challenging the validity of Ordinance 19030. Futurewise filed a petition for review with the Board on March 5, 2020, challenging the same. The Board provided an order on dispositive motions, declaring Ordinance 19030 invalid on May 26, 2020. In sum, the Board agreed with the petitioners as to the threshold issues of the timing and sufficiency of the SEPA checklist and determined that the Ordinance was invalid for violations of the GMA.

¶8 The County, in an initial proceeding, appealed that order to the superior court. The superior court reversed the Board’s order. It found that the Board had exceeded its statutory authority in reviewing the motions for summary judgment, and had improperly applied the CR 56 standard. The matter was remanded back to the Board, with a direction that it rescind its order of invalidity and conduct a full hearing on the issues of SEPA and GMA compliance.

¶9 The Board held a full hearing on the merits and issued a new final decision and order on January 3, 2022, with a corrected version issued on January 27, 2022. The Board evaluated a number of SEPA issues and concluded that the County had failed to establish a prima facie showing of SEPA compliance and that the County violated SEPA by basing its DNS on an inadequate checklist. The Board also considered a number of GMA issues and concluded that the adoption of Ordinance 19030 was clearly erroneous in light of the requirements of the GMA and SEPA, and that the Ordinance substantially interfered with GMA goals. Sections 12-29, and 31, and map amendments No. 1 and No. 2 of the Ordinance were declared invalid, and the matter was remanded to the County to come into compliance.

¶10 The County again appealed, and the action was transferred to Division One of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s order of invalidity and remanded for entry of a finding of compliance with the GMA and SEPA. King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley, 26 Wash. App. 2d 906, 530 P.3d 1023, review granted, 2 Wash.3d 1006, 549 P.3d 111 (2023). We accepted review.¹

ISSUES²

I. Does Ordinance 19030 violate the GMA?

II. Did the DNS issued for Ordinance 19030 violate SEPA?

ANALYSIS

I. GMA Compliance

[1] ¶11 Under the GMA, authority is assigned to Growth Management Hearing Boards to adjudicate compliance. RCW 36.70A.280, .300; Lewis County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 157 Wash.2d 488, 497, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006). Planning agencies are given broad deference by the reviewing Board. "[C]omprehensive plans and development...