Laserfiche WebLink
April 10, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin <br />lished a Voluntary Stewardship Program ("VSP"). Under the statutes <br />governing the VSP, counties electing to participate in the VSP, which arc <br />unable to implement a VSP work plan, are authorized to comply with the <br />GMA by instead adopting the critical areas regulations of one of four <br />counties, one of which is Clallam. (RCW 36.70A.735(1)(b).) Clallam <br />argued that through that statute, the Legislature had validated that Clal- <br />lam's critical area regulations as fully compliant with the GMA. <br />The Board agreed with Clallam's interpretation and granted Clallam's <br />motion to dismiss. <br />PPF appealed. The superior court affirmed the Board's decision. <br />PPF again appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of superior court reversed. <br />The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, held that RCW <br />36.70A.735(1)(b) does not reflect a legislative determination that Clal- <br />lam's regulations unconditionally comply with the GMA's critical areas <br />protection requirements. <br />Looking at the plain language of that statute, the court found that the <br />statute did not support an interpretation that the Legislature "approved" <br />Clallam's regulations for counties not participating in the VSP. Rather, <br />the court4ound that the Legislature chose to distinguish alternative <br />pathways to GMA compliance for counties that have elected to, partici- <br />pate in the VSP and counties that have not. (Election to participate in VSP <br />had to be made by January 22, 2012.) Under the unambiguous language <br />of the statute, the court found that only VSP participating counties can <br />comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam's regulations. Therefore, <br />concluded the court, counties not electing to participate in the VSP, <br />including Clallam, cannot comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam's <br />critical areas regulations. <br />The court remanded that matter to the Board to determine whether <br />Clallam's critical areas regulations complied with the GMA under RCW <br />36.70A.060 and related statutes. <br />Case Note: <br />Clallam had also argued that it would be "absurd to allow a county to comply <br />with the GMA by adopting Clallam's regulations while Clallam itself could not <br />rely on those same regulations to comply with the GMA." The court disagreed. <br />The court said that whether a statutory directive implements good or bad policy <br />was immaterial to its analysis. <br />4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />