## Facts

- Herschel and Elizabeth Sparks applied to Douglas County for four short plats in unincorporated Douglas County, each creating four residential lots on separate nearby tracts.
- County staff determined bordering roads were below county standards for right-of-way width and that 32nd Street did not satisfy fire-code access requirements.
- The County approved the plats subject to conditions requiring the Sparkses to dedicate rights-of-way along adjacent public roads to allow future widening and improvements.
- The County linked the dedications to anticipated increased traffic and safety concerns on roads that were already deficient.
- The Sparkses challenged the dedication conditions as uncompensated takings, arguing the roads’ deficiencies predated the plats and the exactions lacked proportionality to the developments’ impacts.
- The trial court upheld the conditions; the court of appeals reversed; the Washington Supreme Court granted review and considered the exactions standards stated in federal takings doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning short-plat approval on dedication of roadway rights-of-way constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under exactions limits, including nexus and proportionality requirements.
2. Whether the County’s imposition of the dedication conditions was arbitrary and capricious, or instead supported by substantial evidence tying the conditions to the developments’ traffic and safety impacts.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld Douglas County’s conditional approvals.
- The court held the dedication requirements were not an unconstitutional taking because the County made an individualized, evidence-based determination that the developments would significantly increase traffic and exacerbate safety and access problems.
- The court held the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious because it relied on technical assessments of roadway width, capacity, and emergency-access needs.

## Legal Principles

- A land-use exaction requiring dedication of property must have an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose such as traffic safety and adequate emergency access.
- The extent of an exaction must be roughly proportional to the development’s projected impacts and must be supported by an individualized determination grounded in the record.
- A local land-use condition will be upheld against arbitrary-and-capricious review when supported by substantial evidence showing consideration of relevant facts and standards, rather than willful or unreasoned action.
- A dedication condition may be valid even when existing public facilities are already substandard, if the condition is tied to the incremental effects of the proposed development on those marginal conditions.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Douglas County’s requirement that the Sparkses dedicate roadway rights-of-way as a condition of short-plat approval, concluding the County showed a record-based connection and rough proportionality between the developments’ added traffic and the safety-related need for future road improvements, and that the County’s decisionmaking was not arbitrary or capricious.


Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 904 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1995)