Akada v. Park 12-01 Corp., 51006-7

• Citation: 103 Wn.2d 717,695 P.2d 994
• Decision Date: 28 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 51006-7,51006-7
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: Yoshio AKADA, Dan W. Wong, Kirby Chin, and Howard Eng, Petitioners, v. PARK 12-01 CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; The City of Seattle, a municipal corporation, Respondents.

Page 717

103 Wn.2d 717

695 P.2d 994

Yoshio AKADA, Dan W. Wong, Kirby Chin, and Howard Eng, Petitioners, v. PARK 12-01 CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; The City

of Seattle, a municipal corporation, Respondents.

No. 51006-7.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Feb. 28, 1985.

Peter J. Eglick, Seattle, for petitioners.

Short & Cressman, Brian Lawler, Seattle, for Park 12-01 Corp.

Douglas Jewett, Seattle City Atty., Elizabeth A. Edmonds, Asst. City Atty., Seattle, for City of Seattle.

UTTER, Justice.

Petitioners Akada, Wong, Chin and Eng, property owners near a proposed condominium project, filed a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Seattle City Council decision affirming issuance of a use permit. Petitioners alleged that the City's actions failed to comply with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the SEPA guidelines, and city ordinances implementing the guidelines. The trial court, applying JCR 73, denied the writ as not timely. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Akada v. Park 12-01 Corp., 37 Wash.App. 221, 678 P.2d 1314 (1984). We reverse, applying the rule that where the statute authorizing the appeal designates no specific appeal period, the longer of analogous appeal periods should apply.

Certiorari is the appropriate method to review the city council action. See Leschi Imp. Coun. v. State Hwy. Comm'n, 84 Wash.2d 271, 279, 288, 525 P.2d 774 (1974). A writ of certiorari shall be granted when an inferior tribunal or board exercising judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or to correct an erroneous proceeding, where there is no appeal. RCW 7.16.040. However, the statute providing for writs of certiorari establishes no time limit within which the writ must be filed. State ex rel. L.L. Buchanan & Co. v. State Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 39 Wash.2d 706, 709, 237 P.2d 1024 (1951). Consequently, we have long held that a writ of certiorari should be "applied for within a reasonable time after the act complained of has been done." State ex rel. Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Kuykendall, 134 Wash. 620, 622, 236 P. 99 (1925). To help clarify what constitutes a reasonable time, for cases arising from the courts or other judicial proceedings, we have determined that certiorari must be brought within the time allowable for an appeal as prescribed by statute or rule of court. Pierce v. King Cy., 62 Wash.2d 324, 333, 382 P.2d 628 (1963). No statute or other legislation establishes the time allowable for an appeal from the Seattle City Council. The court must therefore determine by analogy what constitutes the appropriate time for filing of the writ. Here, two different appeal periods may apply.

In this case, the trial court inquired whether the appeal provisions in SEPA or JCR 73 were more analogous. On June 22, 1981, the city council affirmed the issuance of the use permit and adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing examiner. On July 6, 1981, the 14-day appeal period found in JCR 73 expired. On July 13, 1981, petitioners served and filed in superior court for a writ of certiorari. On July 22, 1981, the 30-day SEPA statute of limitations term expired. The SEPA appeal provision in effect at the time, RCW 43.21C.080(2)(a), provided in part:

Any action to set aside, enjoin, review or otherwise challenge any such governmental action for which notice is given as provided in subsection (1) of this section on grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within thirty days from the date of last newspaper publication of the notice ... or be barred ...

(Italics ours.) JCR 73 applied to those appeals from a court of limited jurisdiction not subject to review under the rules for appeal of decisions of courts of limited...