City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd.
Decision Date | 13 September 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 27560-1-II.,27560-1-II. |
Citation | 53 P.3d 1028,113 Wash.App. 375 |
Parties | The CITY OF BURIEN, a municipal corporation, The City of Des Moines, a municipal corporation, The City of Normandy Park, a municipal corporation, and The City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation, Appellants, v. The CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, an agency of the State of Washington, The City of Seatac, a municipal corporation, and The Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation, Respondents. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Michael A. Kenyon, Issaquah, John Hempelmann, Seattle, Susan Sampson, Renton, Gary McLean, Puyallup, Janet Garrow, Bellevue, Robert Noe, Issaquah, for Appellants.
Sharon Eckholm, Olympia, Donald Cohen, John Washburn, Traci Goodwin, Seattle, Robert McAdams, Seatac, Linda Strout, Roger Pearce, Seattle, for Respondents.
The City of Burien appeals a Thurston County Superior Court judgment affirming a Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) decision upholding comprehensive plan and zoning amendments adopted by the City of SeaTac. SeaTac proposed the amendments in accordance with an interlocal agreement to settle litigation with the Port of Seattle. At issue is whether SeaTac circumvented the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) by entering into an interlocal agreement during negotiations that were not open to the public. The Board ruled that SeaTac complied with the GMA's public participation requirements, and Thurston County Superior Court affirmed. We likewise affirm.
In an attempt to settle litigation over jurisdictional matters (among other issues) regarding plans for the proposed third runway at Sea Tac Airport, the City of SeaTac and the Port of Seattle entered into an "Agreement for Confidentiality In Settlement Negotiations" in October 1996. From time to time, counsel briefed SeaTac's City Council in executive session on the status of negotiations with the Port.1
At its May 1997 public meeting, SeaTac's Planning Commission discussed proposed amendments to SeaTac's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). Attached to the minutes of that meeting was the Preliminary Docket for the Plan amendment, which stated that copies of the original applications for the Plan amendments were "available for public review on request." Administrative Record (Exhibits) at 2615. Burien submitted an application with the following proposed amendments: the preservation of Miller Creek, cooperation between SeaTac and Burien regarding Westside residential areas, development of a greenbelt plan with trails connecting the neighboring cities, and cooperation among neighboring cities regarding surface water and drainage planning.
The Commission again addressed Plan amendments at its June 16, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. According to the minutes, SeaTac's principal planner, Craig Ward, explained at the meeting that Administrative Record (Exhibits) at 2700. The Burien planning commissioner who proposed the above amendments addressed the Commission, expressing her desire to have the amendments enacted.2
SeaTac and the Port entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA), on September 4, 1997.3 Four days later SeaTac's planning director briefed the Commission on the newly executed ILA:
Administrative Record (Exhibits) at 2747-48.
The ILA was executed by the Port and SeaTac, respectively, on August 29, 1997, and September 4, 1997, and went into effect on September 4, 1997. In pertinent part, the ILA reflects the parties' agreement to "adopt the planning, land use and zoning provisions set forth in Exhibit A hereto and shall implement the same." Administrative Record (Exhibits) at 3903.
The Land Use Agreement in Exhibit A provides for cooperative comprehensive planning and economic development in contemplating changes to the comprehensive plan:
1.1 General. The Port and City shall engage in cooperative comprehensive planning to jointly address issues related to the Port's Airport properties and activities and the City's economic development, land use and related goals. The cooperative planning shall strive for consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Port's Master Plan (and related portions of the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional planning decisions). The objective is the reciprocal recognition of the Port's Master Plan (and related portions of the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional planning decisions) in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the relevant portions of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the Port's Master Plan (e.g. land use, economic development, transportation and capital facilities). The coordinated comprehensive planning activities shall include:
1.5 Adoption and Amendment.
Administrative Record (Exhibits) at 3911 (emphasis added).
The Port committed to pay SeaTac $26 million dollars under the ILA's "community relief package."4
SeaTac enacted an ordinance (No. 97-1025) amending the Plan on December 9, 1997, and adopted zoning code and map amendments (Ordinance Nos. 98-1001 and 98-1002) on January 13, 1998.
Burien5 filed a petition for review of SeaTac's Plan and zoning amendments with the Board on February 11, 1998, arguing, among many other things, that SeaTac failed to comply with the GMA public participation requirements. Burien asked the Board to review (1) SeaTac's amendment to its Plan; (2) the ILA with the Port "which Agreement is an expressly referenced and integral component of the SeaTac Plan"; and (3) the January 13, 1998 amendments to the zoning code and map. Administrative Record at 1. The Board ruled that SeaTac complied with the GMA and upheld the amendments.
The Thurston County Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision. Burien appealed directly to our Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this court.
We review decisions of the Board under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, which calls for a review of the record created before the Board—not the decision of the superior court. Buechel v. Dep't of Ecology, 125 Wash.2d 196, 202, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). We review the Board's legal conclusions de novo, giving substantial weight to its interpretation of the statute it administers where the agency has specialized expertise in dealing with such issues. City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 46, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998); Diehl v. Mason County, 94 Wash.App. 645, 652, 972 P.2d 543 (1999). The burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Borden v. City of Olympia, 27029-3-II.
-
Ferry Cnty. v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
...v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 46, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998); City of Burien v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash.App. 375, 382, 53 P.3d 1028 (2002). This court reviews the GMHB's factual determinations for substantial evidence. Swinomish Indi......
-
Ferry Cnty. v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
...v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 46, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998) ; City of Burien v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash.App. 375, 382, 53 P.3d 1028 (2002). This court reviews the GMHB's factual determinations for substantial evidence. Swinomish Ind......
-
Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation v. Okanogan County
... ... chapter 43.21C RCW, the Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter ... 36.70A ... any associated decisions or scheduled hearings ... 5. No later than December 31, 2018, ... City of ... Seattle , 14 Wn.App. 2d 838, 847-50, ... comprehensive plans. City of Burien v. Central Puget ... Sound Growth ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 586 P.2d 470 (1978):7.6, 7.8(5), 7.8(7) City of Burien v. CPSGMHB, 113 Wn. App. 375, 53 P.3d 1028 (2002): 2.6(1), 7.7(2), 8.7(2), 13.4(1), 13.4(1) City of Des Moines v. Gray Businesses, LLC, 130 Wn. App. 600, 124 P.3d 324 (2005), review denie......
-
Urbanites Versus Rural Rights: Contest of Local Government Land-use Regulations Under Washington Preemption Statute 82.02.020
...§§ 36.70A.035(2), .140. 56. Id. § 36.70A.035. 57. Id. § 36.70A.140. 58. City of Burien v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash. App. 375, 388, 53 P.3d 1028, 1035 (2002) (holding that the GMA requires public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive lan......
-
§ 8.7 - Process for Modifying Adopted Zoning
...of determining whether RCW 42.36.010 appearance of fairness requirements apply. City of Burien v. CPSGMHB, 113 Wn.App. 375, 386 n.10, 53 P.3d 1028 (2002) (appearance of fairness statute applies quasi-judicial actions). As a form of land use permit, property-specific rezone decisions may not......
-
§ 13.4 - Initiating Review-Threshold Jurisdictional Issues
...to comprehensive plan), http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/LoadDocument.aspx?did=2994; cf. City of Burien v. CPSGMHB, 113 Wn.App. 375, 388-89, 53 P.3d 1028 (2002) (interlocal agreement was not subject to GMA public participation requirements); BD Lawson Partners LP v. City of Black Diamond, GMHB No. 14......