Leonard v. City of Bothell

• Decision Date: 16 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 44135,44135
• Citation: 87 Wn.2d 847,557 P.2d 1306
• Parties: Sharon LEONARD et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BOTHELL, a Washington Municipality, et al., Respondents, Domenico Vitulli et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 847

87 Wn.2d 847

557 P.2d 1306

Sharon LEONARD et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BOTHELL, a Washington Municipality, et al Respondents, Domenico Vitulli et al.

No. 44135.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Dec. 16, 1976.

William J. Van Natter, Seattle, for appellants.

Powell, Livengood, Silvernale, Carter & Tjossem, Philip L. Carter, John Hallock, Kirkland, for City of Bothell, and others.

Hillis, Phillips, Cairncross, Clark & Martin, P.S., Jerome L. Hillis, Peter L. Buck, Seattle, for respondent Vittuli, and others.

Lee Kraft, City Atty., for City of Bellevue, Laurence G. Nord, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Bellevue, for amicus, City of Bellevue.

HAMILTON, Associate Justice.

Appellants, Sharon Leonard, et al., seek to obtain a referendum election on an ordinance adopted by respondent, the City of Bothell.

Intervenors, Domenico Vitulli, et al., owned a 141-acre lot in the North Creek Valley in Bothell, Washington. The city originally zoned the property for agricultural use. Now, however, the land is more suitable for commercial development, and intervenors applied for a rezone of the property in order to build a regional shopping center.

Respondent prepared a comprehensive environmental impact statement, and its planning commission held 13 public meetings and 10 public hearings on the matter. On September 19, 1974, the commission voted 6 to 0 to modify the comprehensive city plan and rezone the area to allow the regional shopping center.

Respondent's city council considered this matter at 24 public meetings and two public hearings. The council also conducted a citywide advisory ballot in which the registered voters expressed their approval of the rezone. On February 18, 1975, the council passed ordinance No. 754, which rezoned the property from agricultural to community business, modified the city plan to allow the regional shopping center, and changed the Vitulli farm area description in the plan from 'Greenbelt Agricultural to Commercial.'

Appellants timely filed a referendum petition challenging ordinance No. 754, and the Bothell city clerk certified this petition. On April 7, 1975, the city council refused to order a referendum election. Appellants filed a complaint in superior court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the referendum election. The superior court granted summary judgment in respondent's favor, and appellants appeal from this judgment.

On June 10, 1976, King County Superior Court by oral memorandum invalidated ordinance No. 754, finding that the rezone was an illegal spot zone and that the planning commission violated the appearance of fairness doctrine. If the invalidation stands, then there exists no ordinance to submit to the people in a referendum election. This could render the present case moot, and we normally do not review moot cases or proceedings. Wilson v. Butcher, 69 Wash.2d 48, 416 P.2d 359 (1966); Rosling v. Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 62 Wash.2d 905, 385 P.2d 29 (1963); Friendly Fin. Corp. v. Koster, 45 Wash.2d 374, 274 P.2d 586 (1954). This court will, however, review a case which has become moot if it involves matters of substantial public interest. Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wash.2d 176, 532 P.2d 614 (1975); Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wash.2d 547, 496 P.2d 512 (1972); National Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Seattle School Dist. 1, 66 Wash.2d 14, 400 P.2d 778 (1965); R. W. Rhine, Inc. v. Tacoma, 13 Wash.App. 597, 536 P.2d 677 (1975). We consider the following criteria to determine whether to hear such a case:

(1) the public nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers, and (3) the likelihood of future recurrence of the question.

Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, supra 85 Wash.2d at 177--78, 532 P.2d at 615. These criteria are present in this case and favorably suggest a review on the merits.

Furthermore, and perhaps even more suggestive of the need for appellate review on the merits is the possibility that the decision invalidating ordinance No. 754 may be appealed, and, in the event of a reversal of that decision, the issue in this case would stand unresolved. We therefore proceed to the merits.

The subject matter of referendum elections is limited in scope to acts by a governmental body which are legislative in nature. See Durocher v. King County, 80 Wash.2d 139, 155--56, 492 P.2d 547 (1972); Ford v. Logan, 79 Wash.2d 147, 154--55, 483 P.2d 1247 (1971). Administrative acts of municipal legislative bodies are not subject to a referendum election. See 5 E. McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 16.55 (3d ed. 1969 rev. Vol.). Durocher v. King County, supra 80 Wash.2d at 152--53, 492 P.2d at 555, quoting from 5 E. McQuillin, Supra at 213, sets out the applicable tests for determining when an act is legislative in nature:

Actions relating to subjects of a permanent and general character are usually regarded as legislative, and those providing for subjects of a temporary and special character are regarded as administrative . . .

The test of what is a legislative and what is an administrative proposition, with respect to the initiative or referendum, has further been said to be whether the proposition is one to make new law or to execute law already in existence. The power to be exercised is legislative in its nature if it prescribes a new policy or plan; whereas, it is administrative in its nature if it merely pursues a plan already adopted by the legislative body itself, or some power superior to it.

Generally, when a municipality adopts a zoning code and a comprehensive plan, it acts in a legislative policy-making capacity. Fleming v. Tacoma, 81 Wash.2d 292, 299, 502 P.2d 327 (1972). Amendments of the zoning code or rezones usually are decisions by a municipal legislative body implementing the zoning code and a comprehensive plan. The legislative body essentially is then performing its administrative function.

We also have characterized rezone decisions as quasi-judicial acts by the municipal legislative body. See Barrie v. Kitsap County, 84 Wash.2d 579, 586, 527 P.2d 1377 (1974); Buell v. Bremerton, 80 Wash.2d 518, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972). In Eleming v. Tacoma, supra, 81 Wash.2d at 299, 502 P.2d at 331 we stated:

(I)n amending a zoning code, or reclassifying land thereunder, the same body, in effect, makes an adjudication between the rights sought by the proponents and those claimed by the opponents of the zoning change. The parties whose interests are affected are readily identifiable.

Although important questions of public policy may permeate a zoning amendment, the decision has a far greater impact on one group of citizens than on the public generally.

In this case, the comprehensive plan of the city contemplated the rezoning of the North Creek Valley for commercial purposes. It states:

It is foreseeable that pressures will arise for commercial and other facilities within the North Creek Valley. The Comprehensive Plan does not at this time provide such uses, but is not to be construed as discouraging or prohibiting such more intensive uses. The Plan merely states that at this time the appropriate use is agriculture. At such time as needs arise for more intensive uses, and further study shows North Creek Valley appropriate to such uses, the City should entertain studies to effectuate land use change, and apply such controls and restrictions which may be necessary for orderly development.

The ordinance merely rezoned the property and modified the language of the plan to reflect the anticipated land-use change. We do not view the ordinance as a legislative policy-making decision, and thus it is not subject to a referendum election.

Our decision not to subject the ordinance to the referendum process is supported by a number of other jurisdictions. See Elliott v. Clawson, 21 Mich.App. 363, 175 N.W.2d 821 (1970); Kelley v. John, 162 Neb. 319, 75 N.W.2d 713 (1956); Forman v. Eagle Thrifty Drugs & Markets, Inc., 89 Nev. 533, 516 P.2d 1234 (1973); Sparta v. Spillane, 125 N.J.Super. 519, 312 A.2d 154 (1973); Hancock v. Rouse, 437 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Civ.App.1969); Dewey v. Doxey-Layton Realty Co., 3 Utah 2d 1, 277 P.2d 805 (1954); Cf. Scottsdale v. Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 204, 439 P.2d 290 (1968); Olson v. Avon, 143 Conn. 448, 123 A.2d 279 (1956); State ex rel. Powers v. Donohue, 368 S.W.2d 432 (Mo.1963); Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., ---U.S. ---, 96 S.Ct. 2358, 49 L.Ed.2d 132 (1976) (collecting cases).

In Kelley v. John, supra 162 Neb. at 323--24, 75 N.W.2d at 716, the court refused to subject a rezoning decision to a referendum and held:

To say that administrative determinations are subject to referendum could defeat the very purposes of zoning. The uniformity required in the proper administration of a zoning ordinance could be wholly destroyed by referendum. A single decision by the electors by referendum could well destroy the very purpose of zoning where such decision was in conflict with the general scheme fixing the uses of property in designated areas. This alone is sufficient to sustain the holding that an ordinance, administrative in character, is not subject to referendum. It would permit the electors by referendum to change, delay, and defeat the real purposes of the comprehensive zoning ordinance by creating the chaotic situation such ordinance was designed to prevent.

Appellants, however, cite RCW 35A.11.080 ¹ and RCW 35A.11.090 ² and claim these provisions vest them with the power to subject the ordinance to a referendum election. We disagree. Trautman, Initiative and Referendum in Washington: A Survey, 49 Wash.L.Rev. 55, 82--83 (1973), states:

In determining whether use of the local initiative or referendum in a particular instance violates a state statute, the court at times has drawn a distinction between a grant of authority by the state legislature to the city as a corporate entity and to its legislative and other...