Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Ass'n v. King County Council

• Decision Date: 08 July 1976
• Docket Number: No. 44015,44015
• Citation: 87 Wn.2d 267,552 P.2d 674
• Parties: , 6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,796 NORWAY HILL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL, Respondent, and Woodside Corporation, a corporation, Intervenor-Respondent.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 267

87 Wn.2d 267

552 P.2d 674, 6 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,796

NORWAY HILL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL, Respondent and Woodside Corporation, a corporation, Intervenor-Respondent.

No. 44015.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 8, 1976.

As Changed on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 27, 1976.

Riddell, Williams, Ivie, Bullitt & Walkinshaw, Stimson Bullitt, Seattle, for appellant.

Christopher T. Bayley, Pros. Atty., John E. Keegan, Asst. Pros. Atty., Bogle & Gates, Philip K. Sweigert, Seattle, for respondent.

HUNTER, Associate Justice.

Appellant Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association (Norway Hill Association) petitioned the King County Superior Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of respondent King County Council approving a preliminary plat for Norway Vista, a proposed housing subdivision. Appellant specifically challenged the Council's determination that an environmental impact statement was not required. By stipulation, respondent Woodside Corporation, the project developer, was allowed to intervene. The Superior Court denied the writ of certiorari and Norway Hill Association appealed from that judgment.

Norway Vista, the subject of the preliminary plat, consists of 52.3 acres located just south of the city of Bothell. The tract itself is heavily wooded and is part of a larger vacant and heavily wooded area that extends to the west. Adjoining properties to the east and south of the subject tract have been developed to an urban residential density (approximately four dwelling units per acre). To the north, the land has been cleared and there are scattered residences on 1/2- to 3-acre parcels. While not within the city limits of Bothell, the subject tract is nevertheless covered by that city's comprehensive plan. The proposed plat plan for Norway Vista provides for the creation of 198 lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The plat plan describes an urban-type development with full improvements including sanitary sewers, curb and gutter streets, sidewalks, and underground utilities.

The King County Council and its administrative departments, pursuant to applicable county ordinances, gave extensive consideration to the Norway Vista preliminary plat application. In its preliminary report, which was issued and sent to the county zoning and subdivision examiner on June 5, 1973, the Land Use Management Division of the County Department of Planning recommended approval of the Norway Vista plat subject to certain conditions. ¹ The report also stated that the Director of the Land Use Management Division had determined that an environmental impact statement was not necessary. The county zoning and subdivision examiner held a public hearing ² that commenced on June 12, 1973, and was continued over to June 22, 1973, and June 25, 1973. On July 2, 1973, the examiner issued his report to the King County Council in which he recommended approval of the preliminary plat application and concurred with the earlier determination that an environmental impact statement was not necessary.

Norway Hill Association appealed from this decision to the King County Council ³ and the Council remanded the matter back to the Land Use Management Division for reconsideration in light of a soils study received after the previous hearings. On September 4, 1973, the Land Use Management Division submitted an addendum to its previous report and again recommended approval of the plat application, subject to conditions, and stated that no environmental impact statement was necessary. The county zoning and subdivision examiner held hearings in regard to the remand on September 4, and 18, 1973. The examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which he issued on September 25, 1973, recommended approval subject to conditions and stated that an environmental impact statement was not necessary.

The matter was again appealed to the King County Council. Following consideration on December 12, 1973, the Council requested another environmental assessment from the Land Use Management Division in light of King County ordinance No. 1700, which had become effective October 26, 1973. ⁴ On January 3, 1974, the Land Use Management Division issued its environmental assessment in which it recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to stated conditions, and determined

that approval of the subject application would not constitute a major action significantly effecting the quality of the environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

On February 4, 1974, the King County Council accepted the zoning and subdivision examiner's report of September 25, 1973. The council concurred in the examiner's recommendations, and, accordingly, approved the Norway Vista preliminary plat, subject to the conditions contained in the examiner's recommendations.

Following this decision, the Norway Hill Association petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of certiorari, asserting that the King County Council had acted unlawfully in approving the preliminary plat without requiring an environmental impact statement pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) before making its decision to grant approval. The judgment of the Superior Court denied the writ and made the following determination:

The responsible officials for King County, in considering the environmental impact of the proposed Norway Vista plat and in determining that the Norway Vista plat was not a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment and in approving the Norway Vista preliminary plat, complied fully with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and acted reasonably and not arbitrarily and capriciously.

The dispositive and important issue presented in this appeal is the proper scope of judicial review applicable to a determination made pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), that because the government action in question would not significantly affect the quality of the environment, no environmental impact statement is required. Respondents King County Council and Woodside Corporation contend that the 'arbitrary or capricious' standard of review is correct, and, therefore, the Superior Court correctly reviewed the matter. Appellant Norway Hill Association, on the other hand, argues that county approval of the preliminary plat was 'a major action significantly affecting the environment' and, consequently, the Superior Court should have required an impact statement under a broader standard of review. As discussed below, we feel that determinations of no significant impact under SEPA, I.e., 'negative threshold determinations,' require a reasonably broad standard of review. We believe that in addition to the 'arbitrary or capricious' standard, the broader 'clearly erroneous' standard of review is appropriate. Furthermore, we find that the King County Council's determination that approval of the Norway Vista plat did not require an environmental impact statement was 'clearly erroneous.'

In deciding upon the proper scope of judicial review applicable to 'negative threshold determinations' made pursuant to SEPA, it is important to consider the broad public policy promoted by that act. Briefly stated, the procedural provisions of SEPA constitute an environmental full disclosure law. The act's procedures promote the policy of fully informed decision making by government bodies when undertaking 'major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.' See RCW 43.21C.010; RCW 43.21C.030. We have recognized that not all actions are 'major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment,' See Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 491, 513 P.2d 36 (1973), and we have also recognized that 'SEPA does not demand any particular substantive result in governmental decision making,' Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wash.2d 109, 118, 508 P.2d 166, 172 (1973); See Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., supra, 82 Wash.2d at 497 and n. 6, 513 P.2d 36. Yet it is clear that the most important aspect of SEPA is the consideration of environmental values.

In essence, what SEPA requires, is that the 'presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given Appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations.' RCW 43.21C.030(2)(b). It is an attempt by the people to shape their future environment by deliberation, not default.

(Italics ours.) Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, supra, 82 Wash.2d at 118, 508 P.2d at 172; See Loveless v. Yantis, 82 Wash.2d 754, 765, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973).

the basis upon which the responsible ronmental consideration is accomplished is the detailed environmental statement required by RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).

(The environmental impact statement) is the basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the balancing judgment mandated by SEPA between the benefits to be gained by the proposed 'major action' and its impact upon the environment.

Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. Kirkland, 9 Wash.App. 59, 68, 510 P.2d 1140, 1146 (1973).

In order to achieve this public policy it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared in all appropriate cases. As a result, the initial determination by the 'responsible official,' See RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), as to whether the action is a 'major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment' is very important. The policy of the act, which is simply to ensure via a 'detailed statement' the full disclosure of environmental information so that environmental matters can be given proper consideration during decision making, is thwarted whenever an incorrect 'threshold determination' is made. The determination that an action is not a 'major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment'...