Process v. Tent City 4
Decision Date | 01 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 63504-2-I.,63504-2-I. |
Citation | 232 P.3d 1163,156 Wash.App. 393 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | MERCER ISLAND CITIZENS FOR FAIR PROCESS, Appellant,v.TENT CITY 4, an unicorporated Washington association; Share/Wheel, an advocacy organization comprised of the Seattle Housing and Resource Effort (“SHARE”) and the Women's Housing Equality and Enhancement League (“WHEEL”), a Washington non-profit corporation; Mercer Island United Methodist Church, a Washington non-profit corporation, and the City of Mercer Island, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondents. |
Jane Ryan Koler, Law Office of Jane Ryan Koler PLLC, Gig Harbor, WA, for Appellant.
Kathleen H. Knight, City of Mercer Island, WA, Michael Charles Walter, Keating Bucklin McCormack Inc. PS, Seattle, WA, for Respondent, City of Mercer Island.
Ted Paul Hunter, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, Sean Adam Russel, Stokes Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore, Yakima, WA, for Respondent, Share Wheel.
Ted Paul Hunter, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, Mark. F. Rising, Helsell Fetterman LLP, Seattle, WA, for Respondent, United Methodist Church.
¶ 1 The failure to timely challenge a land use decision by means of a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) 1 petition bars any further claims challenging that decision, including challenges to the process for approving that decision. Here, the city's approval of a temporary use agreement that permitted a church to use its property to host a homeless encampment was a land use decision within the meaning of LUPA because it was a decision on the church's application for government approval required by law of a property use. Thus, the plaintiff's failure to challenge that decision in a timely LUPA petition bars its due process claims, including its claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, because those claims are simply challenges to the approval of the temporary use agreement. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 2 In the spring of 2006, the Mercer Island Clergy Association (MICA) approached the city of Mercer Island (City) about allowing a church to host “Tent City 4,” a homeless encampment. Tent City 4 was organized and managed by a non-profit organization comprised of the Seattle Housing and Resource Effort and the Women's Housing Equality and Enhancement League (SHARE/WHEEL). Over the next two years, the City, MICA, and SHARE/WHEEL explored options for hosting Tent City 4.
¶ 3 In the spring of 2007, MICA announced its intent to have the Mercer Island United Methodist Church host the encampment. The church is located in a single-family residential zone. The Mercer Island City Code (MICC) does not permit such temporary encampments in a single family residential area.2
¶ 4 The City acknowledged that the present code did not authorize such an encampment, but based on past litigation in other municipalities over similar church-sponsored homeless encampments, the City determined it was unlikely to prevent the church from hosting the Tent City 4 encampment. Rather than passing an ordinance authorizing the encampment and amending the city code as other municipalities had done, the City decided instead to enter into a binding “Temporary Use Agreement” (TUA), that would permit the church to host Tent City 4 and would ensure that all city code and regulatory requirements would be met.
¶ 5 In May 2008, MICA leadership invited city staff to meet with a newly-appointed Tent City 4 subcommittee and the pastor of the church. At that meeting, city staff discussed the specific terms of the proposed TUA. Over the next two weeks, the City drafted the TUA, which was signed by representatives of the church and SHARE/WHEEL.
¶ 6 On June 11, 2008, notice of a city council meeting to be held on June 16, 2008 was published in the newspaper The Mercer Island Reporter and noted that the council would consider the TUA. The agenda for the meeting was also posted on the city's website and included the council's consideration of the TUA. On June 16, 2008, the meeting was held and approximately 26 people testified about the TUA. The council then unanimously approved the TUA.
¶ 7 The TUA permitted the church to invite Tent City 4 to operate its homeless encampment on church property beginning August 5, 2008 for a period of up to 93 days. The TUA acknowledged that “[c]ourt decisions hold that a church sponsoring a Temporary Homeless Encampment on its own property constitutes protected religious expression,” and that “[t]he [MICC] does not anticipate a Temporary Homeless Encampment such as that operated by SHARE/WHEEL, and none of the city's regulations or administrative procedures address this special use.” The TUA then set forth a number of conditions on the encampment such as visual buffers, lighting, maximum number of residents, warrant and sex offender status checks on residents, parking, code of conduct, and compliance with state and city codes. The TUA also provided for notice and permit requirements before opening an encampment.
¶ 8 On July 10, 2008, a citizens group, Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process (group), filed a complaint against the City, church, and SHARE/WHEEL and challenged the TUA, seeking an injunction and temporary restraining order. The group also asserted claims alleging due process violations, nuisance, and violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The court held a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order on July 28, 2009, and denied the motion on August 4, 2008, the day before the Tent City 4 encampment was scheduled to open on church property. The group did not appeal the court's denial of the temporary restraining order.
¶ 9 On August 28, 2008, the City moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the group's remaining claims.3 The City contended that the claims should have been asserted in a LUPA petition and that the 21-day limitation period for filing a LUPA claim had passed. The trial court granted the City's motion, dismissed the group's claims, and denied the group's cross-motion for summary judgment. The group appeals.
¶ 10 The group first contends that the TUA was not a land use decision and therefore the limitation period for challenging land use decisions under LUPA does not apply to bar its claims. We disagree.
(a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and similar types of public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area-wide rezones and annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses;
¶ 13 A land use decision becomes unreviewable by the courts if not appealed to the superior court within LUPA's specified 21-day timeline. 8 Once the 21-day period passes, a land use decision becomes final and binding and is deemed valid and lawful.9 Thus, “even illegal decisions must be challenged in a timely, appropriate manner.” 10
¶ 14 The group contends that the TUA is not a land use decision because it does not fall within any of the categories specified in RCW 36.70C.020(2). The group first contends that the TUA is not “a project permit or other governmental approval required by law” under subsection (2)(a) because no city law authorized or described the temporary property use. The group notes that in fact the city code prohibits such temporary uses and provides that initial land use decisions are made by code officials, the planning commission, or the city hearing examiner, not the city council.
¶ 15 The City contends that the TUA amounts to “other governmental approval required by law” because it was the result of the church's request that the City approve its use of its property to host Tent City 4. The group argues that such approval was not required-and in fact prohibited-by the city code, but as the City contends, it is required by state law. In City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, the court held that the city's refusal to process a permit to allow a church to host a Tent City encampment “substantially burden[ed] the free exercise of the Church's religious ‘sentiment, belief [or] worship,’ ” and recognized that the cities have authority to address impacts and “externalities” resulting from such homeless encampments.11 Additionally, as recognized in the TUA's recitals, the City approved the TUA to protect the welfare of Mercer Island citizens as required by law:
G. The City of Mercer Island, its elected and appointed officials are committed to protect the health, safety and well-being of its citizens,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of Marysville
...Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784, 133 P.3d 475, 483 (2006), as amended (Apr. 4, 2006); Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, 156 Wash.App. 393, 232 P.3d 1163, 1168 (2010). The Washington Supreme Court, however, has expressly declined to decide “whether LUPA's procedu......
-
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
...Process v. Tent City 4 involved a challenge by a group attempting to undo the grant of a temporary use permit (TUA). 156 Wash.App. 393, 395–96, 232 P.3d 1163 (2010). The court noted that the claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 depended on the invalidity of the permit. The failure to p......
-
Blomenkamp v. City of Edmonds
...and the City.35 Our case law "recognizes[ ] claims for damages based on a LUPA claim must be dismissed if the LUPA claim fails."36 In Mercer Island, the court explained that because all of the petitioner's claims challenged the validity of the land use decision at issue "and were therefore ......
-
Congdon v. Island Cnty.
...An unappealed land use decision "becomes final and binding and is deemed valid and lawful." Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, 156 Wn. App. 393, 399, 232 P.3d 1163 (2010). Accordingly, "even illegal decisions must be challenged in a timely, appropriate manner." Mercer I......
-
No Direction Home: Constitutional Limitations on Washington's Homeless Encampment Ordinances
...1. 166 Wash. 2d 633, 211 P.3d 406 (2009). 2. See, e.g., Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, 156 Wash. App. 393, 400, 232 P.3d 1163, 1167 (2010). This is the most recent Washington appellate case involving homeless encampments. Though the court decided the case on statuto......
-
Chapter § 21.4 Administrative Actions Eligible for Judicial Review
...on a LUPA claim must be dismissed if the LUPA claim fails. Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City, 156 Wn. App. 393, 405, 232 P.3d 1163 (2010) (citing Asche, 132 Wn. App. at 800, in which a damages claim separate from land use petition was dismissed, and Shaw v. City of Des Mo......
-
Chapter § 21.5 Filing and Service Requirements for Initiating Judicial Review Proceedings and Cross Appeals
...Due Process Clause. Asche, 132 Wn.App. at 797-99; accord Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City, 156 Wn.App. 393, 102-03, 232 P.3d 1163 (2010) (failure to timely challenge a land use decision in a use petition bars any claims based on challenges to that land use decision, incl......
-
Chapter § 17.3 Claims Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
...as a condition to asserting a damage claim under §1983. Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, 156 Wn. App. 393, 232 P.3d 1163 (2010) (failing to file LUPA petition bars claims based on alleged constitutional violations asserted under §1983); see also James v. Kitsap Cnty.,......