Save a Valuable Environment (SAVE) v. City of Bothell
| Decision Date | 30 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 44505,44505 |
| Citation | 89 Wn.2d 862,576 P.2d 401 |
| Parties | , 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,379 SAVE A VALUABLE ENVIRONMENT (SAVE), a Washington non-profit Corporation, Respondent, v. The CITY OF BOTHELL, a Washington Municipal Corporation, William Schatz, Individually and as Mayor of Bothell, William Schatz, Richard Paynter, Andrew Paulin, Richard De Young, Phil Kienast, Sue Ann Walsh, Gary Burhop, Individually and as members of the Bothell City Council, Geoffrey Ethelston, Individually and as City Manager of Bothell, Defendant, Domenico Vitulli and Josephine Vitulli, his wife, Joe Vitulli, Joy Vitulli (Bellour), Masuo Yaguchi and Dorothy Yaguchi, his wife, Daniel Davies and Ethel Davies, his wife, Individually and d/b/a Bothell Farms Inc. and Robert Ellsworth, Appellants, Defendant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Hillis, Phillips, Cairncross, Clark & Martin, P.S., Jerome L. Hillis, Peter L. Buck, Susan R. Agid, Seattle, for appellant.
Hubbard & Burns, David Schnapf, Philip L. Carter, Kirkland, for respondent.
This appeal concerns the validity of a zoning ordinance of the City of Bothell, which rezones a The property which is the subject of the rezone, the Vitulli farm, is approximately 141 acres in North Creek Valley. It is located entirely within the city limits of Bothell. According to Bothell's 1971 comprehensive plan, the area is "Greenbelt/Agricultural." The farm was previously zoned for agricultural use. The parcel is bounded on the north by Snohomish County, which controls 80 percent of the land of North Creek Valley. Adjacent Snohomish County land is zoned for low-density residential use. Portions of the eastern and southern boundaries adjoin unincorporated King County land which is zoned for agricultural use. On the western boundary of the farm runs Interstate Highway 405; major interchanges are nearby.
parcel of farm land to permit construction of a major regional shopping center, and of the proceedings leading to its enactment. A judgment entered[576 P.2d 403] in King County Superior Court invalidated the ordinance on the grounds it constituted illegal spot zoning and the proceedings prior to its enactment violated the appearance of fairness. The trial court also held respondent non-profit corporation had standing to maintain the action. We affirm for reasons hereafter stated.
In 1973 the owners of the Vitulli farm applied for a rezone to permit the development of a major regional shopping center. During the ensuing months the proposal was considered extensively by Bothell's planning commission and City Council. Numerous public hearings and meetings were held, at which opinions from proponents and opponents of the rezone were voiced. The Bothell Chamber of Commerce voted to support the rezone and did so actively. Both the paid executive director of the Chamber, Ms. Dawson, and a member of its board of directors, Ms. Lovelace, were planning commission members. In September, 1974, the planning commission voted to approve the rezone and to supplement the city's comprehensive plan accordingly. The approval was conditioned on execution of Save a Valuable Environment (SAVE), a Washington non-profit corporation, was formed in November, 1974 for the declared purpose of working to maintain the quality of the living environment in the area of the Northshore School District in King and Snohomish counties. This area includes Bothell. SAVE's membership includes residents of Bothell as well as residents of King and Snohomish counties. Many reside in areas immediately adjoining the Vitulli farm. SAVE petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of certiorari to the City of Bothell to review the actions of the planning commission and the City Council, alleging that the rezone will have serious detrimental effects on both the environment and the economy of the area. The judgment entered after trial set aside the zoning action.
a concomitant agreement between the City and the property owners designed to ensure certain environmental safeguards. The City Council held more hearings and even submitted the proposal to the city voters on an advisory ballot proposition. The majority of voters supported the proposal. In February, 1975, the City passed Ordinance No. 754 rezoning the Vitulli farm property and supplementing the City's comprehensive plan, both subject to the execution of the Concomitant Zoning Agreement.
Three issues are raised by this appeal. First, does SAVE, a non-profit corporation, have standing to maintain an action to review a zoning ordinance through a writ of certiorari? Second, was this zoning action illegal spot zoning? Third, was the participation of Ms. Dawson and Ms. Lovelace on the planning commission a violation of the appearance of fairness?
We hold that a non-profit corporation may be a "beneficially interested" party with standing to seek review through a writ of certiorari under RCW 7.16.050, and SAVE does have standing in this case.
The question of standing presented here is whether it is appropriate for a non-profit corporation, an artificial creature of the law, to represent persons who are threatened with real injury in a legal action. Individuals with a common interest which they seek to further may choose any one of a number of forms through which to act in concert. For example, a labor union, an unincorporated association, may further their interests in their work place and represent those interests in legal actions. See Boilermakers Local 104 v. International Bhd. of Boilermakers, 33 Wash.2d 1, 203 P.2d 1019 (1949). The group of people comprising SAVE's membership have chosen the form of a non-profit corporation. The corporation, acting in a sense as their agent, hired an attorney to present their grievances to the City Council. Having suffered a threat of specific injury by the passage of the ordinance, they now seek to be represented through their corporation in a legal action to have the ordinance set aside.
The standing of a non-profit corporation to challenge government actions threatening environmental damage is firmly established in federal jurisprudence. A basic two-part test for determining whether a corporation has standing was set out in Data Processing Services v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152-53, 90 S.Ct. 827, 830, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). The first part of that test, that the interest sought to be protected be "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question," is easily met in environmental suits because of the abundance of laws affecting use of our natural resources. More troublesome for environmental groups has been the second part of the test, the requirement that the corporation allege the challenged action has caused "injury in fact," economic or otherwise. In practical terms, an organization must show that it or one of its members will be specifically and perceptibly harmed by the action. United States v. S. C. R. A. P., 412 U.S. 669, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). The standing of a non-profit corporation to assert its member's We agree that a non-profit corporation or association which shows that one or more of its members are specifically injured by a government action may represent those members in proceedings for judicial review. See Loveless v. Yantis, 82 Wash.2d 754, 758, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973), citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972) for the proposition that a property owners' association had a sufficiently direct interest to challenge administrative action. This rule is based on practical considerations. An individual who is one of many harmed by an action may be unable to afford the costs of challenging the action himself. A class suit may be too cumbersome. An association or non-profit corporation of persons with a common interest can then be the simplest vehicle for undertaking the task, and we see no reason to bar injured persons from this method of seeking a remedy. It is argued that a non-profit corporation without assets may be unable to pay costs assessed against it should it fail in its suit. The same can be said of any individual person, however. It is not We adopt the federal approach to the requirements of standing to gain review of this zoning action. We find SAVE has adequately alleged direct and specific harm to its members which would flow from the building of a shopping center near their homes in North Creek Valley.
rights, or to act as their representative when direct and specific injury to a member is alleged, was reaffirmed in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). It is interesting to note that federal cases do not distinguish between non-profit corporations and unincorporated associations in determining the standing question. See Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454 (D.D.C.1975). This lack of concern over the precise form of organization points to the courts' central concern that a specific and perceptible injury to a member of the organization be alleged. An organization whose interest is only speculative or indirect may not maintain an action. Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 514, 95 S.Ct. 2197. 1 appropriate to bar an injured party from a judicial remedy simply because that party does not have assets.
The central substantive issue presented by this case is whether the action of the City of Bothell in rezoning the Vitulli farm was arbitrary and capricious, constituting illegal spot zoning. The trial court found the rezone could be of benefit to the people of Bothell and the action therefore not arbitrary and capricious. Looking at the issue in the context of the larger community to be affected, however, including North Creek Valley residents outside the city limits, the court found the action would be detrimental and was illegal spot zoning.
The crux of the problem is that construction of a major...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens Cnty. v. Stevens Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
... ... Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake , 150 Wash.2d 791, 802, 83 P.3d ... , 83 P.3d 419 (citation omitted) (quoting Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell , 89 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Wash. Bankers Ass'n v. State
... ... Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle , 160 Wash.2d 32, 39, 156 P.3d 185 ... (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell , 89 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Chelan Basin Conservancy v. GBI Holding Co.
... ... GBI HOLDING CO., State of Washington, and City of Chelan, Respondents, and Chelan County Public ... , it must allege an " 'injury in fact.' " Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell, 89 Wash.2d ... 41 Injury to the aesthetic appeal and environment of an area is sufficient to support standing if ... ...
-
Conservancy v. Gbi Holding Co.
... ... GBI HOLDING CO., State of Washington, and City of Chelan, Respondents, and Chelan County Public ... , it must allege an "`injury in fact.'" Save a Valuable Env't (SAVE) v. City of Bothell, 89 ... 45 Injury to the aesthetic appeal and environment of an area is sufficient to support standing if ... ...
-
The Centrality of Exclusion: Legal Impediments to Keeping 'Undesirable' People and Uses Out of the Community
...interesting wrinkle was added by the Supreme Court of Washington in Save a Valuable Environment v. City of Bothell, 89 Wash. 2d 862, 871, 576 P.2d 401, 406 (1978), a challenge mounted by a nonprofit group against the rezoning of farmland for a major regional shopping center. The court noted......
-
What Ever Happened to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine? Local Land Use Decisions in an Age of Statutory Process
...Wash. 2d 416, 526 P.2d 897 (1974); Swift v. Island County, 87 Wash. 2d 348, 552 P.2d 175 (1976); SAVE v. City of Bothell, 89 Wash. 2d 862, 576 P.2d 401 6. See, e.g., Chicago, Milwaukee, St. P. and Pac. R.R. v. Washington State Human Rights Comm'n, 87 Wash. 2d 802, 557 P.2d 307 (1976) (emplo......
-
§ 21.3 Prerequisites to Obtaining Judicial Review
...(state fruit commission had standing to challenge another state's protectionist statute); Save a Valuable Env't (SAVE) v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 867-68, 576 P.2d 401 (1978) (neighborhood association had standing to challenge a zoning action); Wash. Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Utils. & Tran......
-
Table of Cases
...(SANE) v. City of Seattle, 101 Wn.2d 280, 676 P.2d 1006 (1984): 15.3(5), 15.5, 16.3(12) Save a Valuable Env't (SAVE) v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 576 P.2d 401 (1978): 15.3(3), 16.3(7) Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish Cnty., 99 Wn.2d 363, 662 P.2d 816 (1983): 4.1(1), 9.4(10) Schneider ......