Sshi LLC v. City of Olympia
| Decision Date | 24 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 43300-1-II,43300-1-II |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SSHI LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, dba DR Horton, Appellant, v. CITY OF OLYMPIA, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent, OLYMPIA SAFE STREETS CAMPAIGN, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Intervenor. |
JOHANSON, J. — Developer DR Horton appeals from the trial court's order dismissing DR Horton's land use petition that challenged the city of Olympia's (City) denial of DR Horton's master plan application; it also appeals the trial court's final judgment dismissing all of DR Horton's claims against the City. DR Horton had planned to build the densely populated Trillium neighborhood village in Olympia. The Olympia City Council (Council) denied the Trillium master plan because the master plan failed to comply with the City's transit requirements; the Council also concluded that the administrative record was inadequate to determine whether the master plan was consistent with City policies involving school sites andcapacity as well as pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. DR Horton appeals the trial court order affirming the Council's decision, arguing that the Council erred in (1) denying the Trillium master plan due to the plan's failure to satisfy transit requirements, (2) reserving for the future its decision regarding placement of a school site, and (3) determining that DR Horton provided inadequate evidence to demonstrate that the Trillium master plan was consistent with the City's pedestrian and bicycle connectivity requirements. Intervenor Olympia Safe Streets Campaign (OSSC) argues that we should affirm the Council's determination that Trillium did not satisfy connectivity requirements.
We conclude that DR Horton does not demonstrate that the Council erred. Accordingly, we affirm the Council's administrative denial of DR Horton's Master Plan application and, in turn, the trial court's dismissal of DR Horton's land use petition. We also award attorney fees to the City and OSSC as prevailing parties on appeal.
Trillium is DR Horton's proposed 80-acre Olympia development that would include approximately 300 single-family homes and 200 multifamily units. In 1994, the City, under its municipal code and comprehensive plan, zoned and designated the Trillium site as a "Neighborhood Village." Administrative Record (AR) at 5844-46. Builders must develop neighborhood villages as "master planned developments" and comply with a variety of regulations. AR at 5845.
In 2010, the City planning staff recommended approval of the Trillium proposal to the hearing examiner. At hearings held in June and July 2010, the hearing examiner considered evidence from individuals, including representatives from OSSC, that the Trillium proposalfailed to comply with the City code and comprehensive plan because of outsized blocks, lack of bicycle/pedestrian lanes, inadequate local schools, and the absence of required public transit.
The hearing examiner asked Intercity Transit for information regarding existing and anticipated bus routes that would serve Trillium. Intercity Transit's planning manager confirmed that there was no existing transit service to the Trillium site, that the nearest existing stop was at least .38 miles away, and that it did not anticipate adding fixed route service to Trillium until the City extended Log Cabin Road, an event without a timetable.
In October 2010, the hearing examiner recommended that the Council deny the Trillium master plan based on its failure to satisfy City code transit requirements and its failure to comply with comprehensive plan policies regarding public transit, school capacity, block size and street spacing, and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. The hearing examiner found that transit service would "reach Trillium only at some indefinite and undetermined point in the future," and he acknowledged that code requirements and comprehensive plan policies could be satisfied if regular bus service to Trillium were certain at some stage in the development's growth. AR at 5950. But he ultimately found that the master plan did not meet the transit requirement because the evidence demonstrated that such service depended on "unpredictable contingencies." AR at 5952.
In November 2010, DR Horton and the City planning department filed reconsideration motions with the hearing examiner. In April 2011, the hearing examiner issued his recommendation, determining that the Trillium master plan was no longer inconsistent with the City code's connectivity requirements. He also rescinded his previous findings and conclusions concerning school capacity after hearing testimony regarding an enrollment decrease in Olympiaelementary schools. Regardless, he again recommended denying the Trillium master plan because of its failure to comply with public transit requirements.
In June and July 2011, the Council considered the hearing examiner's recommendations. The Council, in passing Ordinance No. 6762, reviewed the parties' written submissions and heard several oral presentations before voting to adopt the hearing examiner's recommended denial of the Trillium master plan. The Council noted that the high-density neighborhood envisioned for a neighborhood village relied on public transit availability.
The Council adopted all of the hearing examiner's findings and almost all of his conclusions regarding bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. After performing its own review, however, the Council concluded that the record was inadequate to determine that Trillium's master plan proposal satisfied neighborhood village connectivity requirements under the municipal code or comprehensive plan. The Council also found the record inadequate to determine whether Trillium was consistent with the comprehensive plan involving school sites.
In August 2011, DR Horton filed a land use petition and complaint for damages against the City, challenging the Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 6762. That same month, OSSC petitioned the trial court to intervene as a party plaintiff on the connectivity issue, and, in September, the trial court granted OSSC intervenor status based on the parties' stipulation. In March and June 2012, the trial court issued orders dismissing all claims related to DR Horton's land use petition. DR Horton now appeals the trial court's March and June 2012 orders.
DR Horton first claims that the Council erred in denying the Trillium master plan because the Council based its decision on unwritten and undefined requirements that Intercity Transit provide fixed route transit service to Trillium. Specifically, DR Horton argues that (1) the Council misapplied its zoning requirements because the City code requires nothing more than a sheltered transit stop, (2) the City lacks public transit concurrency standards, (3) the Council has never required fixed-bus service as a condition for master plan approval, (4) the Council erred in evaluating the Trillium master plan for consistency with the comprehensive plan, (5) the Council's denial was unlawfully vague and impossible to meet, and (6) the Council's denial amounted to an unconstitutional taking of DR Horton's property and deprived DR Horton of substantive due process. Because the Council is entitled to considerable deference in its construction of its ordinances, we hold that DR Horton failed to demonstrate that the Council erred in applying its ordinances and denying the Trillium master plan.
Under the Land Use Petition Act1 (LUPA), we stand in the same position as the trial court in reviewing a land use decision, Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). A LUPA petitioner must demonstrate error under one of six standards for relief:
RCW 36.70C.130(1). The standards described in subsections (a), (b), (e), and (f) present questions of law that we review de novo. Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820, 828, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011). The substantial evidence standard in subsection (c) requires a "sufficient quantum of evidence" in the record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true when viewed in light of the whole record, after drawing inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the decision by the highest forum exercising fact-finding authority. Phoenix Dev., Inc., 171 Wn.2d at 831. And under subsection (d), a finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Phoenix Dev., Inc., 171 Wn.2d at 829.
We construe municipal ordinances according to statutory construction rules. Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle, Exec. Servs. Dep't, 160 Wn.2d 32, 41, 156 P.3d 185 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1180 (2008). Where a statute is clear on its face, we derive its plain meaning from the statute's language alone. Ford Motor Co., 160 Wn.2d at 41. We perform statutory construction to effect the legislative intent and purpose in creating ...
To continue reading
Request your trial