SUNDERLAND FAMILY TREATMENT v. City of Pasco
| Decision Date | 03 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 18951-1-III.,18951-1-III. |
| Citation | 107 Wash.App. 109,26 P.3d 955 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SUNDERLAND FAMILY TREATMENT SERVICES, a Washington non-profit corporation, Respondent, v. CITY OF PASCO, a Washington municipal corporation, Appellant. |
Greg A. Rubstello, Ogden, Murphy, Wallace PLLC, Seattle, for Appellant.
Timothy G. Klashke, Pasco, for Respondent.
The City of Pasco denied Sunderland Family Treatment Services' application for a special use permit to operate a group care facility for handicapped youth in a residential area. Sunderland filed a Land-Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition. On appeal to the superior court, the court concluded that the City's denial of the special use permit constituted an erroneous interpretation of the law violating the Washington Housing Policy Act (WHPA), the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. On appeal to this court, we address whether the City's regulatory scheme violated the WHPA. We conclude that it did and reverse the City's land use decision.
Sunderland I. In March 1993, Sunderland Family Treatment Services applied to the City for a special use permit (SUP) to operate a youth crisis residential center in a Sunderland-owned residence located in an R-1 zoning district. This crisis residential center was to be operated under RCW 74.13.032. The City denied the application for the SUP, but the Franklin County Superior Court reversed, concluding that the City's denial constituted handicap discrimination under the WHPA, RCW 35A.63.240. Sunderland sought and received direct review by the Washington Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, Sunderland, a nonprofit community mental health agency, lost funding for the crisis residential center. Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 127 Wash.2d 782, 787, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (Sunderland I). Sunderland informed the court of the loss of funding and explained that funding from a different source had been obtained to operate the facility. Id.
In Sunderland I, the court considered whether the planned population of the Sunderland crisis residential center—abused and neglected children—were handicapped under the WHPA. Id. at 789, 903 P.2d 986. The court determined that the children to be served by the Sunderland facility were not handicapped and, consequently, the WHPA was inapplicable. Id. at 791-92, 798, 903 P.2d 986. However, the court also found that the City's denial appeared to rest on neighborhood opposition to the facility. Id. at 797, 903 P.2d 986. Hence, the court concluded that the denial of the SUP was not based on competent and substantial evidence. Id. Because of the loss in funding and the failure of either Sunderland or the City to create a sufficient record, the court remanded the matter to the City for further proceedings. Id. at 798, 903 P.2d 986.
Amended SUP Application. On remand, Sunderland amended its SUP application, explaining that the application was essentially the same as the initial application but that the proposed facility would now be used to house youths ages 12-17 with a diagnosed mental impairment. These children would be referred through mental health professionals and would have a diagnosed mental illness requiring a group setting with 24-hour professional staff supervision as part of a proscribed treatment plan. The proposed group home would operate under state licensing standards to serve the residential needs of seriously and severely disturbed minor children. The children would be prescreened and preassessed for placement in the home by a mental health professional pursuant to the provisions and criteria contained in chapter 71.24 RCW, chapter 71.34 RCW, WAC 275-57, and WAC 388-73. Children who posed a danger to themselves or others would not be eligible for admission to the facility; neither would children actively using drugs or alcohol, or children with pending criminal charges.
Under the applicable state regulations, the proposed home would be required to maintain a one-to-four ratio of staff to children, and a staff person with a bachelor degree would be required to be on site at all times. As a result, the proposed home would operate with at least three staff people on duty. Testimony indicated that there would usually be two staff people coming and going every eight hours.
The primary use of the house would be residential, as the children would be transported off site to school, counseling, and treatment. Children residing in the home would most likely stay for a period of six to nine months. While in the home, the children would live in a very structured environment and would not be permitted to have friends visit. The proposed home would have to meet higher supervision requirements than those imposed on a foster family home. The type of service offered by the proposed home is not currently available in either Franklin or Benton Counties other than as part of an inpatient stay at Carondelet Psychiatric Care Facility.
The location of the proposed group home is property located within an R-1 single-family, low density residential zoning district designated in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) as the City's "Low Density Residential District." The property is developed with a residential structure that is currently vacant. The proposed group home would not require any physical alterations to its exterior and would appear physically indistinguishable from other single-family homes in the area. The properties surrounding the site are similarly zoned R-1. There are single-family residential dwellings to the east, south and north of the proposed group home. The Joyce Apartments are located directly to the west.
After holding a public hearing, the Pasco Planning Commission recommended approval of the SUP with 14 conditions. Despite this recommendation, the city council held a second hearing and issued a decision denying approval. At both proceedings, Sunderland contended that the City had no authority to require the SUP proceeding. Nonetheless, the City apparently took the position that a SUP proceeding was required because the proposed group home was either a "group care facility" or a "community service facility" as defined by PMC 22.12.385 and PMC 22.12.215. Significantly, the City's determination that Sunderland must apply for a SUP prevented Sunderland from taking immediate occupancy of the home and operating the home as a group care facility.
When evaluating Sunderland's application for a SUP, the City applied the home occupation ordinance that was designed to determine whether "the conduct of business may be permitted as a use accessory to an established residence." PMC 22.35.010. In denying Sunderland's application for a SUP, the City applied the environmental standards contained in PMC 22.35.050, which require that all home occupations be:
(1) clearly subordinate to the principal use of the property for residential purposes; (2) conducted by persons residing within the dwelling unit upon the premises; and (3) an occupation that does not require the customer or client to be present upon the premises while the profession, trade, skill or services are performed. The City based its denial of the SUP on the conclusions that (1) the nature and intensity of the use was not subordinate to the principal permitted use of the property, and (2) the proposed use was not in harmony with the existing residential development in the neighborhood.
Sunderland appealed to the superior court by filing a LUPA petition. Sunderland alleged the children who would reside in the home were legally "handicapped" and that the WHPA and/or the FHA prevented the City from denying Sunderland's right to operate the proposed home. Additionally, Sunderland reserved the right to subsequently file and pursue claims for monetary damages against the City in an independent action for damages pursuant to the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (chapter 49.60 RCW), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The superior court concluded the City's denial of the SUP constituted an erroneous interpretation of law violating the anti-handicap discrimination provisions in the WHPA, the FHA, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The superior court also concluded that the City's land use decision (1) was not supported by factual evidence that was substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; (2) was clearly an erroneous application of the law to the facts; (3) was not supported by sufficient factual evidence; and (4) violated constitutional rights, and was arbitrary and capricious in that it constituted willful and unreasonable action taken in disregard of the relevant facts and circumstances. The court further concluded that the denial of the SUP constituted a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts.
Accordingly, the superior court reversed the City's land use decision and found that "as a matter of law, Sunderland is and shall be entitled to immediately occupy and operate the proposed Home at the proposed location as a matter of right and without the need or requirement of a SUP or any other authorization or approval of or by the City." Clerk's Papers at 40.
The City appeals contending its decision to deny Sunderland's application for a SUP was not erroneous and was supported by sufficient evidence. The City also contends the superior court erred by failing to grant the City's motions to dismiss under CR 41(b) and CR 41(b)(1).
Motion to Dismiss. The City first contends the trial court erred by failing to grant its motion to dismiss under CR 41(b) or CR 41(b)(1). This court cannot review the denial of the CR 41(b) motion because the City has failed to provide a report of proceedings of the court's hearing on the CR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 02-CV-711.
...Inn v. Howard County, 911 F.Supp. 918, 928 (D.Md.1996), aff'd, 124 F.3d 597 (4th Cir.1997); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wash.App. 109, 26 P.3d 955, 960 (2001). 40. United States v. City of Philadelphia, 838 F.Supp. 223, 229-230 (E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd without op., ......
-
Wagner v. City of University Place, No. 26896-5-II (WA 10/19/2004)
...324. 14. Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 693, 49 P.3d 860 (2002); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wn. App. 109, 117, 26 P.3d 955 (2001); Overhulse Neighborhood Ass'n v. Thurston County, 94 Wn. App. 593, 596-97, 972 P.2d 470 (1999); cf. Ch......
-
Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 70659-0.
...a party seeks judicial review by asking the superior court to exercise appellate jurisdiction." Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wash.App. 109, 117, 26 P.3d 955 (2001). When reviewing the underlying administrative decision, this Court "stands in the same position as ......
-
Brown v. City of Seattle
...reviewed de novo. City of University Place v. McGuire, 144 Wash.2d 640, 647, 30 P.3d 453 (2001); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wash.App. 109, 117, 26 P.3d 955 (2001); Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wash.2d 621, 627, 869 P.2d 1034 I......
-
Table of Cases
...review denied, 128 Wn.2d 1008 (1996): 17.4(1)(a), 17.4(1)(b) Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wn. App. 109, 26 P.3d 955 (2001): 16.2(1), 16.3(13) Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995): 13.3(2) Suquamish Indian Tribe v......
-
§ 16.3 - Litigation Under the Land Use Petition Act
...v. City of Seattle, 71 Wn. App. 367, 376, 859 P.2d 610 (1993); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wn. App. 109, 117, 26 P.3d 955 (2001). Conclusions of law rendered by the local government decision maker also are reviewed de novo. United Dev. Corp. v. City of Mill Cree......
-
§ 16.2 - Appeal Remedies Available
...at a trial for damages or compensation. RCW 36.70C.030(1)(c); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wn. App. 109, 117, 26 P.3d 955 (2001). Normally, the LUPA proceeding would be bifurcated and heard first. Prevailing on LUPA claims may be a predicate to claims for damages......