Victoria Tower Partnership v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 13 November 1990
• Docket Number: No. 25459-6-I,25459-6-I
• Citation: 59 Wn.App. 592,800 P.2d 380
• Parties: VICTORIA TOWER PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation; United South Slope Residents; St. Anne's Parents Club and Reverend John Horan, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 592

59 Wn.App. 592

800 P.2d 380

VICTORIA TOWER PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation; United South Slope Residents; St. Anne's Parents Club and Reverend John Horan, Respondents.

No. 25459-6-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington Division 1.

Nov. 13, 1990.

Richard Hill, Michael Vaska, Seattle, for Victoria Tower Partnership

J. Richard Aramburu, Seattle, for City of Seattle.

Ray Siderius, Seattle, for St. Anne's Parents Club & Reverend John Horan.

Thomas A. Goeltz, Lonny E. Townsend, Miriam Reed, Seattle, for United South Slope Residents.

FORREST, Judge.

Victoria Tower Partnership (VTP) appeals from the trial court's partial summary judgment dismissing VTP's appeal from the Seattle City Council's denial of a proposed 16-story apartment building project. We affirm.

VTP owns a 51-unit apartment building at 100 West Highland Drive on Queen Anne Hill in Seattle. The building is three stories tall on the north and four stories tall on the south. The area surrounding the building is mainly a mixture of single family homes and low to mid-rise apartment buildings. The tallest building in the vicinity, a nine-story condominium building, is immediately downhill from VTP's property.

On August 8, 1980, VTP applied for a permit to add a 16-story tower to its building. The tower would consist of 65 units and 11 two-story town houses. Its projected height was 174 feet; the zoning for the property permits a maximum height of 239 feet. On January 28, 1981, Seattle's Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) issued a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and on June 25, 1982, it issued a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) which incorporated the DEIS.

On October 19, 1982, the DCLU director approved the proposal. Although he found that the tower would be inconsistent with the neighborhood scale, he concluded that this inconsistency could not be a basis for mitigation or denial because the tower conformed to the zoning code and because Seattle's multi-family housing policies, which were inconsistent with the project, had not yet been adopted when VTP filed its permit application. On review, the hearing examiner and the Seattle City Council rejected this reasoning, concluding that the director should have considered the multi-family housing policies and other environmental considerations pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.

On remand, the DCLU director denied the permit application because the project's incompatibility with the neighborhood scale conflicted with the multi-family housing policies. He also concluded that this adverse effect could not be mitigated because a lower tower would not be economically feasible. The hearing examiner affirmed this decision. The City Council agreed with most of the director's reasoning but concluded that the adverse effects of the project's height could be mitigated by limiting the tower to eight stories. The City Council approved the permit application on this condition. The superior court affirmed the Council's decision.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that reliance on Seattle's multi-family housing policies violated the vested rights doctrine. ¹ The court remanded the matter to the City Council to reconsider its decision without reference to those policies. ² On remand, the City Council reaffirmed its VTP again sought review in the superior court, challenging the legality of the City Council's decision under SEPA, asserting claims for damages due to regulatory taking and violation of substantive due process, and seeking injunctive relief. Pursuant to an agreed order, the trial court bifurcated the SEPA claims from the damage claims. The court heard the SEPA claims first and dismissed them. It found no just reason for delay and entered final judgment on those claims. VTP appeals the trial court decision.

                decision by relying upon a document entitled "Seattle's Growth Policies."   This document was adopted by the Council in a resolution on May 23, 1977.   Growth Policy 1 directs new residential units to areas where their addition will not threaten "the existing character of neighborhoods."   The City Council concluded that this policy alone justified limiting the height of VTP's project
                

AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER SEPA

This appeal presents one primary issue: did the City Council erroneously use the Growth Policies to override the more specific height provisions of the zoning code when Growth Policy 1 was not specifically identified as relevant in the environmental impact statements?

The "clearly erroneous" standard of review is appropriate for substantive decisions based on SEPA. ³ Under this standard, the court does not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body and may find the decision "clearly erroneous" only when it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. ⁴ The court is to examine the entire record and all There is no longer any question that SEPA policies can restrict projects otherwise permitted under zoning regulations. ⁷ SEPA provides that any governmental action may be conditioned or denied based on adverse environmental impacts disclosed in an EIS. Such decisions must be based on:

                the evidence to determine whether the decision appealed should be affirmed. 5  Here, VTP contends that the City Council erred in relying on Growth Policy 1.   This actually presents two separate issues:  the legal issue of whether the City Council had authority to consider the growth policy in evaluating projects permitted by the zoning ordinance and, secondly, whether the City Council's application of the policy to this project was clearly erroneous.   Whether an administrative or local legislative body has authority to consider a statute or a policy is a question of law. 6  We first consider the legal question posed and, in a subsequent section, we examine whether application of Growth Policy 1 was clearly erroneous
                

policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes which are formally designated by the agency (or appropriate legislative body, in the case of local government) as possible bases for the exercise of authority ...

RCW 43.21C.060.

VTP correctly notes that the Growth Policies, when adopted, were to become part of a comprehensive plan. ⁸ Citing Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County, supra, it argues that the City Council improperly relied upon the Growth Policies, likening them to a comprehensive plan and arguing that the King County Zoning Code, which would permit construction of VTP's 16-story project, overrides the King County Comprehensive Plan and, hence, the Growth Policies.

VTP's reliance on Cougar Mountain is misplaced. In Cougar Mountain, the court recited the rule that zoning ordinances control conflicting provisions of a comprehensive plan. ⁹ It immediately held, however, that the subdivision application "complied with the relevant zoning requirements and should not have been denied on the basis of density guides in the Comprehensive Plan." Cougar Mountain, 111 Wash.2d at 757, 765 P.2d 264. (Emphasis added.) ¹⁰ Hence, the zoning ordinance prevailed over only a portion of the comprehensiveplan. The Court also held, however, that SEPA policies permit mitigation or denial of a project which complies with the zoning code. Having decided that the King County VTP implicitly suggests that the Growth Policies lost their separate identity if and when they were made part of Seattle's comprehensive plan. This claim, however, is unpersuasive. Indeed, a contrary decision would frustrate application of SEPA. Once adopted, the Growth Policies provided a basis on which to exercise SEPA authority. SEPA bestows broad powers and is to be given a vigorous construction. ¹³ The policies and goals of SEPA supplement the existing authority of all government agencies and give officials the discretion to deny projects based on negative As the court explained in West Main, 49 Wash.App. at 525, 742 P.2d 1266:

                Council's denial of the project was not sufficiently specific to meet statutory requirements, the Court directed the Council to further evaluate the proposal for compliance with SEPA. 11  Unlike the County Council in Cougar Mountain, the City Council did specify the policies upon which it relied to deny VTP's project, did offer mitigation, and did identify the specific adverse impacts.  Cougar Mountain does not modify the rule that SEPA "overlays local ordinances and must be enforced even where a particular use is allowed by local law or policy."  Cook v. Clallam Cy., 27 Wash.App. 410, 415, 618 P.2d 1030 (1980), review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1008 (1981).   The remaining authorities relied upon by VTP do not hold that SEPA cannot be applied to deny projects otherwise permitted by zoning regulations. 12
                environmental impacts disclosed by an EIS. 14  The Growth Policies are a distinct part of Seattle's comprehensive plan, which is a general statement of purpose or policy providing a broad guide for development. 15
                

[T]he SEPA standards or policies are not "elevated" above specific zoning ordinances, but rather they provide general guidance for determining whether the environmental impacts of an otherwise acceptable project require the denial of, or the imposition of conditions on, the project. In this regard, our courts have repeatedly stated that SEPA is not a substitute for local zoning ordinances, but "overlays local ordinances and must be enforced even where a particular use is allowed by local law or policy." Cook v. Clallam Cy., 27 Wn.App. 410, 415, 618 P.2d 1030 (1980), review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1008 (1981); West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 53, 720 P.2d 782 (1986); Polygon, [90 Wash.2d] at 65 ; RCW 43.21C.060.

The Growth Policies were available to the City Council as an independent basis on which to exercise SEPA...