Opinion ID: 2351097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Knight's LUPA petition

Text: ¶ 7 Pursuant to LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW, Knight filed a land use petition in Thurston County Superior Court challenging the City's preliminary plat approval. Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property. Additionally, Knight alleged she has DOE-approved senior water rights that would be directly and adversely affected by the City's approval of the preliminary plats. Section 7 of Knight's petition, entitled A Separate and Concise Statement of Each Error Alleged to Have Been Committed, contained 10 assignments of error, but did not assign error to the City Council's conclusion that she lacked standing under municipal code to appeal the hearing examiner's decision. ¶ 8 Knight asked the superior court to reverse the preliminary plat approval, claiming (1) that a finding of appropriate water provisions at the preliminary plat approval stage required the City to condition approval on a determination of adequate water supply at final plat approval stage rather than at the building permit stage and (2) that a determination of adequate water supply at the final plat approval stage must be based on sufficient DOE-approved water rights held by the City to serve all approved development. ¶ 9 Tahoma Terra and the City filed motions to dismiss Knight's appeal, arguing that she lacked standing under LUPA and that her failure to assign error to the City Council's finding she lacked standing divested the superior court of jurisdiction. The superior court denied the motions to dismiss and later denied Tahoma Terra and the City's motion for summary judgment. At oral argument, the parties agreed to remove /or from the hearing examiner's approval conditionthe language in the preliminary plat approval that indicated the City could delay a showing of potable water supply until the building permit stage. The court found that the condition including and/or was an erroneous interpretation of the law. The court concluded that RCW 58.17.110 and YMC require the City to make findings of appropriate provisions for potable water before final plat approval and cannot delay the showing until the building permit stage. CP at 1564. As to Knight's second claim, the court found that the issue of what constitutes a showing of appropriate provisions was not ripe for decision because circumstances could change before the final plat approval stage. [5] Id. ¶ 10 Over the City's objection that the superior court did not have the authority to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law because it was sitting in an appellate capacity to decide the LUPA petition, the court signed Knight's proposed judgment and findings of fact and conclusions of law with only minor changes. The final judgment granted Knight's LUPA petition, reversed the matter and remanded to the City Council for modification of the and/or condition of approval, and granted notice rights to Knight regarding future final plat approvals. Id. at 1565. ¶ 11 Tahoma Terra and the City appealed. In an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals held that Knight lacked standing under YMC 2.26.150 and under RCW 36.70C.060 because her injuries were too remote. Knight v. City of Yelm, noted at 155 Wash.App. 1027, 2010 WL 1454096, at  (2010). The court also awarded attorney fees to Tahoma Terra and the City pursuant to RCW 4.84.370. The court affirmed Tahoma Terra's preliminary plat approval, reversed the superior court, and dismissed Knight's LUPA petition. Id. We granted Knight's petition for review. Knight v. City of Yelm, 170 Wash.2d 1002, 245 P.3d 226 (2010).