Court Opinion

ID: 9966429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 22:14:56.53647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.689063
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 MARGERY JONES, an individual,                    No. 85053-9-I

                           Appellant,             DIVISION ONE

                v.

 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a local
 jurisdiction; KEVIN MAVIS, Applicant
 for Permit/Approval; WESLEY &
 CAROL MAVIS, purported owners from
 original permit application; CALIBRE             UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 SIGNATURE HOMES LLC, tax payer
 under parcel number; K&M’S HOME
 CONSTRUCTION, LLC; LAND
 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
 INC.; and other persons listed in
 written decision,

                           Respondents.

      BOWMAN, J. — Margery Jones challenged a Snohomish County Planning

and Development Services (PDS) decision approving a minor revision to an

administrative site plan (ASP) and a land disturbing activity (LDA) permit under

the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW. The trial court

dismissed Jones’ petition as moot. We affirm and award the respondents’

attorney fees and costs.

                                        FACTS

      The “Edmonds Urban Living Townhomes” project is a new, five-building,

23-unit townhome development constructed by Calibre Signature Homes LLC. It

sits on a 1.09-acre parcel on 148th Street SW in Edmonds. Townhome buildings
No. 85053-9-I/2

C and D span the southern portion of the parcel. Jones lives just south of

building D.

       In 2014, Calibre1 bought the unimproved parcel with the intent to develop

townhomes. Calibre submitted building plans to PDS for approval of an ASP.

PDS approved the ASP on April 6, 2018.2 PDS then issued Calibre an LDA

permit for the project.3 It issued the building permits for building C in August

2018 and building D in November 2018.

       The plans and permits contemplated a sloped grade at the southern

boundary of the property with a French drain along the property line. But during

construction, Calibre “made field changes” to the area, installing a four-foot

concrete block retaining wall near the southern property line behind buildings C

and D and leveling the grade of the area by adding fill.4 In May 2020, Calibre

applied for a preliminary plat, which PDS approved in September 2020.5

       Calibre completed construction of buildings C and D in 2022 and in June,

applied for final plat approval. On June 14, 2022, PDS mailed notices of review

       1
          Kevin Mavis is the sole member and manager of Calibre. He is also the sole
member and manager of K&M’s Home Construction LLC. K&M’s acquired the
development site in 2014 and began to plan and permit the proposed development but
transferred the property to Calibre in 2018. This opinion refers to those parties
collectively as Calibre for simplicity.
       2
       On March 14, 2018, PDS issued a determination of nonsignificance under the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, finding the
ASP “does not have a probable, significant adverse impact on the environment.”
       3
           The permit is not in the record.
       4
         Calibre’s site engineer filed a declaration explaining that the field change was
made to prevent stormwater runoff from encroaching on neighbors’ land by installing a
“piped drainage system” instead of a French drain.
       5
         The plans supporting the preliminary plat still showed a sloped grade behind
buildings C and D.

                                              2
No. 85053-9-I/3

of the final plat application to the neighbors of the development, including Jones,

giving PDS’ contact information and inviting the public to submit written

comments by July 2, 2022.

       After the July 2022 deadline, PDS issued comments on Calibre’s

application, saying that it would not approve the final plat until it ensured the

changes made during construction complied with the county code. So, in

September 2022, Calibre submitted “as-built” site plans, land disturbing plans,

and landscaping plans to PDS, seeking a minor revision of its ASP and LDA

permit. The application sought approval from PDS for the change in grading,

addition of fill, and installation of the retaining wall behind buildings C and D.

       PDS approved the “minor revision” to the ASP and permit on October 12,

2022.6 In its decision, PDS concluded that the site as-built complies with

Snohomish County’s growth management plans, codes, regulations, and zoning

requirements. The approved revision thus “constitute[d] the approved [ASP].”

The next day on October 13, 2022, PDS approved the final plat. The final plat

approved the project as-built, representing PDS’ determination that the whole

project satisfied “the requirements of state law and county code” under

Snohomish County Code (SCC) 30.41A.640(4).7 On October 14, 2022, Calibre

recorded the final plat. Calibre then listed and sold several of the units.

       6
         This decision revised the original ASP to reflect the addition of fill and a
retaining wall behind buildings C and D, resulting in a change in grade from the original
plans. All other aspects of the original ASP remained the same.
       7
           The final plat approval is not in the record.

                                                3
No. 85053-9-I/4

       Jones did not appeal the final plat approval. Instead, on November 2,

2022, she appealed to the Snohomish County Superior Court PDS’ October 12,

2022 approval of the minor revision under LUPA.8 Jones alleged that Calibre’s

as-built changes did not comply with several provisions of the SCC and SEPA.9

       Calibre moved for summary judgment. It argued that because Jones

appealed the minor revision decision but not the final plat, her LUPA appeal “is

moot and must be dismissed because the Court has no power to grant any

effective remedy.” It also argued that Jones’ LUPA appeal is “an impermissible

collateral attack” on the final plat. Snohomish County joined in Calibre’s motion.

       Jones opposed the summary judgment motion. She argued that under

LUPA, she need appeal only the initial land use decision, and “no subsequent

action by Snohomish County can negate or make moot that appeal.”

       The court granted summary judgment for Calibre. It found as an

undisputed fact that Jones did not appeal the final plat, which approved the

project as-built. And it found that the final plat is a land use decision under LUPA

that “becomes final and binding” without an appeal in the statutory 21-day appeal

window under RCW 36.70C.040. The court concluded that Jones’ LUPA appeal

is moot “because the final plat has been approved, issued, and recorded, and

cannot be revoked or altered,” so the remedy Jones seeks—reversal of the minor

       8
         Jones included Mavis, his parents Wesley and Carol Mavis, and K&M’s as
respondents. She also named LDC Inc. as a respondent. About a month later, she
amended her complaint only to replace LDC Inc. with Land Development Consultants
Inc. Except for Snohomish County, we include all the respondents in our collective
Calibre references.
       9
         Though PDS already approved the final plat and Calibre recorded it, Jones’
LUPA petition asked the court to “stay or suspend the action by the local jurisdiction to
provide final approval and to not allow recording of the subdivision plat.”

                                             4
No. 85053-9-I/5

revision decision—would not afford her “any effective relief.” It also concluded

that Jones’ appeal is “an impermissible collateral attack on a final and binding

land use decision” under RCW 36.70C.040(2). The court dismissed Jones’

LUPA petition in its entirety with prejudice.

       Jones appeals.

                                     ANALYSIS

1. Mootness

       Jones argues the trial court erred by dismissing her LUPA petition as

moot. We disagree.

       We review issues of mootness de novo. Wash. State Commc’n Access

Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 173 Wn. App. 174, 204, 293 P.3d 413 (2013).

“ ‘A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.’ ” Heritage

Grove v. Dep’t of Health, 11 Wn. App. 2d 406, 412, 453 P.3d 1022 (2019)

(quoting SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Gregoire, 168 Wn.2d 593, 602, 229 P.3d

774 (2010)). When an appeal is moot, the court should dismiss it. Id.

       LUPA is the exclusive means of judicial review of a government entity’s

final land use decision. Samuel’s Furniture, Inc. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d

440, 449-50, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002). By enacting LUPA, the legislature sought, in

part, “to provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review” of those

decisions. RCW 36.70C.010; Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397,

406, 120 P.3d 56 (2005). To promote timely judicial review, LUPA establishes a

strict, uniform, 21-day deadline for appealing final decisions of local land use

authorities. RCW 36.70C.040(2), (3); Habitat Watch, 155 Wn.2d at 406-07. “A

                                          5
No. 85053-9-I/6

land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the

petition is timely filed.” RCW 36.70C.040(2). That is, land use decisions become

unreviewable if not appealed to a superior court within LUPA’s specified

timeframe. Habitat Watch, 155 Wn.2d at 406-07.

       PDS approved the minor revision to the ASP and LDA permit on October

12, 2022 and approved the final plat on October 13, 2022. Both were final land

use decisions. By approving the final plat, PDS determined that it conforms to

“all conditions of the preliminary subdivision approval and requirements of state

law and county code.” SCC 30.41A.640(4); see also RCW 58.17.170. This

necessarily includes the approved minor revisions to the ASP and LDA permit

because PDS used those documents to verify that the project complied with the

plans and that the plans complied with the law before granting final plat approval.

       But Jones did not appeal the final plat. As a result, it became

unreviewable after the 21-day window for appeal lapsed. Habitat Watch, 155

Wn.2d at 406-07. So, even if Jones succeeded on her challenge to the minor

revision decision, the court could provide no effective relief because it could not

order the county to deny, revoke, or amend the final plat. Jones’ appeal is moot.

See Harbor Lands LP v. City of Blaine, 146 Wn. App. 589, 592-93, 191 P.3d

1282 (2008) (concluding a LUPA challenge to a city’s authority to issue a stop

work order is moot where “the stop work orders had been rescinded, a transfer of

real estate had been effectuated between the parties, the construction had been

completed, and occupancy permits had been issued”).

                                         6
No. 85053-9-I/7

       Still, citing RCW 36.70C.140, Jones argues that the court could provide

effective relief by ordering Calibre to tear down the retaining wall and replat the

project. Under RCW 36.70C.140, a court has broad discretion to “affirm or

reverse the land use decision under review or remand it for modification or

further proceedings,” and to “make such an order as it finds necessary to

preserve the interests of the parties and the public, pending further proceedings

or action by the local jurisdiction.” See Prosser Hill Coalition v. County of

Spokane, 176 Wn. App. 280, 286, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013). But that statute applies

to only land use decisions timely appealed under RCW 36.70C.040. See, e.g.,

Id. at 286-87. And Jones did not timely appeal the final plat, so RCW

36.70C.140 does not support the relief she requests.

       Finally, Jones argues that it is unfair to declare her petition moot. She

argues we would impose a “significant burden” on LUPA petitioners if we hold

that they “must continue to monitor the county record and file a new LUPA

petition or amend their LUPA petition based upon all relevant subsequent

actions.” But Jones’ claims of inequity do not make her petition justiciable. And

“[j]usticiability is a threshold requirement that must be satisfied” before a court

may address a claim. Eyman v. Ferguson, 7 Wn. App. 2d 312, 319, 433 P.3d

863 (2019). Even so, requiring Jones to amend her LUPA petition to include

those final land use decisions that affect her initial LUPA appeal is not a

significant burden. Jones had ample notice of Calibre’s intent to seek final plat

approval. PDS notified Jones of the pending final plat approval in June 2022 and

                                          7
No. 85053-9-I/8

Calibre recorded the final plat weeks before Jones filed her LUPA petition in

November 2022.

       We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’ LUPA petition as moot.10

2. Appellate Attorney Fees and Costs

       Snohomish County requests an award of statutory attorney fees and costs

under RAP 14.3 pending submission of a cost bill under RAP 14.4. Under RAP

14.3(a), we may award “statutory attorney fees and the reasonable expenses

actually incurred by a party” on appeal. Because we affirm the trial court’s

determination that Jones’ petition is moot, we award Snohomish County fees and

costs under RAP 14.3 subject to compliance with RAP 14.4.

       Calibre requests attorney fees and costs under RAP 14.2, RAP 14.3, and

RCW 4.84.370. We may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the

prevailing party on appeal of a local government decision “to issue, condition, or

deny a development permit involving a site-specific rezone, zoning, plat,

conditional use, variance, shoreline permit, building permit, site plan, or similar

land use approval or decision.” RCW 4.84.370(1); Durland v. San Juan County,

175 Wn. App. 316, 325-26, 305 P.3d 246 (2013), aff’d, 182 Wn.2d 55, 340 P.3d

191 (2014). We will award fees and costs if “[t]he prevailing party on appeal was

the prevailing party or substantially prevailing party before the county, city, or

town.” RCW 4.84.370(1)(a); Durland, 175 Wn. App. at 326. “Under this statute,

parties are entitled to attorney fees only if a county, city, or town’s decision is

        Because we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’ LUPA petition as moot,
       10

we need not address her claim that the court also erred by dismissing her petition as an
impermissible collateral attack on the final plat.

                                           8
No. 85053-9-I/9

rendered in their favor and at least two courts affirm that decision.” Habitat

Watch, 155 Wn.2d at 412-13.

       Calibre prevailed before PDS, and the trial court affirmed that decision.

Because we now affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’ petition, we award

fees and costs to Calibre subject to compliance with RAP 18.1.

       We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Jones’ LUPA petition as moot and

award Snohomish County and Calibre attorney fees and costs.

WE CONCUR:

                                         9