Court Opinion

ID: 9897966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:25.918052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:49.813807
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

         CITY OF OLYMPIA,                                         No. 85048-2-I

                              Respondent,                         DIVISION ONE

                       v.                                         PUBLISHED OPINION

         WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH
         MANAGEMENT
         HEARINGS BOARD, a State Agency, and
         OLYMPIANS FOR SMART
         DEVELOPMENT &
         LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS,

                               Appellants.

                 FELDMAN, J. — The Olympians for Smart Development and Livable

          Neighborhoods (OSDLN) appeal from a superior court order reversing a Western

          Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) order invalidating a

          city ordinance that increased the permitted types of housing in residential

          districts. While the matter was pending before the Board, the Washington

          legislature enacted RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4), which preclude administrative

          and judicial review of certain actions taken by a city to increase its residential

          building capacity. The City of Olympia (City) moved to dismiss the administrative

          appeal pursuant to RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4), and the Board denied its motion.

          Because the Board erred in denying the motion, we reverse.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/2

                                                FACTS

                 The City passed Ordinance 7160 (the Ordinance), also known as the

          “Missing Middle Housing Proposal,” on November 13, 2018. The Ordinance

          amended numerous sections of the Olympia Municipal Code related to permitted

          types of housing. The City Council’s findings state that one of the Ordinance’s

          purposes is “to implement [the] policy direction in the City of Olympia[‘s]

          Comprehensive Plan to adopt zoning that allows a wide variety of housing types

          and densities so that housing can be available in a broad range of costs.”

                 Before it passed the Ordinance, the City prepared an environmental

          checklist to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City

          determined that the Ordinance would not have a significant impact on the

          environment and issued a determination of non-significance (DNS). Members of

          OSDLN submitted comments on the Ordinance expressing concerns about its

          environmental impacts and subsequently filed an administrative appeal

          challenging the DNS. The hearings examiner dismissed the administrative

          appeal, reasoning that OSDLN did not meet the requirements to have standing

          under SEPA.

                 On January 11, 2019, OSDLN petitioned for review of the hearing

          examiner’s decision before the Board. While that administrative appeal was

          pending, the Washington legislature enacted RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4), which,

          as noted previously, preclude administrative and judicial review of certain actions

          taken by a city to increase its residential building capacity. LAWS OF 2019, ch.

          348, § 1 (SHB 1923). The City promptly moved to dismiss the administrative

                                                  -2-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/3

          appeal based on this enactment. The Board denied the City’s motion as well as

          its renewed motion to dismiss the proceeding, reasoning that “it is not clear that

          [SHB] 1923 was intended to apply to this pending case. . . . The Legislature did

          not clearly express an intent to apply [SHB] 1923 retroactively.”

                 On September 10, 2019, the City filed a petition for review in Thurston

          County Superior Court. Relevant here, the trial court ruled that the Board erred

          in denying the City’s motion and renewed motion to dismiss. OSDLN appeals.

          We agree with the superior court and hold that the Board should have dismissed

          OSDLN’s administrative appeal under RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4).

                                                ANALYSIS

                 The Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05, governs our review in this

          matter and requires that we review the decision of the Board in the same manner

          as did the superior court. King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt.

          Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). We review the Board’s

          legal conclusions de novo. Id.

                 RCW 34.05.570(3)(b) states that “[t]he court shall grant relief from an

          agency order in an adjudicative proceeding . . . if it determines that . . . [t]he order

          is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency . . . .” The City

          argues, as it did before the Board and superior court, that the Board order is

          outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency under RCW

          36.70A.600, which was enacted during the pendency of the administrative

          proceedings. In relevant part, RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) provide as follows:

                       (3) The adoption of ordinances, development regulations
                 and amendments to regulations, and other nonproject actions taken

                                                   -3-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/4

                 by a city to implement the actions specified in subsection (1) of this
                 section, with the exception of the action specified in subsection
                 (1)(f) of this section, are not subject to administrative or judicial
                 appeal under chapter 43.21C RCW.

                        (4) Any action taken by a city prior to April 1, 2023, to amend
                 its comprehensive plan or adopt or amend ordinances or
                 development regulations, solely to enact provisions under
                 subsection (1) of this section is not subject to legal challenge under
                 this chapter.

          The statutory language is clear. If RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) apply here, then

          the Ordinance is “not subject to” administrative appeal or legal challenge under

          SEPA or the Growth Management Act (GMA), and the Board should have

          dismissed OSDLN’s administrative appeal without reaching the merits of its

          substantive arguments.

                 The question of whether RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) apply to the

          Ordinance is controlled by Washington Education Association v. Washington

          State Department of Retirement Systems, 21 Wn. App. 2d736, 743-44, 507 P.3d

          1 (2022), which holds that a newly enacted statute generally applies to all cases

          pending on direct appeal that are not yet final. Further, Fischer Studio Building

          Condominium Owners Association v. City of Seattle, __ Wn. App. 2d __, 524

          P.3d 708, 712 (2023), holds that a cause of action is extinguished where, as

          here, it is abolished prior to a final decision on appeal. Based on these and other

          similar authorities, the Board erred in concluding that RCW 36.70A.600(3) and

          (4) do not apply to the Ordinance. For the same reasons, subsequent

          amendments to RCW 36.70A.600 also apply to the Ordinance because the

          petition is still pending on appeal. LAWS OF 2020, ch. 173, § 1 (SHB 2343

          (2020)); LAWS OF 2022, ch. 246, § 1 (SSB 5818 (2022)).

                                                  -4-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/5

                 Having concluded that RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) apply to this

          proceeding, we must next decide whether the specific requirements set out in

          these provisions are satisfied. The first requirement is that the Ordinance must

          have been adopted by April 1, 2023. RCW 36.70A.600(3), (4). This requirement

          is plainly satisfied, as the City passed the Ordinance on November 13, 2018, well

          before the April 1, 2023 deadline specified in the statute.

                 The second requirement is that the Ordinance must have been adopted to

          implement actions or enact provisions specified in RCW 36.70A.600(1). RCW

          36.70A.600(3), (4). This requirement is also satisfied. As noted, the City

          Council’s findings state that one of the Ordinance’s purposes is “to implement

          [the] policy direction in the City of Olympia[’s] Comprehensive Plan to adopt

          zoning that allows a wide variety of housing types and densities so that housing

          can be available in a broad range of costs.” By way of example, the Ordinance

          permits triplexes, fourplexes, and courtyard apartments where they were

          previously not permitted. These types of provisions fall within RCW

          36.70A.600(1)(c) and (d):

                 (1) A city planning pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 is encouraged to
                 take the following actions in order to increase its residential building
                 capacity:
                        ....
                        (c) Authorize at least one duplex, triplex, quadplex, sixplex,
                 stacked flat, townhouse, or courtyard apartment on each parcel in
                 one or more zoning districts that permit single-family residences
                 unless a city documents a specific infrastructure of physical
                 constraint that would make this requirement unfeasible for a
                 particular parcel;

                         (d) Authorize a duplex, triplex, quadplex, sixplex, stacked
                 flat, townhouse, or courtyard apartment on one or more parcels for
                 which they are not currently authorized[.]

                                                   -5-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/6

          Because the Ordinance promotes residential density through the approved

          means listed under RCW 36.70A.600(1) and otherwise implements actions or

          enacts provisions specified in RCW 36.70A.600(1), RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4)

          apply here. The Ordinance is therefore “not subject to” administrative or judicial

          review under SEPA or the GMA. RCW 36.70A.600(3), (4).

                 While RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) have not been interpreted or applied in

          a published appellate court opinion, the Central Puget Sound Growth

          Management Hearings Board’s decision in Hendrickson v. City of Kenmore, No.

          23-3-0001 (Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd. Apr. 4, 2023) (Hendrickson), is

          instructive here. See Timberlake Christian Fellowship v. King County, 114 Wn.

          App. 174, 184 n.3, 61 P.3d 332 (2002) (“Although administrative decisions are

          not binding on this court, we find guidance in their interpretations of the law,

          especially where, as here, the decision is made by the body primarily charged

          with interpreting a given statute.”). In that case, the City of Kenmore passed

          Ordinance 22-0558 to make changes to its comprehensive plan affecting land

          use and housing. Hendrickson at 1. The Board, on its own motion, ruled that

          because the ordinance’s purpose was to adopt provisions solely within the list of

          protected provisions under RCW 36.70A.600(1), the petitioner lost its ability to

          bring an administrative appeal under SEPA (RCW 36.70A.600(3)) and the GMA

          (RCW 36.70A.600(4)). Id. at 6.

                 The same reasoning and result apply here as well. As in Hendrickson, a

          city is attempting to increase the types of housing available in its residential

          districts, and OSDLN is challenging it under SEPA and the GMA. But because

                                                   -6-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/7

          our legislature has adopted laws that preclude such challenges in order to

          encourage an increase in the type of permitted housing in residential districts,

          OSDLN’s challenges must be dismissed. Just as the Board dismissed the

          administrative appeal in Hendrickson, so too should the Board have done so

          here.

                  In response to these arguments, OSDLN argues, and the Board ruled, that

          RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) do not apply to Ordinance 7160 because there is no

          clear legislative intent for the law to apply retroactively. As previously addressed,

          a newly enacted statute generally applies to all cases pending on direct appeal

          that are not yet final. Wash. Educ. Ass’n, 21 Wn. App. 2d at 744-45. And a

          cause of action is extinguished where, as here, it is abolished prior to a final

          decision on appeal. Fischer Studio Bldg. Condo. Owners Ass’n, 524 P.3d at 712.

          OSDLN’s non-retroactivity argument thus fails.

                  Next, OSDLN argues that even if RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4) apply to the

          Ordinance, the Ordinance’s amendments to the municipal code fall outside of the

          scope of the protected actions listed in RCW 36.70A.600(1). We disagree:

                  •   OSDLN points to provisions in the Ordinance that authorize single

                      room occupancies. Single room occupancies are encompassed in

                      RCW 36.70A.600(1)(v), which states: “Update use matrices and

                      allowable use tables that eliminate conditional use permits and

                      administrative conditional use permits for all housing types, including

                      single-family homes, townhomes, multifamily housing, low-income

                      housing, and senior housing . . . .”

                                                   -7-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/8

                •   OSDLN also points to provisions in the Ordinance that increase the

                    allowed density for triplex, quadplex, and courtyard apartments in small

                    lots. These are encompassed in RCW 36.70A.600(1)(d), which states:

                    “Authorize a duplex, triplex, quadplex, sixplex, stacked flat, townhouse,

                    or courtyard apartment on one or more parcels for which they are not

                    currently authorized . . . . ”

                •   Next, OSDLN points to provisions increasing the density limits of

                    cottage housing. These provisions are encompassed by RCW

                    36.70A.600(1)(l), which states: “Authorize a minimum net density of

                    six dwelling units per acre in all residential zones, where the residential

                    development capacity will increase within the city….”

                •   Lastly, OSDLN points to provisions in the Ordinance that maintain

                    minimum density limits in residential zones. Because OSDLN did not

                    challenge these provisions in the administrative proceeding, we decline

                    to consider them here. See Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity v. Wash.

                    State Univ., 152 Wn. App. 401, 420, 216 P.3d 451 (2009) (“‘[i]ssues

                    not raised before the agency may not be raised on appeal,’” quoting

                    RCW 34.05.554(1)). Additionally, OSDLN has not cited any authority,

                    nor are we aware of any, that would permit a legal challenge to an

                    ordinance that merely maintains the status quo. Donner v. Blue, 187

                    Wn. App. 51, 61, 347 P.3d 881 (2015) (“Where no authorities are cited

                    in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search out

                                                     -8-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/9

                    authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has

                    found none.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)).

          Thus, contrary to OSDLN’s arguments, the Ordinance is exempted from legal

          challenges and administrative and judicial review under both SEPA (RCW

          36.70A.600(3)) and the GMA (RCW 36.70A.600(4)).

                 Our analysis is also consistent with the legislative intent of RCW

          36.70A.600. State v. Hughes, 166 Wn.2d 675, 684, 212 P.3d 558 (2009)

          (“Legislative intent may be determined by legislative history, the structure of the

          statutes, their purpose, or other sources.”). When looking at the recent

          amendments to the GMA (SHB 1923 (2019), SHB 2343 (2020), and SSB 5181

          (2022)), our legislature’s intent is clear. It has decided to shield ordinances that

          increase residential building capacity and has continued to add actions to RCW

          36.70A.600(1) to establish additional actions that are not subject to legal

          challenge or administrative appeals. The Ordinance increases residential

          building capacity and is therefore protected by both the plain language and

          purpose of RCW 36.70A.600.

                 Lastly, OSDLN argues that because the City did not assign error to the

          Board’s findings that the Ordinance violated the GMA, those findings are verities

          on appeal. OSDLN’s argument ignores the legal and practical significance of

          RCW 36.70A.600(3) and (4). Because the Ordinance is “not subject to”

          administrative appeal or legal challenge under SEPA or the GMA (as RCW

          36.70A.600(3)-(4) provide), the Board was required to dismiss OSDLN’s

          administrative appeal without reaching the merits of its substantive arguments

                                                  -9-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
          No. 85048-2-I/10

          and without making any findings. As such, the Board’s findings must be set

          aside even though, as OSDLN argues, they were not challenged by the City.

                 We reverse the Board’s order denying the City’s motion to dismiss

          OSDLN’s petition for review and, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s Order on

          Judicial Review. We remand the matter to the Board to dismiss OSDLN’s

          petition for review.

          WE CONCUR:

                                                 - 10 -