Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington held that a superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Land Use Petition Act to decide whether a site-specific rezone complies directly with the Growth Management Act. Such a challenge must instead address compliance with the applicable comprehensive plan or development regulations, while challenges to those plans or regulations fall within the jurisdiction of Growth Management Hearings Boards. The court also held that the remaining LUPA issues were properly before it and concluded that the county's rezone decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not an erroneous interpretation or application of law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether superior court has subject matter jurisdiction under LUPA to decide whether a site-specific land-use decision complies directly with the Growth Management Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court should reach Woods's remaining LUPA challenges after the superior court declined to decide them.
- Whether the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the site-specific rezone was supported by substantial evidence and was not an erroneous interpretation or clearly erroneous application of law.
Holdings
- A superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under LUPA to decide whether a site-specific land-use decision complies directly with the Growth Management Act. Its review is limited to whether the site-specific decision complies with the applicable comprehensive plan and development regulations.
- The remaining LUPA issues were properly before the Supreme Court because, when reviewing an administrative decision, the Supreme Court stands in the position of the superior court.
- The Board of County Commissioners' approval of the rezone was supported by substantial evidence and was not an erroneous interpretation of law or a clearly erroneous application of law to the facts.
Key quotations
“We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under LUPA to decide whether a site-specific land use decision complies with the GMA.” (174 P.3d at 25)
“Because the GMA does not provide for it, we hold that a site-specific rezone cannot be challenged for compliance with the GMA.” (174 P.3d at 34)
“But a challenge to a site-specific land use decision can be only for violations of the comprehensive plan and/or development regulations, but not violations of the GMA.” (174 P.3d at 34)
Factual background
CESS owned approximately 251.63 acres in Kittitas County zoned Forest and Range, generally allowing 20-acre lots. It applied for a site-specific rezone to Rural-3, which generally allowed three-acre lots and was recognized in the county's comprehensive plan as a rural zone. The county planning commission and Board of County Commissioners approved the rezone, despite concerns about rural density, water availability, and traffic. Woods, a neighboring landowner, challenged the approval under LUPA, asserting that the rezone allowed urban growth in violation of the GMA and failed applicable county rezone criteria.
Procedural history
CESS applied to Kittitas County for a site-specific rezone from Forest and Range to Rural-3. The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners approved the rezone, and Woods filed a petition under the Land Use Petition Act in superior court. The superior court held that it had jurisdiction to determine whether the rezone complied with the Growth Management Act and reversed the county's decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that superior court jurisdiction extended to compliance with the comprehensive plan but not direct compliance with the GMA. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and independently reviewed the remaining LUPA issues.