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may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion.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 For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.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 -