SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
LAURELHURST COMMUNITY CLUB, a Washington nonprofit corporation; UNIVERSITY DISTRICT COMMUNITY COUNCIL, a Washington nonprofit corporation; NORTHEAST DISTRICT COUNCIL; and UNIVERSITY PARK COMMUNITY CLUB, a Washington nonprofit corporation, FRIENDS OF BROOKLYN, a Washington nonprofit corporation,Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, an agency of the State of Washington
Respondents/Defendants; and
CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Additional Respondents/
Defendants. / NO.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION
I. Name and Address of PetitionerS
1.1 Laurelhurst Community Club
PMB #373
4603 N.E. University Village
Seattle, Washington 98105
(206) 525-5135
1.2. University District Community Council
1409 NE 56th
Seattle, Washington 98105
(206) 527-0648
1.3 Northeast District Council
3424 West Laurelhurst Drive NE
Seattle, Washington 98105
(206) 525-5135
1.4 University Park Community Club
5240 – 20th Avenue NE
Seattle, Washington 98105
(206) 527-7229
1.5 Friends of Brooklyn
P.O. Box 85462
Seattle, Washington 98145-1462
(206) 634-9363
II. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONERS’ ATTORNEYS
2.1. Attorneys for Petitioners:
Peter J. Eglick, WSBA No. 8809
Jane S. Kiker, WSBA No. 21586
HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200
P.O. Box 21846
Seattle, WA 98111
Tel. (206) 292-1144
Fax (206) 340-0902
III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY WHOSE ACTION IS AT ISSUE
3.1 Laurelhurst Community Club (“LCC”); University District Community Council (“UDCC”), Northeast District Council (“NEDC”), University Park Community Club (“UPCC”), and Friends of Brooklyn (“FOB”) (“LCC, et al.”), seek judicial review of decisions by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (“CPSGMHB” or “Board”), whose mailing address is:
Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board
900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2470
Seattle, WA 98164
IV. AGENCY ACTIONS AT ISSUE
4.1 Petitioners LCC, et al., seek judicial review of the Board’s dispositive Order on Motions, in Laurelhurst, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al., CPSGMHB Case No. 03-3-0008, dated June 18, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the Order on Motions, the Board dismissed LCC, et al.’s Petition for Review based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
4.2 Petitioners also seek judicial review of the Board’s dispositive Ruling in its May 15, 2003 Prehearing Order (subsequently amended on May 21, 2003) that the University of Washington was not a responding party rather than intervenor in LCC, et al.’s appeal.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER PARTIES
5.1 In addition to LCC, et al., and the City of Seattle, the University of Washington was a party to the adjudicative proceeding in which the CPSGMHB rendered the decisions to be reviewed.
VI. VENUE AND JURISDICTION
6.1 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to, inter alia, RCW 36.70A.300(5) and RCW 34.05.514(1), which provide that “proceedings for review under this chapter shall be instituted by paying the fee required under RCW 36.18.020 and filing a petition in the superior court, at the petitioner’s option, for (a) Thurston county, (b) the county of the petitioner’s residence or principal place of business, or (c) in any county where the property owned by the petitioner and affected by the contested decision is located.”
VII. Facts entitling petitioners to judicial review
7.1 In their petition to the CPSGMHB below, Petitioners sought review of adoption of the University of Washington’s 10-Year Campus Master Plan (“UWCMP), rezoning land within the University of Washington (“UW”) Major Institution Overlay Boundary (MIO) and amending the City’s Official Land Use Map (implemented by the City in Ordinance 121041), and Ordinance No. 121020, amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate amendments proposed as part of the City’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment process. See, Board Order on Motions, at p. 1 (Exhibit A).
7.2 Petitioners are community groups whose members own property, reside, and work in neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of the University of Washington and who are vitally concerned with the joint City and University failure to plan consistent with the GMA. See, Petition For Review to CPSGMHB, attached as Exhibit B. This failure threatens the livability and vitality of petitioners’ neighborhoods and their quiet use and enjoyment of their properties in the face of unchecked and uncoordinated University growth and expansion.
7.3 Petitioners and their members are directly affected by the City/University actions. In fact petitioners are within areas that the City and University have expressly designated as the University's “primary and secondary impact zones.” Petitioners have also been designated by the City and the University as members of the City/University Community Advisory Committee ("CUCAC"), established by the City and University in acknowledgement of its members’ direct interest in University planning and development.
7.4 Petitioners have dedicated substantial time over the past decade (and more) to working with the University and the City to minimize the University’s development impacts on their neighborhoods, including through participation in Master Plan adoption processes, and in negotiating the 1998 City- University Agreement that, as part of the Seattle Land Use Code, governs the UW Master Plan.
7.5 Petitioners all attempted to participate in the inconsistent, flawed public process which the City and University relied on in taking the action challenged in this petition. This attempted participation included both oral and written comments regarding the aspects of adoption of the UW Campus Master Plan that are challenged here.
7.6 The UWCMP overturns the twenty year premise on which University of Washington/City land use regulation and planning has proceeded. That premise gave the University extraordinary leeway for expansion and development within defined campus boundaries as a trade-off for firm limitations on University acquisition, leasing, and/or development in defined off-campus “primary and secondary impact zones.” Now, as a result of changes adopted late in the Master Plan process without regard to the extraordinary leeway the new Master Plan grants to the University within its 700-acre campus (proposed on-campus Master Plan activities include construction of approximately 3 million square feet consisting of more than 60 potentially-developable sites), the Plan permits practically unrestricted off-campus property acquisition, leasing anddevelopment by the University, squeezing out much-needed small business and housing stock, in favor of large, institutional development. Petitioners have sought relief both because of the serious harm that would result from the adopted Campus Master Plan, and because the City’s flawed public process in this case establishes a dangerous precedent for the future.
7.7 In dismissing, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(2), the petition for review filed by LCC, et al. , the Board effectively ruled that the University of Washington Master Plan could be adopted without Board Growth Management Act review – even though it purports to direct all development for the next 10 years in a substantial portion of the City, with an effective population larger than 55,000. In effect, the Board’s decision would allow a de facto expansion of the University’s established Major Institution boundary: (1) without compliance with GMA requirements for Master Plan, subarea plan, or development regulations adoption; (2) without considering or reviewing the UWCMP as part of the City’s annual GMA Comprehensive Plan amendments; and (3) without providing the GMA mandated review of the proposed master plan for consistency with established City comprehensive plan policies and development regulations.
7.8 In light of the foregoing, petitioners LCC, et al., have been substantially prejudiced by the Board’s dismissal of their petition for review and as parties aggrieved and adversely affected by the Board’s action, are entitled to judicial review of it pursuant to RCW 34.05.530.
7.9 Pursuant to RCW 34.05.534, LCC, et al., have exhausted their administrative remedies.
VIII. REASONS RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED
8.1 For the following reasons, the Board has engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision-making process; has failed to follow a prescribed procedure; has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; has issued decisions that are not supported by substantial evidence; has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the Board; has issued an order that is inconsistent with Board rules; and has taken actions that are arbitrary and capricious, entitling petitioners to relief pursuant to, inter alia, RCW34.05.570(3) (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i);
8.2 The Board erred in concluding that the entire University of Washington Campus Master Plan was just a “site specific development approval” immune from Board review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
8.3 The Board erred in concluding that adoption of the Master Plan was not a subarea plan action subject to GMA review by the Board;
8.4 The Board erred in failing to address whether or not the Master Plan contained GMA development regulations subject to the Board’s GMA review jurisdiction;
8.5 The Board erred in failing to address petitioners’ challenge to the City’s adoption of Ordinance No. 121020, amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate amendments proposed as part of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment process;
8.6 The Board erred in relying on unsupported statements by the City and University regarding the “process” followed by the City in adopting the Master Plan, when it concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the City’s action, while at the same time, the Board acknowledged that it was “important to focus on the substance and policy context of that action rather than the procedure employed or the label attached”;
8.7 The Board erred in summarily dismissing LCC et al.’s Petition for Review without considering or ruling on petitioners’ motion to supplement the record with contemporaneous statements by City officials illuminating the true nature of the “process” employed by the City and University in adopting the Master Plan;
8.8 The Board erred in ruling that the University was not a respondent in the appeal filed by LCC, et al.
IX. RELIEF REQUESTED
In light of the foregoing, LCC, et al., respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:
9.1 Entry of an order and judgment reversing, vacating, and remanding the Board’s Order On Motions, and declaring that the Board erred in determining that the adoption of the UWCMP and the land use map changes included in it were not subject to the Board’s jurisdiction;
9.2 Entry of an order and judgment reversing, vacating, and remanding the Board’s Order On Motions, and declaring that the Board erred in determining that the University of Washington was not a respondent in the appeal;
9.3 Entry of an order and judgment reversing, vacating, and remanding the Board’s Order On Motions dismissing the petition for review, based on the Board’s failure to include findings, conclusions, or a decision that address: (1) petitioners’ challenge to the City’s adoption of Ordinance No. 121020; and/or (2) petitioners’ allegations that the UWCMP constitutes GMA development regulations subject to Board review; and/or petitioners’ motion to supplement the record;
9.4 Such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
DATED this ______day of July, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP
By ______
Peter J. Eglick, WSBA #8809
Jane S. Kiker, WSBA #21586
Attorneys for Petitioners LCC, et al.
Attachments: June 18, 2003, Order on Motions
March 5, 2003, Petition for Review
g:\lu\lcc\uw\cpsgmhb\kingcounty\petition4rev-071603.doc
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION - 1 /1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200
P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144