Facts: Respondent Phoenix Development, Inc. petitioned the Superior Court for King County pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act (Washington Revised Code §36.70C) to reverse the petitioner city of Woodinville’s denial of Phoenix Development’s application to rezone undeveloped property. The trial court dismissed the petition.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of Phoenix Development’s application, holding that substantial evidence did not support the city’s conclusion that rezoning is not needed, that substantial evidence did not support the city’s conclusion that adequate services could not be provided to the proposed development, that the city’s conclusion that existing zoning was appropriate for the property was a legislative decision that was unlawful in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding, and that the city’s conclusion that the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan was a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law.  The city of Woodinville appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Did substantial evidence support the city’s conclusion that rezoning is not needed?

Did substantial evidence support the city’s conclusion that adequate services could not be provided to the proposed development?

Was the city’s conclusion that existing zoning was appropriate for the property a legislative decision that was unlawful in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding?

Was the city’s conclusion that the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law?

Conclusion: Justice James M. Johnson’s opinion for a unanimous Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals and reinstated the dismissal of the petition, concluding that substantial evidence supported the city’s conclusion that rezoning is not needed given the evidence presented that the city is meeting all of its housing goals, is exceeding its growth targets, and has approved other developments to meet its housing and growth needs and that regardless of whether substantial evidence supported the city’s conclusion that adequate services could not be provided to the proposed development, the city is not required to approve every proposed development for which adequate services can be provided.  The Court also held that although the city’s conclusion that existing zoning was appropriate for the property was characterized by the city as a legislative decision, this characterization was inaccurate insofar as it did not prescribe a new law, policy, or plan but rather simply applied existing policies and regulations and that the city did not err in concluding that the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan as the city was within its discretion to conclude that the proposed development would be inconsistent with the city’s “Northwest woodland character.”

Docket No. 84296-5 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 62167-0)

Petitioner: City of Woodinville

(Counsel: Greg Alan Rubstello, Philip Albert Talmadge, J. Richard Aramburu, and Jeffrey M. Eustis)

Respondent: Phoenix Development, Inc.

(Counsel: George Richard Hill and John Maurice Groen)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:15am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, June 16th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Phoenix Development, Inc. (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson
(Majority)

Stephens

Wiggins