Background

• Schnitzer West LLC challenged City of Puyallup Ordinance 3067 under LUPA, claiming it was an invalid land use decision and not a legislative action.
• The Shaw-East Pioneer Overlay Zone (SPO) was created to guide development quality in a gateway area; SPO was later extended through annexed property area.
• Schnitzer owned ML-zoned parcels within the annexation area and previously obtained a rezone from Business Park to ML in 2013 to support a 470,000 sq ft warehouse.
• In 2014, the City enacted Ordinance 3067 extending the SPO into Schnitzer’s ML parcels, including new design standards and a 125,000 sq ft building size cap.
• Schnitzer filed a LUPA petition arguing the Ordinance was a site-specific rezone, while the City argued it was a legislative action outside LUPA scope.
• The superior court ruled the Ordinance was an unlawful site-specific rezone; on appeal, the court reversed and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597 (2007) (site-specific rezone can be a land use decision under LUPA when authorized by a then-existing plan)
• Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 176 Wn.App. 555 (2013) (site-specific rezone with/without comprehensive plan amendments; jurisdiction under GMA varies)
• Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition, 176 Wn.App. 38 (2013) (site-specific rezone with respect to GMA review framework)
• Wenatchee Sportsmen's Alliance v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169 (2000) (limits on GMA review for site-specific land use decisions)
• Raynes v. City of Leavenworth, 118 Wn.2d 237 (1981) (distinguishes adjudicatory vs legislative actions and review standards)
• Westside Hilltop Survival Comm. v. King County, 96 Wn.2d 171 (1981) (importance of adjudicatory review standards for site-specific actions)
• Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978) (adjudicatory vs legislative action in zoning decisions)