State Of Washington v. Mountain View Place, Llc, 48074-3

Background

WSDOT adopted a limited-access plan for I-205 in Vancouver, classifying the first 130 feet from a new off-ramp as "fully controlled" and 130–300 feet as "modified controlled" limited access highway under WAC rules.
Mountain View Place LLC (MVP) owns two parcels abutting the modified controlled section; one (Parcel 4-08353) contains a multifamily complex with a single driveway to NE 18th Street; several adjacent undeveloped parcels are zoned for higher-density/mixed uses.
WSDOT’s right-of-way plan reserved a 30-foot "Type C" approach for Parcel 4-08353 (for multi-family use) and sought to condemn MVP’s broader limited-access rights (including rights that would allow a commercial "Type E" approach) for operation of I-205.
MVP challenged the condemnation in trial court, arguing WSDOT acted arbitrarily and capriciously by designating a Type C approach not "commensurate with . . . potential land use" under WAC 468-58-100 and by failing to base the designation on appraisals; trial court upheld WSDOT’s necessity determination.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether WSDOT’s determination was arbitrary and capricious and whether MVP waived the appraisal argument; MVP also sought attorney fees under federal law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WSDOT’s designation of a Type C approach for Parcel 4-08353 was arbitrary and capricious because it was not "commensurate with potential land use"	MVP: zoning and comprehensive plan allow commercial/mixed uses on contiguous parcels, so WSDOT should have allowed a less restrictive (Type E) approach	WSDOT: designation reflected existing use (multi-family), driveway configuration (no separated on/off), and was reasonably chosen after negotiation	Court: Not arbitrary or capricious; WSDOT considered facts and reasonably designated Type C
Whether WSDOT was required to base the approach designation on formal appraisals considering WAC 468-58-100 factors	MVP: WSDOT failed to produce appraisals as required by WAC 468-58-100(1)(a)	WSDOT: appraisal requirement disputed and not previously litigated below	Court: Waived on appeal because MVP did not raise it in trial court (RAP 2.5(a)); court declines to reach merits
Whether acquisition of limited-access rights to Parcel 4-08366 exceeded WSDOT’s regulatory distance limits	MVP: the parcel lies outside the 300-foot limitation, so condemnation was improper	WSDOT: regulations permit establishing controlled segments for a minimum of 300 feet but not a strict maximum; plan covered only the abutting portion	Court: WSDOT acted within regulatory authority; condemnation limited to the portion shown on plan
Whether MVP is entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 / RAP 18.1	MVP: seeks fees arguing constitutional deprivations (just compensation, due process) justify § 1988 fees	WSDOT: § 1988 applies only to certain federal statutory claims (e.g., § 1983); MVP did not bring such claims	Court: Denies fees—MVP did not bring a § 1983 claim and § 1988 does not apply

Key Cases Cited

HTK Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 155 Wn.2d 612 (condemnation requires proof of public use, public interest, and necessity)
Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Miller, 156 Wn.2d 403 (agency determination of necessity is conclusive absent fraud or arbitrary and capricious conduct)
Freeman v. State, 178 Wn.2d 387 (definition of arbitrary and capricious: willful and unreasonable conduct without consideration)
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., LLC, 159 Wn.2d 555 (courts defer where determination was honest and upon due consideration)
City of Des Moines v. Hemenway, 73 Wn.2d 130 (agency determinations binding absent fraud/constructive fraud)
Farrell v. City of Seattle, 75 Wn.2d 540 (burden of proof on party asserting arbitrary agency action)
Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v. Symetra Life Ins. Co., 166 Wn. App. 683 (appellate courts generally will not consider issues raised first on appeal; RAP 2.5(a))
Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947 (attorney fees under § 1988 awarded only when a § 1983 claim was pursued and prevailed)
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91 (same: § 1988 fees tethered to § 1983 success)
City of Tacoma v. Welcker, 65 Wn.2d 677 (courts may decline to vacate condemnation if genuine need shown and condemnor intends use)