Univ. of Wash. v. City of Seattle
94232-3
| Wash. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- University of Washington (UW) sought to demolish the More Hall Annex on its Seattle campus; DOCOMOMO nominated the Annex for landmark designation under Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO).
- UW filed a declaratory judgment action asking the court to hold that the LPO can never apply to any UW property, arguing UW is not an LPO-defined “owner” and claiming plenary Regents control over university property.
- The King County Superior Court granted summary judgment to UW, finding UW not an "owner" under the LPO; the City of Seattle and preservation groups appealed.
- Relevant statutory changes since the court’s 1980 City of Seattle decision: RCW 28B.20.130(1) was amended in 1985 to read that Regents have full control "except as otherwise provided by law," and a 1999 statute concerning the Metropolitan Tract was repealed.
- The Washington Supreme Court considered whether (1) the Regents' statutory control is subject to other state laws, (2) UW is a "state agency" under the Growth Management Act (GMA), (3) the LPO is a GMA development regulation (left for the GMHB), and (4) UW qualifies as an LPO "owner." The Court reversed the trial court and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (UW) | Defendant's Argument (City/DOCOMOMO) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regents' "full control" (RCW 28B.20.130(1)) is subject to other state statutes | "Full control" is plenary and not implicitly limited by general laws like the GMA | 1985 amendment "except as otherwise provided by law" allows limits by other state statutes | Held: "except as otherwise provided by law" is plain; Regents' control can be limited by other state statutes |
| Whether UW is a "state agency" required to comply with local GMA development regulations (RCW 36.70A.103) | UW: statute doesn’t necessarily make universities "state agencies" for GMA compliance | City: UW acts on behalf of the State and fits ordinary meaning of "state agency"; statutes and context support that | Held: UW is a state agency and must comply with local development regulations adopted under the GMA |
| Whether the LPO is a local "development regulation" adopted pursuant to the GMA | UW: LPO was not adopted in compliance with GMA; thus not a GMA development regulation | City: LPO operates as a local development regulation subject to GMA | Held: Court did not decide on the merits — that issue must be raised first before the Growth Management Hearings Board |
| Whether UW is an "owner" under the LPO (SMC 25.12 definitions) | UW: LPO definitions do not include UW; "corporation" should be read narrowly | City: Terms like "person," "corporation," and "owner" must be read broadly in LPO context to ensure notice and procedural rights | Held: UW is an owner under the LPO definitions; trial court erred in narrow reading |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. City of Seattle, 94 Wn.2d 162 (Wash. 1980) (previously held LPO could not apply to part of UW property under statutes then in effect)
- Burns v. City of Seattle, 161 Wn.2d 129 (Wash. 2007) (de novo review and statutory interpretation principles)
- Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wn.2d 275 (Wash. 2008) (general-specific rule in statutory construction)
- Stafne v. Snohomish County, 174 Wn.2d 24 (Wash. 2012) (administrative exhaustion before the Growth Management Hearings Board)
- City of Everett v. Snohomish County, 112 Wn.2d 433 (Wash. 1989) (no blanket immunity for state entities from local zoning; look to legislative intent)