From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Puyallup v. Pierce Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2
Dec 14, 2021
No. 54474-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2021)

Opinion

54474-1-II

12-14-2021

CITY OF PUYALLUP, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a Washingt governmental unit; KNUTSON FARMS, IN and RUNNING BEAR DEVELOPME PARTNERS, LLC, Respondents.


VELJACIC, J.

Pierce County issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for a warehouse distribution project bordering the City of Puyallup. Puyallup attempted to assume lead agency status so it could issue a determination of significance (DS) and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The County refused to accept Puyallup's jurisdiction, and Puyallup sued. In City of Puyallup v. Pierce County, 8 Wn.App. 2d 323, 326-27, 438 P.3d 174 (2019), this court held that Puyallup had jurisdiction under SEPA regulation WAC 197-11-948 , to assume lead agency status, issue a DS, and complete an EIS. On remand, the superior court adopted the County's proposed order and ruled that this court's opinion, consistent with WAC 197-11-948 , rendered decisions that were based on the County's MDNS void, but allowed other County decisions related to this project to remain effective.

Puyallup appeals, arguing that the superior court's order is inconsistent with this court's opinion and asks us to hold that all County decisions on the project are void ab initio, and that the entire application process must start anew.

We conclude that neither the superior court's order, nor Puyallup's proposed order, correctly states the law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

In 2014, Knutson Farms Inc. and Running Bear Development Partners LLC applied to Pierce County for approval of a warehouse and distribution facility bordering the City of Puyallup. Pierce County, 8 Wn.App. 2d 323. The project was within Puyallup's road and sewer infrastructure, and its approval was required for design elements pertaining to that infrastructure. Id. at 327. The County conducted its SEPA evaluation and issued an MDNS. Id. at 328.

Puyallup notified the County that it was assuming lead agency status, but the County refused to acknowledge Puyallup's jurisdiction over the project. Id. 329-30. The County subsequently approved the project's application. Id. at 330. Puyallup sued the County in superior court over the jurisdictional dispute. Id. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the superior court granted the County's motion, ruling that Puyallup did not have jurisdiction to assume lead agency status. Id.

Puyallup appealed, and in its opinion, this court held that Puyallup had jurisdiction to assume lead agency status because the project application required approvals from Puyallup related to Puyallup's road and sewer infrastructure. Id. at 351-52. This court also held that an MDNS is equivalent to a DNS under WAC 197-11-948(1). Id. at 351. Before this court issued its opinion in that case, Puyallup separately appealed three decisions to the Pierce County Hearing Examiner under the County's administrative appeals procedure. First, Puyallup appealed the approval of the project's short plat. Second, Puyallup appealed the County's MDNS requesting that the County instead issue a DS. Third, Puyallup appealed the issuance of a permit to allow the project to construct a stormwater outfall into the Puyallup River. Such appeals were denied, and Puyallup appealed to the superior court under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), challenging multiple decisions within the County's short plat approval.

While the LUPA appeal was pending in superior court, this court, issued its opinion in Pierce County, which held that Puyallup could assume lead agency status. See 8 Wn.App. 2d 323. On remand to the superior court, both the County and Puyallup submitted proposed language for the order in the interest of establishing the legal effect of Puyallup assuming lead agency status. Puyallup's proposed order states:

All County reviews, decisions, permits, and approvals related to the Knutson Farms project are null and void ab initio. The underlying review processes may be recommenced once the Final EIS is issued by the City of Puyallup. Until then, all County reviews, decisions, permits, and approvals for the Knutson Farms warehouse project are on hold.
CP at 44.
The County's proposed order states:
Decisions by Pierce County based upon the MDNS iss


Summaries of

City of Puyallup v. Pierce Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2
Dec 14, 2021
No. 54474-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2021)
Case details for

City of Puyallup v. Pierce Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF PUYALLUP, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a Washingt governmental…

Court:Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

Date published: Dec 14, 2021

Citations

No. 54474-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2021)