Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; June 26, 1997; Washington; State Appellate Court
The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) appealed a decision regarding a conditional use permit for a work release facility in downtown Kennewick, which was opposed by nearby property owners due to concerns about crime and property values. The Court of Appeals determined that the Kennewick Planning Director acted correctly by rejecting these concerns as unsubstantiated and found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the facility would not harm surrounding properties. The court reversed the superior court's judgment against the permit and directed the City of Kennewick to grant the DOC's application.
In 1992, DOC established a Work Release Siting Committee, which included representatives from Kennewick and surrounding cities, to identify potential sites for the facility. An "Interlocal Cooperation Agreement" was signed, outlining a process for site selection, including public engagement with nearby property owners. The facility was to be limited to 40 beds, with a local screening committee responsible for reviewing inmate placements, ensuring only offenders with strong community ties would be housed there, while excluding certain high-risk offenders.
Irv Berteig, designated as a neutral expert, selected the East Bruneau site for the facility. According to Kennewick's Municipal Code, the planning director can approve land use permits if the use is not detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties, which the court affirmed was satisfied in this case.
KMC 18.75.330 mandates that when a governmental body seeks a conditional use permit for a penal institution within one-quarter mile of residential zones or facilities serving children or the elderly, the planning director must justify the location and confirm it is not detrimental to those nearby uses. In September 1993, a public hearing was held regarding the Department of Corrections (DOC) application for a conditional use permit for a facility at the Kennewick East Bruneau site. Mr. Berteig, a neutral expert, testified that the chosen site would not disrupt the surrounding commercial and industrial areas and was optimal due to nearby employment opportunities for inmates. Although he acknowledged the proximity of residences and school bus stops, he suggested coordination with the school district to address potential conflicts. He noted the absence of nearby facilities serving vulnerable populations.
Opponents of the facility, represented by an attorney, cited a report from city planning expert Sumner Sharpe, which highlighted public concerns about increased crime risks associated with work release facilities. The attorney pointed out that several services for children and the elderly, including the Cable Greens Mini Golf Course and an Elder Day-Care Center, were within close proximity to the proposed site. Additionally, multiple school bus stops and parks serving seniors were nearby. The 1990 Interim Comprehensive Plan for Kennewick designated a medium-density residential zone within 1,000 feet of the site.
DOC countered with crime statistics from a previous work release facility in Pasco, showing a low failure to return rate (4% to 11% annually) and a completion rate of 68% among housed offenders. DOC also referenced a memo from the American Planning Association and a brief from the U.S. Department of Justice, which noted that fears about correctional institutions often stem from perceptions rather than actual outcomes, with property values typically rebounding after initial concerns.
Escapees from correctional facilities have been observed to engage in automobile theft without resorting to violent crime. A 1987 study indicated that correctional facilities do not negatively impact property values, public safety, or quality of life. The Department of Corrections (DOC) referenced Mr. Berteig's testimony about a study of six Washington prison communities, which found no stigma affecting property prices or economic behavior related to these communities. The planning director noted that DOC made significant efforts to educate the public about the work release facility in Kennewick, although there remained a perceived fear regarding the type of inmates housed there. Despite this, the director expressed confidence in the facility's success in an urban environment, citing the Pasco facility and another at the Justice Center that had not caused public issues.
The director found no verified evidence supporting claims of increased crime or negative property value impacts due to the facility. While the proposed site generally met municipal code requirements regarding proximity to facilities serving children and the elderly, there were exceptions for a miniature golf course and two school bus stops. The director justified the proximity, stating that the golf course was likely to be surrounded by commercial uses, which could enhance security, and that the busy Columbia Drive served as a barrier to pedestrian traffic. The impact on children at the bus stops was deemed minimal, as rail and truck traffic would likely ensure parental supervision.
Additionally, the presence of 13 residential units nearby was acknowledged, with three lacking water service. The area is zoned light industrial, leading the director to conclude that the residential units are transitional until developed for compatible uses. The interlocal agreement established a local screening committee with veto power over inmate acceptance, which the director believed contributed to safety at the facility. Based on these findings, the planning director approved DOC's conditional use permit application.
However, neighborhood property owners appealed this decision to the Kennewick Planning Commission, which reversed the approval, citing insufficient findings regarding the potential detriment to the residential zone and nearby facilities. DOC then appealed to the Kennewick City Council, which upheld the commission's decision, emphasizing the validity of neighborhood fears about increased crime and its potential impact on property values and residents' enjoyment of their properties, ultimately deeming the facility "materially detrimental" to the surrounding area.
DOC filed for a writ of certiorari to challenge a decision by the City of Kennewick regarding a conditional use permit. The City moved to dismiss the case, claiming DOC did not include nearby property owners as necessary parties under CR 19(b). The court denied the motion but allowed property owners Barry Blondheim and James and Marilyn Kilgore to intervene. Upon reviewing the planning director's findings, the superior court agreed with the planning commission and city council that the use of the facility was detrimental to services for children and the elderly. The court criticized the director's vague assertions about the facility's safety and the absence of problems at comparable facilities, stating these claims lacked clarity and were ambiguous. Consequently, the court reversed the planning director's decision. However, it upheld the city council’s rejection of the director's findings based on public fear of crime, agreeing with DOC that allowing such fears to dictate permit approvals could hinder essential services. DOC is now appealing this decision.
In terms of preliminary issues, under RCW 7.16.120(5), the court must assess whether the factual determinations by the planning director were supported by substantial evidence. There is a dispute over which findings should be reviewed—those of the city council, planning commission, or planning director. The Kennewick Municipal Code designates the planning director as the decision-maker for conditional use permits, indicating that the director's decisions are administrative rather than merely advisory. The court concluded that the substantial evidence test applies to the planning director's findings. Additionally, the court ruled that the nearby property owners were not necessary parties to the writ of certiorari, affirming the superior court's decision on this matter.
Under CR 19, individuals with a legal interest in the subject matter must be joined as parties if their absence could impair their ability to protect that interest. In zoning appeals, a property owner who successfully obtains a zoning change is a necessary party to any appeal by neighboring landowners, but neighboring landowners themselves are not necessary parties in an appeal of a denial of a zoning change request. Notification to surrounding landowners regarding public hearings on conditional use permits, as mandated by the Kennewick Municipal Code, sufficiently protects their interests, allowing them to intervene in subsequent reviews.
The appeal raised by the Department of Corrections (DOC) involves two main issues: (1) whether public concerns about crime risk from a work release facility can legitimately justify denying a conditional use permit, and (2) whether the director's findings on the facility's site location near a miniature golf business and school bus stops are supported by substantial evidence. The intervenors cite Ferry v. City of Seattle, where property owners successfully argued that a proposed reservoir constituted a nuisance due to the fear it instilled regarding potential risks. The court emphasized that the legitimacy of fear, rather than its scientific basis, is crucial, ruling that the fear affected the owners' enjoyment of their properties.
However, DOC argues that the cases cited pertain to nuisance rather than zoning issues. Washington case law indicates that community fears must be substantiated to be considered in zoning decisions. In Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, the court noted that unfounded fears based on stereotypes cannot justify zoning restrictions, as there was no evidence that a proposed group home would impact local safety. The Washington Court of Appeals has also addressed the influence of public fears on zoning, highlighting that arbitrary decisions against expert findings can be challenged.
The court emphasized that generalized community dissatisfaction cannot serve as a valid basis for denying a permit. Citing Maranatha Mining and Kenart Associates, it was noted that decisions must not solely reflect community displeasure but should be based on substantive evidence regarding the impact of the proposed use. In Kenart, a planning decision was reversed due to the acknowledgment that denial stemmed from community discomfort rather than factual concerns. The distinction between nuisance and zoning cases disallows consideration of neighbors' unfounded fears in permit decisions.
Additionally, the court referenced the California case Lucas Valley Homeowners Ass'n, which ruled that general fears about property value impacts from a synagogue's conversion were insufficient for permit denial. The court underscored that legislative provisions, such as RCW 36.70A.200(2), indicate that local plans cannot obstruct the siting of essential public facilities, acknowledging potential local opposition while focusing on actual neighborhood safety impacts.
The Kennewick Municipal Code mandates that the planning director must justify the siting of a work release facility near sensitive uses, ensuring it is not detrimental to nearby facilities for children and the elderly. The review process by the superior court is deferential, considering substantial evidence that supports the planning director's findings. The director concluded that the work release facility would minimally impact local businesses and safety, relying on evidence and agreements with the Department of Corrections regarding inmate placement. The proximity of the miniature golf business was deemed acceptable due to its distance from the facility and existing zoning allowances for commercial uses in the area.
The director's determination to locate a work release facility within one-quarter mile of a miniature golf business is supported by substantial evidence. The presence of school bus stops near the facility, while raising safety concerns due to existing railroad and truck traffic, does not independently justify the facility's location as an additional risk. There are only two bus stops within a quarter-mile and three within a half-mile, allowing for the potential development of a safety plan between the school district and the facility.
Regarding the proximity of 13 residential units to the facility, the director noted that these residences are located in an area designated as light industrial in Kennewick's Interim Comprehensive Plan. Two of the units are vacant, indicated by removed water meters, and another has no utility record, suggesting potential vacancy. The director characterized the residential area as "transitional," implying it could soon be repurposed for light industrial development.
The court reversed the superior court’s decision, which had found the director’s findings insufficient under KMC 18.75.330, and remanded the case to the City of Kennewick to approve the Department of Corrections' application for a conditional use permit. The director’s reasoning regarding the isolation of the site, the potential for surrounding commercial development, and the safety measures in place were all deemed adequate. The intervenors' arguments regarding unlawful procedures were dismissed, as they did not cross-appeal, and the court found the superior court's reasoning against these claims persuasive. The issue of the city council's appeal process was not addressed due to the ruling in favor of the Department of Corrections.
