West Main Associates v. City of Bellevue
| Decision Date | 12 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 50913-1,50914-0,s. 50913-1 |
| Citation | 720 P.2d 782,106 Wn.2d 47 |
| Parties | WEST MAIN ASSOCIATES, a Washington general partnership, Respondent, v. CITY OF BELLEVUE, a municipal corporation; City Council of the City of Bellevue; Cary Bozeman; Nan Campbell; Donald Davidson; Thomas Hansen; James Keeffe; William Lagen; and Donald MacKenzie, Appellants. The BELLEVUE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Respondent, v. CITY OF BELLEVUE, a municipal corporation; City Council of the City of Bellevue; Cary Bozeman; Nan Campbell; Don Davidson; Tom Hansen; Jim Keeffe; William Lagen; Don MacKenzie; and George Hebner, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Short & Cressman, John Strasburger, Christopher Osborn, Seattle, for appellants.
Foster, Pepper & Riviera, George Hill, John McCullough, Seattle, for respondent W. Main Assoc. Hillis, Phillips, Cairncross, Clark & Martin, Glenn Amster, Seattle, for respondent Bellevue Downtown Assoc.
The City of Bellevue appeals from a trial court's orders granting partial summary judgment in favor of West Main Associates and summary judgment for Bellevue Downtown Association. The trial court concluded that Bellevue ordinance 3359 unconstitutionally interfered with rights guaranteed by this court's vesting doctrine. We agree with the trial court.
In February 1981, the City of Bellevue enacted a set of ordinances to regulate and encourage downtown growth. That set of ordinances was the product of 6 years of study. Upon enactment of the ordinances, West Main Associates took its first steps toward development of Meydenbauer Place, a 22-story mixed-use retail and residential structure on a 1.1 acre tract in "Old Bellevue" at the southeastern edge of Bellevue's central business district. In August 1983, West Main Associates submitted its application for administrative design review of Meydenbauer Place. On October 11, 1983, it issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement, on which a hearing was held November 10, 1983. West Main Associates continued to revise and refine its design plans.
In March 1984, the Bellevue City Council met in study session to discuss development within the central business district "transition area." The transition area is the portion of the business district immediately bordering the surrounding residential area, and includes the designated site for Meydenbauer Place. The council considered several proposals regarding development in the transition area, including a citywide ordinance to establish the point at which rights to develop property vest.
West Main Associates completed and submitted revised administrative design review materials on March 30, 1984. A few days later, on April 2, 1984, the City of Bellevue added two sections to its building code by enacting ordinance 3359. The ordinance prohibited the filing of a building permit application for any proposed project in Bellevue until all of the following procedures are complete: (1) administrative design review approval; (2) site plan review approval; (3) administrative conditional use approval; (4) modification of landscaping approval; (5) design review approval by the planning commission; (6) passage by the city council of any necessary ordinance approving a conditional use, shoreline conditional use, planned unit development or planned residential unit development; (7) approval by the board of adjustment of a variance or shoreline variance; and (8) issuance of a shorelines substantial development permit. The ordinance specifically provided that if any appeal were taken with respect to the first four of these approvals no building permit application would be accepted until the appeal was finally resolved. The ordinance also provided that filing of applications for any of these preliminary approvals would not vest rights; development rights would be vested only as of the time a building permit application was filed.
The ordinance established several hurdles for West Main to clear before it could vest its rights by filing for a building permit. West Main's investment on April 2 is not known. However, by July 13, 1984, West Main estimated expenditures of over $500,000 on design phase costs for Meydenbauer Place.
After enactment of the ordinance, West Main Associates and Bellevue Downtown Association, a nonprofit corporation consisting of residents, business persons, and landowners in downtown Bellevue, filed separate suits against Bellevue. Each party sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional and unenforceable. West Main also claimed monetary damages on three theories: (1) damages for a "taking" of its property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) damages as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1983) for the deprivation of constitutional rights by a state official acting under color of state authority; and (3) damages as authorized by RCW 64.40 for the interference with private property rights by a local government acting in knowing violation of constitutional rights.
Bellevue moved for summary judgment on the pleadings. After a hearing the trial court denied the motion, and entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Bellevue Downtown Association and an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of West Main Associates. The trial court expressly directed entry of the latter judgment as a final judgment. In its letter opinion the court concluded that the ordinance improperly interfered with the vesting doctrine, and suggested that the ordinance violated due process requirements. 1
We agree with the trial court. We have recognized that "[a]lthough less than a fee interest, development rights are beyond question a valuable right in property." Louthan v. King Cy., 94 Wash.2d 422, 428, 617 P.2d 977 (1980), Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631, reh'g denied, 439 U.S. 883, 99 S.Ct. 226, 58 L.Ed.2d 198 (1978). See also C. Siemon, W. Larsen, & D. Porter, Vested Rights 61-68 (1982). Despite the expanding power over land use exerted by all levels of government, Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cy., 97 Wash.2d 680, 684, 649 P.2d 103 (1982).
One aspect of this court's protection of these rights is our vested rights doctrine. Under this doctrine, developers who file a timely and complete building permit application obtain a vested right to have their application processed according to the zoning and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application. The Washington doctrine protects developers who file a building permit application that (1) is sufficiently complete, (2) complies with existing zoning ordinances and building codes, and (3) is filed during the effective period of the zoning ordinances under which the developer seeks to develop. See, e.g., Allenbach v. Tukwila, 101 Wash.2d 193, 676 P.2d 473 (1984). Once a developer complies with these requirements a city cannot frustrate the development by enacting new zoning regulations.
The purpose of the vesting doctrine is to allow developers to determine, or "fix," the rules that will govern their land development. See Comment, Washington's Zoning Vested Rights Doctrine, 57 Wash.L.Rev. 139, 147-150 (1981). The doctrine is supported by notions of fundamental fairness. As James Madison stressed, citizens should be protected from the "fluctuating policy" of the legislature. The Federalist No. 44, at 301 (J. Madison) (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Persons should be able to plan their conduct with reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. City of Seattle
...whether the regulation is unduly oppressive on the property owner. Presbytery, at 330, 787 P.2d 907; see also West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 52, 720 P.2d 782 (1986).The first and second part of this test are often easily met by challenged government action. The third part is......
-
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island
...by courts, Erickson & Associates v. McLerran, 123 Wash.2d 864, 867-68, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994); West Main Associates v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 50-51, 53, 720 P.2d 782 (1986) ("A vested right does not guarantee a developer the ability to build."). However, the United States Supreme C......
-
Orion Corp. v. State
... ... , Deputy Pros., Olympia, Douglas Jewett, Seattle City Atty., Dennis J. McLerran, Asst. City Atty., Law Offices of ... after Orion I, the trial court added Padilla Bay Associates (PBA) as coplaintiff, and all parties moved for summary ... of summary judgment, the State and County raise three main issues: (1) what effect the public trust doctrine has on ... Carlson v. Bellevue, 73 Wash.2d 41, 50-51, 435 P.2d 957 (1968). Although the ... 133, 137, 14 S.Ct. 499, 38 L.Ed. 385 (1894); West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 52, 720 P.2d 782 ... ...
-
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 62304-0
...649 P.2d 103 (1982), where we suggested due process was a limiting principle for zoning ordinances. In West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 52, 720 P.2d 782 (1986), we stated "this court has often ruled that due process considerations limit how local governments use their ......
-
CHAPTER 2 The Strange Career of Private Property And The Police Power
...Park, 546 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y.S. Ct. 1989) (a vested right is based on consideration of fairness); West Main Assoc. v. City of Bellevue, 720 P.2d 782, 785 (Wash. 1986) (the vested rights doctrine is supported by notions of fundamental fairness). [131] Erickson & Assoc. v. McLerran, 872 P.2d 1......
-
The Quest for the Best Test to Vest: Washington's Vested Rights Doctrine Beats the Rest
...conflict from vested rights). 54. See Witt, supra note 4, at 327-28. 55. West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash. 2d 47, 51, 720 P.2d 782, 785 56. Hanes and Minchew, supra note 2, at 407-08 (footnote omitted). See also Wendy U. Larsen and Steven M. Elrod, An Update on Vested Rights,......
-
Making Room: Why Inclusionary Zoning Is Permissible Under Washington's Tax Preemption Statute and Takings Framework
...by local ordinances. See WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.27.095, 58.17.033 (2012); W. Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash. 2d 47, 51, 720 P.2d 782, 785 (1986). Once developers' rights are vested, they are protected from subsequent changes to land use and zoning regulations. W. Main Assocs., 10......
-
Death by Sepa: Substantive Denials Under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act
...in good faith and the municipality frustrates those efforts). 50. See West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash. 2d 47, 50-51, 720 P.2d 782, 785 (1986) ("West Main I"); Allenbach v. City of Tukwila, 101 Wash. 2d 193, 676 P.2d 473 (1984); State ex rel. Ogden v. Bellevue, 45 Wash. 2d 49......