Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA 07-128_Report 03September 27, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) D§ COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 27th day of September, 2012 at the hour of 4:30 p.m., I, Bonnie Walton, City Clerk for the City of Renton, duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office mail at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail a letter scheduling a hearing for November 13, 2012, before the Hearing Examiner to the attached list regarding the Appeal Hearing for Galloway at the Highlands, building permits #7295, 7303, 7202, & 7294. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk ;SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 27th day of September, 2012. Cynthia Moy`, Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Easy PeelO Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 A Bend along line to Feed Paper" expose Pop-up EdgeTm AVERY@ 51600 l Renton School District Attn: John Knutson 300 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98057 Taiis Abolins Renton School District Campbell, Dille, Barnett & Smith, PLLC Attn: Rick Stacke 317 South Meridian 300 SW 7th Street P.O. Box 488 Renton, WA 98057 Puyallup, WA 98371 Etiquettes taciles a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de Utilisez le abarit AVERYO 516:00 i Sens de rcsv6ler le rebord Pop-up"' ' 9 1 [hargemenC 1 Renton School District Attn: Stewart Shusterman 300 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98057 www.averycom ; 1 -800 -GO -AVERY ' L Denis Law CI C>f Mayor j e4tlf City Clerk -Bonnie I- Walton September 27, 2012 Talis Abolins Campbell, Dille, Barnett &-Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian P.O. Box 488 Puyallup, WA 9837.1 Re: Appeal Hearing for Gallaway at the Highlands Building Permits 7295, 7303, 7202 & 7294 Dear Talis Abolins: The.appeal hearing you have requested in the above referenced matter will be heard by the Hearing Examiner on November 13, 2012 at 10 a.m. This hearing will take place in the -Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 5 Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. If you have any questions, please email me at bwalton@rentonwa.goy- -Sincerely, Bonnie f. Walton City Clerk Encl. Notice of Appeal cc: Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Garrison Newsom, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director. Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (3) 1055 South Grady way • Renton, Washington 98057_• (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Camf U, Dille, Barnett & Smith, P.L.L.C. Attorneys at Law Rcbm 1). Cm,,,bd1 i S9UG-20M) 3.17SOLr1"H MER[[)I,kN1 I 1'.C)• BOX X88 I i'UYALLUI:1v`ASH]NGIG.N 933%l [�1C�} TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513 FAX: X253) 845-4941 SENDER'S E-MAIL: TahsA@cdb-12w.com WEBSITE: uww.cdb-law.com June 27, 2012 Phil A. Olbrechts Hearing Examiner Care of City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728 Renton, WA 98057 ATTORNEYS ROBERT D. CAM7'BELL (1.9(5(,-2W0) TALIS M+ ">BOLf'NS HOLLIS H.BAR-NETT, P S.* STEPHEN A. BURNHAM BRYCE H. DILL%, Y.S. HILLARY A. HOLMES SHANNON R. JONES DEBORAH A. PURCELL DANIEL W. SMITH JEREMY M. SWANN * OF COUNSEL ESCROW DEPAR'T'MENT SUSAN BOAT, LPD Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL Galloway at the Highlands City of Renton -- NE 3rd Place — Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 Building Permits: CP07295 (Parcel No. 2690100050) CP07303 (Parcel No. 2690100060) CP07302 (Parcel No. 2690100070) CP07294 (Parcel No. 2690100080) Dear Mr. Olbrechts: CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 8 2012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .6e My client, Galloway Heights 1, LLC, hereby appeals the City's imposition of school impact fees in connection with all building permits issued on the project, including the currently issued Building Permits 7295; 7303, 7302 and 7294. With this correspondence we are submitting the $250 appeal fee for a consolidated review under RMC 4 -8 -080(C) - This is the second set of Calloway permits being appealed. The hearing on the first set of permits was held on June 19, 2012, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C). A favorable ruling on this first appeal will likely resolve all pending and anticipated appeals from the Galloway project. Background. My client appeals the application of City of Renton's Ordinance 4.1.160E(2) to the Galloway Heights project. Under Section E(2), the City unambiguously established a vested right to the fee schedule in effect at the time of preliminary approval: Campbell, DMc Bamett & Srnidi P.L1_C. In�reoi�ss�ohnl_ [ rt �F� u u3n * eut .'tics u�tN� A Frio ss7c�N ni. sr v�c� eu�tP�;tzn n c,n �L-s lYc..,r.�.:• ��L���� ����.��- �:�-L�..,.�----�� r � CCF ,�'�t,.��-�- �-�� Phil A. Olbrechts June 27, 2012 Page -2- For a plat or PUD applied for on or after the effective date of Ordinance 4808, the impact fees due on the plat or the PUD, shall be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit for each dwelling unit is issued, using the fee schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval. City of Renton Municipal Code, 4.1.160E(2) (emphasis supplied, as amended through Ord. 5442, 1-12-2009). A copy of the applicable ordinance is attached. The Galloway project received preliminary approval on March 8, 2007. At that time, RMC 4.1.160E(2) was the City's "law" with respect to school impact fees for the Galloway project. See also RMC 4-1-160(A) (RMC 4.1.160 governs school impact fees throughout the City). At that point in time there were no school impact fees in effect for the.Renton School District_ Before acquisition of the property, representatives of Galloway sleights 1, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the City's Ordinance and the impact fee schedule as a part of the due diligence process. In fact, it was a City official (Craig Brunell) who specifically pointed out the protections of this vesting provision in a meeting with Mike Bauer. At that point in time, the City's officials recognized and interpreted RMC 4.1.160E(2) as the governing law with respect to the Galloway project. The City's vesting language in E(2) created a clear, unambiguous right to rely upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of preliminary approval. This legal protection helped convince my client to acquire and revive a large City of Renton project that had ground to a halt. On March 8, 2010, the City amended subsection E(2) with Ordinance 5532. The amendment removing the pre-existing vesting language. Under the new language, school. impact fees are assessed and collected from the lot owner "at the time the building permits are issued, using the fee schedule than in effect." City of Renton Municipal Code, 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). The City's modified Ordinance logically applies prospectively, to all owners who have not received preliminary approvals under the former Ordinance. However, an e-mail from the City later suggested that the City intended to apply the modified Section E(2) retroactively, to my client, even though it had already received preliminary approvals under the original Section E(2). The City's recent issuance of permits on the project confirms that the City, despite objection, is applying the ordinance retroactively. This retroactive interpretation has a dramatic and unanticipated financial impact on my client's project. For the Galloway project, a retroactive interpretation destroys the fee structure originally mandated by Section 2(E), and causes more than $75,000 in damage to the project budget. . u.ipbetl)lle Bamett&Smith,P.LJLG i APRoF-MONAL.LihffTEDaIIABaLTYCONTANYD4aJ7DNGAPROFrS510NALSF-RVJC .C(.)RpoRAlloN Phil A. Olbrechts June 27, 2012 Page -3- Substantial Errors of Law. The City's retroactive interpretation and application of the ordinance creates substantial errors of law that are highly prejudicial to the applicant. First, the City's interpretation violates the principle against retroactive application of ordinances. State v. Malone, 9 Wn. App. 122, 131, 511 P.2d 67 (1973) (retroactive application is disfavored by law). It is well settled that, absent a legislative expression to the contrary, a law is presumed to apply prospectively only. The language of the ordinance cannot be reasonably interpreted to effect a retroactive repeal of the original language, which expressly created vested rights. A retroactive repeal of the vesting language raises serious constitutional problems, exposing the City to liability for any project that received preliminary approval under the original Section 2(E). Washington courts recognize that, as a matter of due process, land owners are entitled to rely upon a municipality's fixed rules governing land development. Valley View Industrial Parks v. City of Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621 (1987), citing West Main Associates v. Ci1y of Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 720 P.2d 782 (1986). To satisfy due process standards, a new ordinance must aim to achieve a legitimate public purpose, and "the means to use and achieve that purpose must be reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals." West Main Associates, 106 Wn.2d at 52. Once created, vested rights are entitled to protection. See Lincoln Shiloh Associates, Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation omitted). The City will attempt to defend its position with authorities that address the right of municipalities to increase impact fees. However, my client's appeal does not take issue with the City's decision to increase an impact fee. There is no question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs. The problem here is the City's retroactive application of Ordinance 5532 to vested projects. Section 2(E) expressly granted projects the legal right to pay those impact fees in effect at the time of preliminary approval. Prospectively, this is not a problem. Retroactive, the City's unsupported interpretation violates due process, and also justifies modification based on the statutory "fairness" standard which governs impact fee appeals. RCW 82.02.070 ("The impact fee may be modified upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on principles of fairness."). My client also appeals on the ground that the City's retroactive repeal of subsection 2(E) is barred by equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel prevents municipalities from adopting inconsistent positions in a manner that damages those who rely on the first position. See Lincoln, 45 Wn. App. at 130. Galloway Heights I, LLC relied upon the City's language in Section 2(E) — the language was unambiguous at the time of application. While the City was free to amend Section 2(E) prospectively, any effort to retroactively apply the amendment amounts to a fundamentally inconsistent statement depriving the owners of more than $75,000 that was C=Tbe�Dlllt,B=err&smitra PJ -LC. [ Amcor-=ourLL-RnTFMUAB COITANYrNcrunnvGAP7torTSEa,nA SIIiNr¢corPoxn oiv Phil A. 4lbrechts June 27, 2012 Page -4- needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully appeal the City's decision to impose the increased school impact fees on the already approved Galloway at the Highlands Project. We appreciate this opportunity to seek review of this important matter. Very truly yours, CAMPBE , DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. Talis M. Abolins TMA/mal Enclosures Cc: Client LIDATAIDIHHBVANSanels, 7onathan\Galloway at the Highlands - School impact Fees 22827.0091CCity of Renton 4.13-12.docx Cmipbell,1D0c,Bamett&Sff th,PLLC. I APRoT-Soni.ff=LLABILII3'COWMIYINC7MNGAFkQFESSIONALSERIJI ECORICPA-nON Galloway at the Highlands Po Box 1204 Puyallup, WA. 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Permit Pee / School Impact Pees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit #: CP07295, (Lot# 5) 3914 NE 3`d pl, Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is our check for $8,256.52which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07295 $8,256.52 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We look forward to Nvorking with the City on the successful completion of our project, but hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute, A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future. T a you. Plea/se coy act me if you have any questions: Jo n 110,vay�oxri ghlands. (253) 606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 Lkbaitels@coincast.net EIVED JUN 15 209Z BUILDING DIVISION Galloway at the Highlands PCS Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Permit Fee ! School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit ##: CP07303, (Lot # 6) 3910 NE 3`d Pl , Dear Cite of Renton: Enclosed is our clieck for $8,928.52 which represents the Building Pennit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1,1601;(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5 53 2, March 8, 2010), • CP07203 $8,928.52 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02,070(4). We look fonvard to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal.on the impact fee issue will be filed in the rear future. h you. Pieria c rtact ttto if you have any questions: 0120 }an �art�ls lolvay Of the 1gIrIAI1d5, (253) 606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 Martels r�r comcast.net CITY0FRENTON RECEI\I n JUN 16 2012 f3UiLDING DIUISI01\ Gallaway at the Highlands PQ Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject; Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted udder protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit M CP07302, (Lot # 7) 3906 NE 3" Pl , Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is our check for $8,283.32 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.1601=(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07302 $8,283.32 Please mote that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We look forward to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but trope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future. 70a if you have Any questions: ay ofthe.. ighlands. (253) 606-4939 P.D. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 jkbartels(r�cotneast.ne 01TY0FFt �� E RECE JOIN 15 2412 BUILDING DIVISION 01TY0FRENTON JUN I ^ ?0<1 BUILDING DIVIS1, ,,, Gallaway at the Highlands POD ox 1204 Puyallup, SVA 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit #: CP07294, (Lot # 8) 3902 NE 3" PI, Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is aut' check for $8,283.32 which represents the ]Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07294 $8,278.63 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school.impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We look forward to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but Hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near fixture. ;al you.Please � tie if you have any questions: Iran B r e soway of the iglilands. (253)606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 'kt aitels rr,eocucast.net RECEIVED JUIN 15 2012 BUILDING 01VISION Ord. 51 Vesting ordinance 4.1.150E City of Renton Municipal Codes ( 94,-1-23-2006; Ord. 5263, 3-5-2007; Drd. 5317,.11-19-2007; Ord. 5442, 1- 12-2009) E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES: !1. The..City shall collect'school impact fees, established by this Section as adjusted from time to time, from any applicant seeking development approval from the City for :'dwelling units located within the District's boundaries where such development activity ;requires final plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit or a mobile home permit. 2. For a plat or PUD applied for on or after the effective date of Ordinance 4808, the impact fees due on the plat or the PUD shall be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit for each dwelling unit is issued.} i!.?ler�ne plat or-1ay Residential ;developments proposed for short plats shall not be governed by this subsection, but shall be governed by subsection (E)(4) of this Section. 3. If, on the effective date of Ordinance 4808, a plat or PUD has already received ;preliminary approval through King County, but then if any of the fee has been paid through Ding County, the remainder of the impact fees shall be assessed and collected from the lot owner at the time the building permits are issued, using the fee schedule then in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. If no payment was made through King County, then the entire fee will be due and owing at the time building permits are issued. If, on the effective date of Ordinance 4808, an applicant has applied for preliminary plat or PUD approval, but has not yet received such approval, the applicant shall follow the procedures set forth in subsection (E)(2) of this Section. 4. For existing lots or lots not covered by subsection B of this Section, applications for single family, mobile home permits, and site plan approval for mobile home parks proposed, the total amount of the impact fees. shall be assessed and collected from the i applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect. Irrespective of the date that the application for a building permit or mobile home permit or site plan approval was submitted, no approval shall be granted and no permit shall be issued until the required school impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have been paid Cynthia Moya From: Phil 0Ibrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail-com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:27 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: RE Appeal to HEX -- Galloway (Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8) can do 11/13/12 as well. From: Cynthia Maya [mailto:CMoya@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:05 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Subject: RE: Appeal to HEX - Galloway (Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8) Could you do a 10am on November 13? Please still hold the 10/23 date also. Thank you, Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist City of Renton - Administrative Services/City Clerk Division cmoya@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 From: Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw mail.com Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:26 AM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: RE: Appeal to HEX - Galloway (Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8) 10/23 and 11/13 work best for me. From: Cynthia Maya jmailto:CMoya@Rentonwa.govJ Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:19 AM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Bonnie Walton Subject: Appeal to HEX - Galloway (Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8) Phil, Since Mr. Abolins has decided to move forward with the appeal of - Galloway (Lots 5, 6, 7, & S), 1 need to get dates and times from you. Please let me know all of your availability so I can give the others a couple of choices also. Can you do: October 23, 2012 at fpm, October 30, 2012 (am or pm) or November 13 (am or pm)? After 1 get your availability, I will be contacting our City Attorney's office and also Mr. Abolins. Thank you, Cindy Maya, Records Management Specialist 1 City of Renton - Administrative 5ervi Jty Clerk Division cmova@rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 From: Talis Abolins f-mailto:TalisA@cdb-law_com7 Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:58 PM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Cynthia Moya; 'phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw(a)gmail.com)'; Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, We have reviewed the records provided in response to the public disclosure request, and have decided to move forward with the appeal, without consolidation at the Council level. We look forward to coordinating with you and the hearings office on reasonable dates for the hearing on our appeal. Thank you. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 848-3513 www.cdb-law.com From: Talis Abolins Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:07 PM To: Garman Newsom Cc: Cynthia Maya; phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw(@gmail.com); Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, Thanks for checking in. I just returned from out of country this week, and should be able to complete review of the public records we have received and report back to you by mid -week next. Have a good weekend. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.cdb-law.com (253) 848-3513 ... From: Garman Newsom rmailto:GNewsom(&Rentonwa.govI Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:37 AM To: Talis Abolins Cc: Cynthia Moya; phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw mail.com) Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Good Morning, I am following up on our last conversation. When possible could you please give us an update on the status of your public records review and the appeal. Thank you. 2 -�ssistant City Attorney Citi- of Renton 100 S. 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton WA 98006 425-430-648; i1'eleplaone) GNewsomnrentonwa.gov From: Talis Abolins Finailto:TaksA0cdb-law.com1 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:48 AM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Melinda Leach Subject: FW: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, Here's the e-mail I mentioned. I will contact you on consolidation of all permits in the single appeal after we get a chance to review the public records. Have a good day. .Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.cdb-law.com (253) 848-3613 From: Talis Abolins Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:44 AM To: 'Bonnie Walton' Cc: Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Good morning Bonnie, As mentioned in the voice mail, we would like to review some additional information before making a final decision on scheduling a hearing on this appeal. We have a related public disclosure request and you indicated we should receive all responsive documents by August 13, so we would want to schedule our hearing after that date. In addition, I am out of the office from August 21 until September 8. So there is a possibility we will be looking at a second hearing in mid- September. The City attorney assigned to the matter left a message indicating that we may agree to dispense with additional hearings, and stipulate to a single consolidated appeal for all related permits. This may be an option, but we need to review the public records before making that decision. We look forward to receiving the records. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information from me. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.cdb-law.com (253) 848-3513 3 From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalt :entonwaL. Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:03 AM To. Talis Abolins Subject: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Mr. Abolins: Now that the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision for the first appeal on Galloway at the Highlands, I want to confirm with you whether or not you wish to proceed with the second appeal submittal which was received in this office on June 28, 2012. If you wish to continue with this appeal, then upon receipt of your confirmation, we will get the hearing date scheduled. If, however, you wish to withdraw the June 28th appeal, then I will need notice from you to that effect for my file. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 How am I Doing? Email my Dept. Administrator: My Dept. Administrator: Wen Wang Dept. Administrator's email: IWang@Rentonwa.govmailto:IWanRLa Rentanwa.eov?subject=Survey-Bonnie Walton &City Clerk office Customer satisfaction is our top priority. We welcome your comments and suggestions on how we can improve the support we provide to you. Cynthia Moya From: Talis Abolins <TalisA@cdb-law.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:33 PM To: Cynthia Moya Cc: Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Ms. Moya, That date is available for me. I need to confirm with my clients, and will get back to you soon. Thank you. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 (253)848-3513 www.cdb-law.com From: Cynthia Moya [mailto:CMoya@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:27 AM To: Talis Abolins Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Mr. Abolins, We are in the process of setting your Appeal to the Hearing Examiner regarding Galloway (Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8). Please let us know if you would be available on October 23 at 1:00 p.m for this hearing. As soon as I hear from you, we will start the scheduling process. Thank you, Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist City of Renton - Administrative Services/City Clerk Division cmoya . rentonwa.gov 425-430-6513 From: Talis Abolins fmailto:TalisA@cdb-law.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:58 PM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Cynthia Moya; 'phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw(tgmail.com)'; Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, 1 We have reviewed the records prove in response to the public disclosure regL , and have decided to move forward with the appeal, without consolidation at the Council level. We look forward to coordinating with you and the clearings office on reasonable dates for the hearing on our appeal. Thank you. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 848-3513 www.cdb-law.com From: Talis Abolins Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:07 PM To: Garman Newsom Cc: Cynthia Moya; phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw(@Qmail.com); Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject; RF: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, Thanks for checking in. I just returned from out of country this week, and should be able to complete review of the public records we have received and report back to you by mid -week next. Have a good weekend. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www_cdb-law.com (253)848-3513 From: Garmon Newsom [mailto:GNewsom (ci)Rentonwa.aovl Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:37 AM To: Talis Abolins Cc: Cynthia Moya; phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw(&gmail.com) Subject: RF: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Good Morning, I am following up on our last conversation. When possible could you please give us an update on the status of your public records review and the appeal. Thank you. i!�. N It Assistant City .Attorncy City of Rcnton 100 S. 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton WA 98006 425-430-6487 ( Telephone) GNewsornQg rentonwa.goi 2 From: Talis Abolins [mailto:TalisA()c aw.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:48 AM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Melinda Leach Subject: FW: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, Here's the e-mail I mentioned. l will contact you on consolidation of all permits in the single appeal after we get a chance to review the public records. Have a good day. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.edb-law.com (253) 848-3513 From: Talis Abolins Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:44 AM To: 'Bonnie Walton' Cc: Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Good morning Bonnie, As mentioned in the voice mail, we would like to review some additional information before making a final decision on scheduling a hearing on this appeal. We have a related public disclosure request and you indicated we should receive all responsive documents by August 13, so we would want to schedule our hearing after that date, In addition, I am out of the office from August 21 until September S_ So there is a possibility we will be looking at a second hearing in mid- September. The City attorney assigned to the matter left a message indicating that we may agree to dispense with additional hearings, and stipulate to a single consolidated appeal for all related permits. This may be an option, but we need to review the public records before making that decision. We look forward to receiving the records. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information from me. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.cdb-law.com (253) 848-3513 From: Bonnie Walton fmai Ito: Bwalton@Rentonwa.govl Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:03 AM To: Talis Abolins Subject: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Mr. Abolins: Now that the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision for the first appeal on Galloway at the Highlands, I want to confirm with you whether or not you wish to proceed with the second appeal submittal which was received in this office on June 28, 2012. If you wish to continue with this appeal, then upon receipt of your confirmation, we will get the hearing date scheduled. If, however, you wish to withdraw the June 28th appeal, then I will need notice from you to that effect for my file. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 How am I Doing? Email my Dept. Administrator: My Dept. Administrator: Iwen Wang Dept. Administrator's email: IWang@Rentonwa.govmailto:IWame@Rentonwa.itov?subject=Survey-Bonnie Walton & City Clerk Office Customer satisfaction is our top priority. We welcome your comments and suggestions on how we can improve the support we provide to you. Cynthia Mova From: Talis Abolins <TalisA@cdb-law.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:58 PM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Cynthia Moya; 'phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)'; Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, We have reviewed the records provided in response to the public disclosure request, and have decided to move forward with the appeal, without consolidation at the Council level. We look forward to coordinating with you and the hearings office on reasonable dates for the hearing on our appeal. Thank you. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 848-3513 www.cdb-law.com From: Talis Abolins Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:07 PM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Cynthia Moya; phil olbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com); Steve Burnham; Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, Thanks for checking in. I just returned from out of country this week, and should be able to complete review of the public records we have received and report back to you by mid -week next. Have a good weekend. Talis Abohns Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.cdb-law.com (253) 848-3513 From: Garman Newsom fmailto:GNewsom(aRentonwa.govj Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:37 AM To: Talis Abolins Cc: Cynthia Moya; phi[ olbrechts (oibrechtslaw@gmail.com) Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Good Morning, I am following up on our last conversation. When possible could you please give us an update on the status of your public records review and the appeal. Thank you. 1 - G. Nevrs.owt-!! Assistant City attorney Cine of Renton 100 S. 2nd Strcct P.O. Box 626 Renton NV_A 98006 425-430-6487 ("Telephone) GNewsoin@rentonwa.gov ... ............ ....... ............ ... From: Talis Abolins fmailto:TalisA(@cdb-law.com1 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:48 AM To: Garmon Newsom Cc: Melinda Leach Subject: FW: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Garmon, Here's the e-mail I mentioned. I will contact you on consolidation of all permits in the single appeal after we get a chance to review the public records. Have a good day. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www_cdb-law.com (253) 848-3513 From: Talis Abolins Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:44 AM To: 'Bonnie Walton' Cc: Michelle Lea Subject: RE: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Good morning Bonnie, As mentioned in the voice mail, we would like to review some additional information before making a final decision on scheduling a hearing on this appeal. We have a related public disclosure request and you indicated we should receive all responsive documents by August 13, so we would want to schedule our hearing after that date. In addition, I am out of the office from August 21 until September 8. 5o there is a possibility we will be looking at a second hearing in mid- September. The City attorney assigned to the matter left a message indicating that we may agree to dispense with additional hearings, and stipulate to a single consolidated appeal for all related permits. This may be an option, but we need to review the public records before making that decision. We look forward to receiving the records. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information from me. Talis Abolins Campbell Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian Puyallup, WA 98371 www.edb-law.com (253) 848-3513 From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@Rentonwa.govl Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:03 AM 2 • 1'a: Talis Abolins Subject: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal Mr. Abolins: Now that the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision for the first appeal on Galloway at the Highlands, i want to confirm with you whether or not you wish to proceed with the second appeal submittal which was received in this office on June 28, 2012. If you wish to continue with this appeal, then upon receipt of your confirmation, we will get the hearing date scheduled. If, however, you wish to withdraw the June 28'6 appeal, then I will need notice from you to that effect for my file. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 How am I Doing? Email my Dept. Administrator My Dept. Administrator: Iwen Wang Dept. Administrator's email: IWang@Rentonwa.govmailto:IWangEmRentonwa.eov?subject=Survey-Bonnie Walton & City Clerk Office Customer satisfaction is our top priority. We welcome your comments and suggestions on how we can improve the support we provide to you. Cynthia Moya From: Neil R. Watts Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:05 PM To: Cynthia Moya; Larry Warren Cc: Bonnie Walton; Stephanie Rary; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Chip Vincent; Garmon Newsom; 'Phil Olbrechts' Subject: RE: Appeal to HEX Cynthia Yes, the appeal has been filed within the required time frame. Permits issued on June 15, 2012. Same issue as the earlier appeal and hearing, just four more different building permits with the same Renton School District mitigation fee. Neil From: Cynthia Maya Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:37 PM To: Neil R. Watts; Larry Warren Cc: Bonnie Walton; Stephanie Rary; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Chip Vincent; Garmon Newsom; 'Phil Olbrechts' Subject: Appeal to HEX Attached is an appeal we received in the office today, June 28, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. for the Galloway at the Highlands - Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8 (Building Permits CP07295, CP07303, CP07302, CP07294). This appeal is different than the one that is previously in front of the hearing examiner (Previous appeal was for Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12). Neil - Assuming this is appealable, please confirm whether this was filed within the appeal period. If so, then please provide us with a copy of the file. Thank you, Cindy Moya, Records Management Specialist City of Renton - Executive/City Clerk Division cmoya@rentonwa_gov 425-430-6513 Now am 1 Doing? Email my Supervisor: My Supervisor: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Supervisor's email: BWalton@rentonwo.aov Customer satisfaction is our top priority. We welcome your comments and suggestions on how we can improve the support we provide to you. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division + ��■i��] + 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 TO 425-430-6510 ❑ Cash 7Check No. C7 Description: I �� Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Appeal Fee Receipt N ° 1922 Date ❑ Notary Service ❑ -- City CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L,C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT 9:1 CHECK DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# AMOUNT DEDUCTfON NET AMOUNT 917 City of Renton 06/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels 250,00 250.00 C[TY OF RENTON JUN 2 8 2312 RECF-WED CITY CLERKS QFFICE CHE K DATE CONTROL NUMBER 0627/12 98018 1 TOTALS ► Gross: 250.00 Ded: 0.00 Net: 250.00 CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT S SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT Vendor: 917 City of Renton Date Description Invoice # 06/27/12 Appeal Fee, 22827.009 Bartels Check Date Check # Gross Amt 06/27/12 98018 250.00 Amount Disc 250.00 Disc Amt Net Amt 0.00 250.00 98018 Ni -,t Amt 01111111111 L1445HGN]3956779 CAMPBEII, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT 98Q Q M Q 8 CHECK DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE# AMOUNT DEDUCTION NETAMOUNT 917 City of Renton 06/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels 250.00 250.00 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 8 2012.r RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE �y / v . � - M ��7[ ATE CONTR LNUMiBER0 /12 98015 TOTALS ► Gross: 250.00 Ded: 0.00 Net: 250.00 ® Campbell, Dille, Kamen CO STATE BANK 1E1. P.L. 8e 5miL.C. 4220 SOUTH MEFtIpIAN PUYALLUP, WA 96373 98018 Alrorneys at Law 34$2711251 317 South Meridian FO. Box 4SR Puyallup.'AA 96371-8165 (253)F48-3513 DATE CHECK AMOUNT PAY TO THE ORDER Ci of Renton OF: 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 06/27/12 * * * TWO HUNDRED FIFTY Rr 0011()0 nnT T e R c 98018 ****$250.00 11,091301811M 1:4 25 308 27 2 :700040 1ti0 LII' CAMPBELL, DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW GENERAL ACCOUNT Vendor: 917 City of Renton Date Description Invoice # 06/27/12 Appeal Fee; 22827.009 Bartels Check Date Check # Gross Arnt 06/27/12 98018 250.00 98018 Amount Disc Net Amt 250.04 250.00 Disc Amt Net Amt 0.00 250.00 L1445HGM 3956779 Cane, -1.I, Dille, Barnett & Smith, ? L. L. C. Attorneys at Law ov:b:.ci [,. Ca:r:plx•1i il`41f -VHiU� al";' SOUI H M I-T(DIAN' I PO- BOX -Iss 1 PUYA1.1_L"R WASH INiGT iN 9,11 1 01€ /1 TELEPHONE: (253) 848-3513 SENDER'S E-MAIL: Talis CgC,cdb-law.com Phil A. Olbrechts Hearing Examiner Care of City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way — Suite 728 Renton, WA 98057 FAX: (253) 845-4941 WEBSITE: wwwxdh-law.com June 27, 2012 ATTORNEYS it( 1BFIt, 1,1). C-NMPjil, ILi , "'Wo -20010 1.1LES M. `.3071,R.f, k IOI.I,IS 11.L'_1RNIft"1', P.S.' S'l1,:111IHN A N -1K Ili \M BRYC : 11. D111F, i, PS. 1111-].-1RY A 3101,%T11' S11ANNf]N R. JONES DI"B{)RAI-1 A. YURCE11. DAN ILL W. SiMITl i JE 1U.-I'MY -M SWANN U; CULTS€'.I. ESCROW DEPARTMENT SUSAN BOAT. 1,110 C ITY OF RENTON JUN 2 8 2012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ,4,6d Z ' Re: NOTICE OFAPPEAL Galloway at the Highlands City of Renton -- NE 3 Place — Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 Building Permits: CP07295 (Parcel No. 2690100050) CP07303 (Parcel No. 2690100060) CP07302 (Parcel No. 2690100070) CP07294 (Parcel No. 2690100080) Dear Mr. Olbrechts: My client, Galloway Heights I, LLC, hereby appeals the City's imposition of school impact fees in connection with all building permits issued on the project, including the currently issued Building Permits 7295, 7303, 7302 and 7294. With this correspondence we are submitting the $250 appeal fee for a consolidated review under RMC 4-8-080(C). This is the second set of Galloway permits being appealed. The hearing on the first set of permits was held on .lune 19, 2012, pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(C). A favorable ruling on this first appeal will likely resolve all pending and anticipated appeals from the Galloway project. Background. My client appeals the application of City of Renton's Ordinance � .1.160E(2) to the Galloway Heights project. Under Section E(2), the City unambiguously established a vested right to the fee schedule in effect at the time of preliminary approval: (:aml�Ucil,l)illc,Bsrn�rt&Smirh.l�l l [ . I AP11017 SIONAT -� o L C.a.'�..a.-..-�y j`•�'(_L'.=� �-�` � �•._L{.t. �� q-�♦.i�3.1� '�-j�k,._�--"�• i C. 1��.} �..:tL ii+�v gib) Phil A. Olbrechts June 27, 2012 Page -2- For a plat or PUD applied for on or after the effective date of Ordinance 4808, the impact fees due on the plat or the PUD shall be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit for each dwelling unit is issued, using the fee schedule in effect when the plat or PUD receives preliminary approval. City of Renton Municipal Code, 4.1.160E(2) (emphasis supplied, as amended through Ord. 5442, 1-12-2009). A copy of the applicable ordinance is attached. The Galloway project received preliminary approval on March 8, 2007. At that time, RMC 4.1.160E(2) was the City's "law" with respect to school impact fees for the Galloway project. See also RMC 4-1-160(A) (RMC 4.1.160 governs school impact fees throughout the City). At that point in time there were no school impact fees in effect for the Renton School District. Before acquisition of the property, representatives of Galloway Heights 1, LLC specifically reviewed Section E(2) of the City's Ordinance and the impact fee schedule as a part of the due diligence process. In fact, it was a City official (Craig Brunell) who specifically pointed out the protections of this vesting provision in a meeting with Mike Bauer. At that point in time, the City's officials recognized and interpreted RMC 4.1.160E(2) as the governing law with respect to the Galloway project. The City's vesting language in E(2) created a clear, unambiguous right to rely upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of preliminary approval. This legal protection helped convince my client to acquire and revive a large City of Renton project that had ground to a halt. On March 8, 2010, the City amended subsection E(2) with Ordinance 5532. The amendment removing the pre-existing vesting language. Under the new language, school impact fees are assessed and collected from the lot owner "at the time the buiiding permits are issued, using the fee schedule than in effect." City of Renton Municipal Code, 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). The City's modified Ordinance logically applies prospectively, to all owners who have not received preliminary approvals under the former Ordinance. However, an e-mail from the City later suggested that the City intended to apply the modified Section E(2) retroactively, to my client, even though it had already received preliminary approvals under the original Section E(2). The City's recent issuance of permits on the project confirms that the City, despite objection, is applying the ordinance retroactively. This retroactive interpretation has a dramatic and unanticipated financial impact on my client's project. For the Galloway project, a retroactive interpretation destroys the fee structure originally mandated by Section 2(E), and causes more than $75,000 in damage to the project budget. C.unpUc11,1�il1c,Ei-�,ctt&4mirh,E'.1.I.(:. nrr�c�i�;5;ic7r�,v.rJ�rrtrniz��imri�'cot��r:L�v�Nc�,i.��rvcnrnc�rF�Stc��ni.siatvic:i c:cn�i�cn�;�i,cr Phil A. Olbrechts June 27, 2012 Page -3- Substantial Errors of Law. The City's retroactive interpretation and application of the ordinance creates substantial errors of law that are highly prejudicial to the applicant. First, the City's interpretation violates the principle against retroactive application of ordinances. State v. Malone, 9 Wn. App. 122, 131, 511 P.2d 67 (1973) (retroactive application is disfavored by law). It is well settled that, absent a legislative expression to the contrary, a law is presumed to apply prospectively only. The language of the ordinance cannot be reasonably interpreted to effect a retroactive repeal of the original language, which expressly created vested rights. A retroactive repeal of the vesting language raises serious constitutional problems, exposing the City to liability for any project that received preliminary approval under the original Section 2(E). Washington courts recognize that, as a matter of due process, land owners are entitled to rely upon a municipality's fixed rules governing land development. Valley View Industrial Parks v City of Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621 (1987), citing West Main Associates v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 720 P.2d 782 (1986). To satisfy due process standards, a new ordinance must aim to achieve a legitimate public purpose, and "the means to use and achieve that purpose must be reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals." West Main Associates, 106 Wn.2d at 52. Once created, vested rights are entitled to protection. See Lincoin Shiloh Associates, Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 45 Wn. App. 123, 127, 724 P.2d 1083) (citation omitted). The City will attempt to defend its position with authorities that address the right of municipalities to increase impact fees. However, my client's appeal does not take issue with the City's decision to increase an impact fee. There is no question that the City has great flexibility in modifying the fees based on School District needs. The problem here is the City's retroactive application of Ordinance 5532 to vested projects. Section 2(E) expressly granted projects the legal right to pay those impact fees in effect at the time of preliminary approval. Prospectively, this is not a problem. Retroactive, the City's unsupported interpretation violates due process, and also ,justifies modification based on the statutory "fairness" standard which governs impact fee appeals. RCW 82.02.070 ("The impact fee may be modified upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on principles of fairness."). My client also appeals on the ground that the City's retroactive repeal of subsection 2(E) is barred by equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel prevents municipalities from adopting inconsistent positions in a manner that damages those who rely on the first position. See Lincoln, 45 Wn. App. at 130. Galloway Heights I, LLC relied upon the City's language in Section 2(E) — the language was unambiguous at the time of application. While the City was free to amend Section 2(E) prospectively, any effort to retroactively apply the amendment amounts to a fundamentally inconsistent statement depriving the owners of more than $75,000 that was C�unptx➢,1?plc, EZu,�ett & 5mitti, l'.] .l .C. � n r°itc�r� _`Src»,v. i.i ��rri n r.r:�iin rr�• cxtr�m,�r�' 1N(.l.L'1]INC;,� t>i�c�i 7 :`Src�x,v sr �tvtcr. cortr�tt� uc rry Phil A. Qlbrechts June 27, 2012 Page -4- needed elsewhere for the project. This damaging adoption of an inconsistent ordinance is subject to relief under a claim of equitable estoppel. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully appeal the City's decision to impose the increased school impact fees on the already approved Galloway at the Highlands Project. We appreciate this opportunity to seek review of this important matter. Very truly yours, CAMPBE ; DILLE, BARNETT & SMITH, P.L.L.C. Talis M. Abolins TMA/mal Enclosures Cc: Client IADATAIDIHHB\N4\Bartels, Jonathan\Gallow'ay at the Highlands - School Impact Fees 22827.0041CCity of Renton 4-13-12.doex Larnplx�l,l�lk,f3anlett&ti[iutil,Y.LLC. I APROIFSSIOVN.I]V11117)L[Mil1P1YCONTANYINUJ.IJ1NGAl1RO11_SSMAl.Si:RVICISCORPORA:IION Galloway at the Highlands Po Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Permit Fee / School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit #: CP07295, (Lot # 5) 3914 NE 3rd PI, Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is our check for $8,256.52which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07295 $8,256.52 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We look forward to working with the City on the successfiil completion of our project, but hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near futare. T ate you. Please cos act me if you have any questions: Joh. yin �� Noway of the ighlands. (253) 606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 jkbartels a,conIcastiiet CffY0FHLNi0N FIE 0EIVET) JUN 15 2012 BUILDING 0"S'OW Galloway at the Highlands Po Bax 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject. Permit Fee 1 School Iinpact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit #: CP07303, (Lot # 5) 3910 NE 3rd P) Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is our check for $8,928.52 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1,160)x(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07203 $8,928.52 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We look fanvard to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future, P you. Plc"Ftactrne if you Dave any questions; 1 S�1L81ay of theands. (253)606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 ikbartels c ,comcasl.rret CIIYQF19UNTON RECEI\/Fn JUN 15 2011 BUILDING DIVISl(),, Galloway at the Highlands PO Box 1204 Puyallup, VITA 98371 City of Renton, Development Scrviccs Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject; Permit Fee / School impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4), 0 Building Permit #: CP07302, (Lot # 7) 3906 NE 3`d PI , Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is our check for $8,283.32 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by the City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07302 $8,283.32 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We look forward to working with the City on the successful completion of our project, but hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future. ;??Ii,a our.Please cotact ineif you have any questions: Bi esy ofth ighlands. (253)606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 'kbartels r .comcast.net 0JJY0FREn'r0N G�yVEi jUNY52012 BUILDING DIVISION C1iY0FMENTON RECEIuv f"' ,SUN i ^ 7c:j BUILDING Galloway at the Highlands PO Box 1204 Puyallup, VITA 98371 City of Renton, Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Permit Fee 1 School Impact Fees submitted under protest pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). • Building Permit #: CP07294, (Lot # 8) 3902 NE 3" P1, Dear City of Renton: Enclosed is our check for $8,283.32 which represents the Building Permit fee and the school impact fees assessed by (lie City pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160E(2) (as amended by Ordinance 5532, March 8, 2010). • CP07294 $8,278.63 Please note that we have a disagreement on the application of the school impact fees to our project, and are therefore paying these fees under protest, in order to get permits for our development, pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(4). We took forward to working with the City on the successftiI completion of our project, but hope to achieve a fair resolution of the impact fee dispute. A formal notice of appeal on the impact fee issue will be filed in the near future. Th you. Please ntpet nie if you have any questions: han res -` aitoway of the ighlands. (253) 606-4939 P.O. Box 1204 Puyallup, WA 98371 jkbartels(a comeastmet FCFII/Fr) JUN 15 2012 BUILDING DIVISION Vesting ordinance ance 4.1.160E City of Renton Municipal Codes (Ord. 5194, 1-23-2006; ora. 5263, 3-5-2007; Ord. 5317, 11-19-200T; Ord. 5442, 1- 12-2009) E. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES: 1. The City shall collect school impact fees, established by this Section as adjusted ,from time to time, from any applicant seeking development approval from the City for `dwelling units located within the District's boundaries where such development activity ;requires final plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit or a !mobile home permit. 2. For a plat or PUD applied for on or after the effective date of Ordinance 4808, the impact fees due on the plat or the PUD shall be assessed and collected from the ;applicant when the building permit for each dwelling unit is issued, EatfI a the plat�NResidential developments proposed for short plats shall not be governed by this subsection, but shall be governed by subsection (E)(4) of this Section. 3. If, on the effective date of Ordinance 4808, a plat or PUD has already received 'preliminary approval through King County, but then if any of the fee has been paid ;through King County, the remainder of the impact fees shall be assessed and collected 'from the lot owner at the time the building permits are issued, using the fee schedule ;then in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. If no payment was made through ;King County, then the entire fee will be due and owing at the time building permits are Eissued. If, on the effective date of Ordinance 4808, an applicant has applied for !preliminary plat or PUD approval, but has not yet received such approval, the applicant !shall follow the procedures set forth in subsection (E)(2) of this Section. 1 4. For existing lots or lots not covered by subsection B of this Section, applications for single family, mobile home permits, and site plan approval for mobile home parks proposed, the total amount of the impact fees shall be assessed and collected from the !applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect. !Irrespective of the date that the application for a building permit or mobile home permit or site plan approval was submitted, no approval shall be granted and no permit shall be:: issued until the required school impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have been paid.